RSS
Who Lost America? Why the United States Went “Communist†and What to Do About It
Stephen Baskerville
Arktos, 2024
Since the early months of 2020, what Stephen Baskerville fittingly describes as “a junta of amateurish, semi-adolescent ideologues†has been able to seize control of America while millions opposed to them were “forced to sit by, virtually helpless.†In rapid succession we witnessed a manufactured epidemic accompanied by demands for compliance with absurd response measures, orchestrated rioting in America’s larger cities, government-led censorship of the internet, the elimination of electoral safeguards and a stolen election, mass incarceration of citizens who protested, staged trials of opposition politicians and their supporters, the abolition of the nation’s border controls, and a reckless response to the Ukrainian crisis that risks plunging us into nuclear war. It is the closest thing to a revolution this country has witnessed since the radical phase of reconstruction.
Some good accounts of these events have already been written, but Baskerville claims his new book is the first to try to explain why they occurred—or more precisely, why they were not prevented. For the motives of those who carried out the coup are less important than the inability of wiser men to stop them.
The author begins from what he calls the Iron Law of Washington: People who are paid to solve problems acquire a vested interest in perpetuating the problems they are paid to solve. In other words, ineffectiveness is a consequence of the perverse incentives created by professionalization: “We are now experiencing the culmination of the long tragedy of Americans delegating and abdicating their civic responsibilities to a professional political class.â€
Most efforts to influence policy are now the business of “public interest†lobbying firms staffed mainly by attorneys. The resulting mindset is typified by conservative columnist Rod Dreher; after bemoaning the decline of religious freedom, he exhorts his readers: “We have to fight!†But how does he suggest we do this? “If you aren’t donating to the Becket Fund and/or the Alliance Defending Freedom, please consider it.†Citizenship now means writing a check to a bunch of lawyers.
Public interest lobbies go back a century or more, but their numbers and influence have greatly increased since the 1960s: Baskerville calls them the “institutional legacy†of that era.
What started out as rag-tag groups of blue-jeaned activists inhabiting dilapidated offices in the Dupont Circle and Adams-Morgan sections of Washington have grown into slick, multi-million-dollar enterprises that operate globally and terrify governments. Many are bankrolled by billionaires like George Soros and the plutocrats of Davos. For all their pretense of representing the “public interest,†the lobbying firms do not “empower†the citizens. Citizens are precisely what they eclipse and even muzzle. Like courtroom lawyers advising their clients, the message of the lawyer-lobbyists to the citizenry is “Be quiet and let me do the talking.â€
Such pressure groups prefer to pursue their goals through litigation and regulation rather than legislation. This is because the judiciary and the civil service bureaucracy are the most undemocratic and unaccountable sectors of the government, and they know their objectives do not enjoy broad popular support. Accordingly, the rise of the professional lobbies has been accompanied on the government side by an increase in the importance of these sectors. Hardly any of what Americans now call government involves the president executing laws passed by congress, as we used to be taught in school. And everyone involved in the new system—the lobbies and NGOs, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy—are naturally drawn to radical ideology because it furnishes them with “an endless supply of grievances that rationalize their power.â€
Such opposition as this system faces comes largely from mirror-image lobbying organizations set up by professional “conservatives.†Whatever the virtues of individual operatives within such institutions—and Baskerville notes his respect for the skill and effectiveness of many he has known—such counter-lobbies unavoidably develop organizational interests distinct from their political mission. Their administrators are less interested in defeating the left than in fundraising to construct “fiefdoms and power centers of their own.†They put on lavish events featuring conservative celebrities to impress the public and increase donations. Over time, such ostensibly oppositional organizations come to “control the terms by which opposition to the Left is permitted to operate, a role indispensable to the Left’s success.†This includes taboos against the discussion of racial differences and Jewish influence, of course, but much else besides.
The method of institutional conservatism consists in responding to each new outrage from the left as it hits the news cycle. It is easier to fundraise off stories about some dude demanding to compete in women’s swimming than to confront serious, decades-old problems like no fault divorce or feminist institutional power. This reduces politics to “a pas de deux in which the Left leads and the Right follows.†Since the left is skilled at continually adapting itself to changing circumstances, this piecemeal oppositional strategy becomes “a Sisyphean task that cannot lead to anything but defeat.†The only lesson professional conservatism draws from its many defeats, however, is that people must give them more money. If all else fails, new organizations with fresh faces and slightly revised mission statements may be established. But what if professionalization and institutional interests themselves are the problem?
Genuine Civic Engagement and the Role of Churches
“A truly effective opposition,†writes Baskerville, “can only come from what the right-wing firms have displaced: citizens, householders with families and property, millions of them, all exerting face-to-face pressure.†Some people like this still exist: scores of parents have recently confronted school boards over the sexual indoctrination of their children, and the overreaction of the authorities in many districts is the best proof of their effectiveness. Yet these brave souls are dangerously exposed, at risk of retaliation such as “de-banking†or even the confiscation of their children. They require organizational backing they will never get from risk-averse professional conservative institutions.
Historically, churches have provided such backing:
Ever since the settlement of New England, churches made themselves the principal vehicles for citizen participation and checks on government. The proliferation of churches as voices of political dissent was the driving force behind both the English Revolution of the 17th century and the resulting exodus to America.
Later on it was churches that “agitated for the American Revolution, led the abolition of slavery, furnished the organizational structure for the early working-class and trade union movements, opposed World War I and Vietnam,†and on and on. They performed three functions crucial to converting individual dissent into effective public opposition:
Churches shaped and articulated citizens’ voices into some coherence, so that people had more than individual, changeable opinions; they had fixed principles and shared beliefs. Churches allowed citizens to combine their voices, enabling them to be more effectively heard. Finally, the churches demanded that we act when government officials were too weak or corrupt, even when action might cost us something.
Importantly, their mission included the moral betterment of the citizen himself:
They inculcated virtues necessary for effective citizenship and for which today’s lobbying firms have no substitute: self-discipline, self-sacrifice, sobriety, delayed gratification, a work ethic, perseverance, fidelity, a fierce commitment to family integrity and sexual morality, courage. Today’s pressure groups, even the most “Christian,†would never dream of trying to elevate their membership morally.
What such groups have succeeded in doing is neutering the civic effectiveness of the churches:
Why should churches today take a stand on issues like the family and sexual morality—or for that matter the destruction of public health, injustices in the courts, the bloodbath in Ukraine, or anything else? Why should they alert us when government officials abuse their power, and compel us to do our civic duty even when it involves hardship, sacrifice, and danger? Nowadays we have the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Center for Law and Justice, and other groups of paid advocates to do it all for us—and without incurring the slightest hardship, sacrifice, or danger.
But when such advocacy groups fail to offer the necessary resistance, as they conspicuously have when faced with the Biden junta, no one else steps into the breach.
A significant symptom of the neutering of the church’s civic effectiveness is the growing emphasis of Christian advocacy organizations upon “religious freedom.†The author notes, e.g., that the website of the Family Research Council contains far more on this subject than on families. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical origins of such freedom. A scholar of Puritan political thought, Baskerville points out that (contrary to popular myth) New England’s founders did not come to North America in search of religious freedom, something in which they did not believe: “but they did advocate other things vociferously, and religious freedom was an unintended result.†Their successful civic advocacy carved out a domain that the public authority was eventually forced to concede was outside its purview.
Since today’s churches have given up advocating much of anything besides the ruling ideology, the government has resumed its encroachments. Why should anyone be surprised? It is the nature of government to seek to expand its power, while pushing back against this used to be the church’s business. “For conservatives and churches to complain that their ‘religious freedom’ is being infringed,†writes Baskerville, “is like an army complaining that someone is shooting at them.†If churches in their role as the traditional and proper guardians of marriage, e.g., had bothered to fight back against the police-state machinery created to enforce unilateral divorce, they would not be forced to defend their “religious freedom†today.
Where It All Started: Welfare
If we want to study the growth of unaccountable judicial and bureaucratic power over our lives, we must look back to where it all began: in the welfare system created as part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program of the 1960s. Set up originally to deal with poverty, it led to government agents “forcibly controlling the private lives of millions of non-criminal citizens, . . . the most radical innovation in the role of the state in modern history.â€
Before the rise of welfare,
private charity had been operated by churches and volunteer women driven by a sense of Christian calling and supported financially by their husbands. These women did not merely relieve poverty materially; they also inculcated and enforced Christian sexual morality that could eradicate poverty by refusing to condone single motherhood.
But the system inaugurated in the 1960s operated by the “man in the house†rule whereby benefits were limited to fatherless families. This, of course, provided an incentive for creating more such families. The dangers were widely understood at the time. In his 1965 report The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out that the Black illegitimacy rate was already 25 percent and warned: “A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relation to male authority . . . asks for and gets chaos.†The Republican platform of 1968 denounced welfare benefits to unmarried mothers because they “erode self-respect and discourage family unity and responsibility.†Even the new system’s champions defended it only as a temporary measure. All parties “agreed that the poor should not remain poor, that government handouts were inherently demeaning, and that poor people should eventually, by whatever means, lead lives of economic self-sufficiency.â€
Welfare failed spectacularly at overcoming poverty—it spread poverty and made it permanent—but over time a new justification for the system was developed. Feminists began noticing that while single mothers might be poor, they enjoyed greater sexual freedom than women in intact families. As one feminist study put it: “Independence, even in straitened and penurious forms, still offers more sexual freedom than affluence gained through marriage and dependence on one man.†They began celebrating single motherhood as a positive good, and talk about overcoming poverty gradually dissipated.
The system proved even more “empowering†for the largely female functionaries who administered it: they gained all sorts of quasi-police powers to deal with the chaos created by fatherlessness, unconstrained by the constitutional restraints on ordinary policemen. This was a lot more fun than just handing out money! Clinton’s welfare reform act of 1996 was little more than a wish-list for this new feminist gendarmerie.
This feminist reform of welfare was accompanied by one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American public: the demonization of men separated from their children by the incentive structure of welfare itself (and soon by “no fault†divorce as well) as “deadbeat dads†who had supposedly abandoned them. The genius of this tactic was that it won the enthusiastic support of conservatives eager to pose as the champions of women and children. Within the conservative establishment today, there is no toleration for anyone who breaths a word against “heroic single mothers.†Instead, we are told we must get ever-tougher on the criminals such mothers inevitably raise, as well as their hapless fathers. Republican politicians mumble meaningless platitudes about family values even as their salaries are financed by the plundering of fathers forcibly kept from their children. It is the Iron Law of Washington in action.
Welfare is thus far more than a matter of tax money being wasted on lazy spongers: the system produces truants, drop-outs, drug addicts, prostitutes, rioters, and criminals who require further spending on law enforcement and incarceration. Indeed, most domestic spending is now devoted to combatting the problems created by the welfare system. It is a state within the state, “with its own revenue collection, law enforcement, and penal apparatus.â€
Politically, the welfare system—both administrators and recipients—now function as a patronage machine for the Democratic Party, collecting salaries and benefits in exchange for political support. Yet Republican party strategists have only just begun to see that “unmarried women are the backbone of the Democratic Party†following their poor performance in the midterm elections of 2022.
The Role of Blacks
Black Americans had the misfortune of being the first group “helped†by the Great Society reforms, and they make up a disproportionate share of the antisocial hordes those reforms have produced. A proper understanding of this dynamic may require racial realists to go against certain of their acquired mental habits. While Blacks have always been overrepresented in America’s prisons, recent levels are unprecedented. As political scientist Marie Gottschalk has written: “In the 1920s, fewer than one in three prisoners were black. By the late 1980s, for the first time in US history the majority of prisoners were black.†Today a young Black man has about a 75 percent chance of ending up incarcerated. Clearly, something besides genetics and evolutionary history is needed to explain current rates of Black social pathology and incarceration. That something is family destruction wrought by the welfare system.
Baskerville notes that “young black men today are far less likely to be incarcerated for violent crime than for unpaid child support.†A significant fraction of those arrested for drug dealing may simply be trying to keep up with child support payments, since other opportunities for such men to earn good money are few, and the penalties for selling drugs are less harsh than those for falling behind on child support. Liberal elites have effectively re-enslaved the Black man, using his women as their instrument:
The same state apparat that degrades the black male by usurping his role as provider and protector simultaneously liberates his female counterpart, subsidizing her infidelity (“independenceâ€). She benefits from all the social programs that encourage her to exploit that freedom to the full: TANF and EITC (exclusively for women); affirmative action (she fills two quotas); housing projects and food stamps (for single mothers); plus those now pushed by the Biden administration [“Diversity, Equity and Inclusionâ€]. Though these programs are rationalized and enacted by exploiting the violent deaths of black men like George Floyd, they do not benefit black men in any way. They enable black women to proliferate single motherhood, emasculate black men, and drag black children into poverty and self-destructiveness.
To top it off, the women can then build careers as petty functionaries in the apparat. These young women can be seen on the Washington Metro in dreadlocks, carrying thick textbooks with titles like Administration of Criminal Justice which train them to lock up the men they should be marrying. Some grow up to be Kamala Harrises, Lori Lightfoots, and Muriel Bowsers: models of feminine “empowerment†who preside over entire cities and now a nation descending into chaos, driven by the systematic, willful destruction of black men.
Feminists hold up Black women as models for the rest of the sisterhood; as early as 1992 we find Stephanie Coontz clucking: “African-American working women have made the largest income gains relative to men of any ethnic group.â€
Baskerville notes that the emasculation of Black men has long been a central, though neglected, theme of African American literature, including the work of Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, and James Baldwin. The cynical deflection of Black anger onto phantoms like “structural racism†and “white supremacy†does not mean it lacks all justification. Black men’s “early subjugation by the welfare matriarchy and the criminal injustice apparat is the experience of growing numbers of white and other middle-class men today.â€
Revolt of the Fatherless
Fatherless children, even before they grow into adult criminals, are typically marked by self-destructive anger, “rag[ing] out of control because they never had any parental authority to keep them under control and teach them how to channel their emerging discontents with the world’s imperfections into constructive dissent and productive habits of life.†Fathers are, indeed, a special target of their anger: “adolescent children of welfare and divorce almost universally hate their fathers with an animus that is visceral and irrational.â€
Baskerville cites psychologist Howard Schwarz as one who can illuminate the emotional dynamic involved in such rage without recourse to Freudian “hocus-pocus.â€
When we begin our life, a loving mother accepts unconditionally our spontaneous impulses. Over time, the outside world, strikingly indifferent to our desires and unimpressed by our importance, makes its presence known to us. Within the family, this outside world is represented by the father, who has a relationship with the mother that does not revolve around us. At first, we experience this as a violation and try to reject it.
But in a healthy family environment we are forced to recognize that we will have to understand the father’s relation to mother on its own terms. Fathers earn mothers’ love by achieving something mothers value. The boys come to see that if they can become like his father—by learning about and dealing with the outside world—they can regain something akin to their mother’s love which his father appears to have.
This only works, however, if his mother loves and appreciates his father. “The most striking characteristic of our time,†notes Schwartz, “is that the mother resents the father.†Under this condition,
the way for the child to become again the object of mother’s love is by joining her in her hatred of the father and wish to destroy him. Father has not earned mother’s love, but stolen it. His claims of accomplishment have been all subterfuge and lies. The father replaces unconditional love and acceptance with rules and limits, and is therefore the archetypal oppressor. Liberation is defined by his destruction and rebellion against his rules. Getting rid of him, we will be free of the demands and expectations placed upon us. We will be able to do what we want, act on our whim, in perfect safety, to the accompaniment of mother’s love.
The realm of psychodynamics does not admit of precision. It is not possible to prove Schwartz’s interpretation correct, but it does appear to fit the observed consequences of welfare-induced fatherlessness which, in Baskerville’s words, “turns fathers and their authority into objects of contempt, derision, and invective, and children into narcissistic and nihilistic rebels.â€
When this pattern becomes sufficiently widespread, it has political consequences. It provides Baskerville with a plausible explanation of the BLM rioting of 2020 which contributed so greatly to the Biden coup.
As the children of the matriarchy grow up—and as they are joined by better-educated counterparts from middle class divorce—they eventually become more than just criminals, addicts, and prostitutes. They start to acquire political consciousness and organization. The mindless, self-destructive rage of the ghetto becomes focused outwardly in a revolt against America. This is the “hidden history†of Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
Too many people accept at face value BLM’s claims to be a racial movement representing Blacks: in fact, it is the “brainchild of radicalized women, and the people it ‘empowers’ are not low-income black citizens but affluent sexual militants†aiming (in their own words) to “dismantle patriarchal practice . . . disrupt the nuclear family structure [and] collectively care for . . . children,†all in order to create a world “free from environments in which men are centered.†This is, of course, the perfect formula for exacerbating the ills from which Black welfare recipients are already suffering.
Much of the disorder in today’s America is a natural consequence of fatherlessness:
Multiple generations of children of divorce have now grown up hating their fathers and all traditional authority and instead see government officials as their providers and protectors. Many feel betrayed, fear love, and have no conception of how to form enduring, sacrificial relationships with the opposite sex or their own offspring. Raised on the proceeds of their father’s servitude, the children of welfare and divorce feel entitled to the fruits of expanding state power and feel no compunction about enslaving productive taxpayers in two-parent families to provide themselves with benefits and jobs and fund open-ended expansion of state power. When the Biden administration proposes hiring tens of thousands of tax agents to shake down solvent households, many of today’s youth view this not as government plunder but as a legitimate revenue stream.
And so the chaos perpetuates itself.
Judicial Corruption
If the welfare system marked the beginning of unaccountable governmental power over the lives of Americans, the corruption of our judiciary was another essential step on the road to the Biden coup.
A surprisingly large number of Americans first became aware of how corrupt our courts have become when they witnessed the politically motivated prosecutions of Donald Trump and his associates. Numerous commentators warned us that “if they can do this to Trump, they can do it to any of us.†But as Baskerville notes, this is putting the matter backwards: “they†could only do such things to Trump because they had long since been getting away with doing them to defenseless Americans.
Many Americans were shocked, e.g., when a judge issued a “protective order†preventing the former President from discussing his trial, making public the evidence in his favor, or even proclaiming his innocence. Outrageous, yes—but already endured by countless Americans without Trump’s ability to arouse public interest and sympathy. As the author says, “‘protective orders,’ declaring defendants guilty and punishing or gagging them, come straight out of family court,†where they are used to silence Americans who try to publicize the system’s injustices. Courts are now “devising mechanisms to inflict criminal punishments on journalists and scholars who criticize government officials.†But neither mainstream nor “conservative†media can be bothered to report on this.
Another form of corruption is the plea-bargaining system. American prosecutors today win 98 percent of their cases, 95 percent of them without any trial. This is a direct result of plea-bargaining, in which charges are multiplied against defendants until they agree to plead guilty to something, anything, rather than spend the rest of their lives in jail. January 6 protester Jacob Chansely, e.g., received a four-year sentence as a result of a plea bargain. Even when public video surveillance footage from the Capitol building proved his innocence, he was not released from prison because (as his attorney explained) the plea agreement “waived all his appeal rights†and a reconsideration of the sentence was “procedurally barred.†As the author acidly notes: “Americans might like to inquire what kind of justice system requires them to ‘waive’ their constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial and then ‘bars’ officials from releasing them despite evidence of their innocence.â€
But as with the Trump prosecutions, only Chansley’s relative prominence distinguishes him from thousands of
poor, uneducated, mostly minority men . . . coerced into plea bargains they cannot possibly understand, made in a matter of seconds during “mass plea hearings†[that] many call “assembly-line justice.†They can then spend decades in prison. Trials are so rare that demanding one only serves to annoy judges and prosecutors.
Or again: Republicans were upset to see Trump advisor Roger Stone subjected to a pre-dawn no-knock raid and arrest in front of pre-notified camera crews. But, as Baskerville points out, “they did not complain when this technique was pioneered by child-support enforcement, so now they join its targets.â€
In February 2023, conservatives were indignant to see the foreman of a Georgia grand jury making the rounds of the talk shows to express her enthusiasm for issuing indictments against Donald Trump and his supporters. But this obvious impropriety conceals the larger reality that grand juries have ceased to perform their intended function of protecting the innocent from frivolous and politically motivated prosecution: they “have become perfunctory and are firmly under the thumbs of the same prosecutors whose abuses of power [they] exist to control.†As a result, prosecutors no longer start from a crime and look for the man who committed it, but start from the man and look for a crime to charge him with, as was clearly done in Trump’s case.
Mens rea, the principle that a crime requires criminal intent, has now been eliminated. New, vaguely defined crimes are legislated not merely by civil servants, but by judges, prosecutors and even enforcement agents. Not only the political prosecution of Donald Trump but “the entire coup of the last four years would never have happened if the conservative political class had paid as much attention to the judicial persecution of ordinary American as they now pay to their own interests.â€
The welfare system, especially its child-support mechanism, also functions as the system’s incubator for rogue prosecutors and (increasingly) politicians. The process is “so formulaic and demands so little intelligence that even Kamala Harris can do it.†Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a great champion of “family values,†also got his start in this moral cesspit, and such men “will never reform the system that elevated them to power.â€
In Baskerville’s view, the corruption of our courts originated in lobbyists’ pursuit of political goals through the judiciary. This pressured courts into to make increasingly political decisions. “Conservative†lobbies adopted the left’s techniques, acquiring a vested influence in perpetuating the procedures they formally opposed. Their weak strategy of trying to appoint “originalists†was no match for the underlying trend in which they participated.
A second major source of corruption is institutionalized feminism:
From the beginning, the most authoritarian pressure group in American politics has consistently been women’s rights activists. [No one] has done more to politicize criminal justice, expand the penal apparatus, and increase the prison population.
In the 1970s, e.g., under feminist pressure, nearly every state made it easier to convict men accused of sexual assault or a vaguely defined “domestic violence.†Feminist Marie Gottschalk acknowledges: “it is striking what an uncritical stance women reformers took toward the state. . . . They have played central roles in pushing for enhanced policing powers.†This should have been a predictable consequence of the female tendency to value security over freedom. America has the largest prison system in the world today and, as the author remarks, the criminalization of our male population “coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism.â€
The Emasculation of America
Contemporary America seems vulnerable to outbreaks of mass hysteria, emotional outbursts leading to irrational behavior. As its etymology makes clear, hysteria is a typically feminine disorder, although it can affect men as well. The Covid response is a recent example. In the worlds of one critic, it provides “a dramatic illustration of the ease with which terrified and self-righteous women could be mobilized through irrational safetyism and scapegoating.â€
Janice Fiamengo, a critic of feminism, writes:
it was feminist politicians who pushed hardest for lockdowns, because women said it was what they wanted. And they wanted it in the holy name of safety. From the feminist point of view, Covid mania was the definition of caring. Who screamed loudest about masking, hand-sanitizing, distancing, keeping children out of school, staying in one’s bubble, switching the world to Zoom, keeping out the potentially-contaminated at Christmas? Who waited in line most patiently for Covid tests and clamored for vaccines to be offered to children? Who was most adamant about the need to shame, isolate, exclude and penalize the unvaccinated? Feminist women.
Baskerville suggests that the equally hysterical opposition to Donald Trump—â€the visceral hatred of him by the politically effeminate of both partiesâ€â€”has been elicited mostly by his unapologetic masculinity (which also explains his appeal to many of his supporters).
For the first time in history, “women now dominate journalism, education, academics, civil-service posts, unions, critical sectors of law and business†as well as such traditional centers of male leadership as “churches, police, and [the] military.†“The future is female,†gloats author Hanna Rosin in her book The End of Men: And the Rise of Women. All of us, including men, are apparently supposed to celebrate this as an obvious blessing free of any possible downside.
Effeminacy pervades even organizations ostensibly dedicated to the defense of tradition. Baskerville notes the disgust of prominent conservative women at the male cowardice they were forced to contend with: “Mrs. Thatcher’s contempt for diffident men in her own party is well known. In private, [Phyllis] Schlafly often described Republican men as ‘cowards.’ Neither considered male submission normal.†Today, conservative men bring feminists forward to denounce the participation of transvestites in women’s sports, “taking sides in the sexual Left’s intramural squabbles†rather than fighting the feminist ideology which led to such outrages in the first place. These men see deference to women
as some kind of twisted chivalry. But it demands no courage. On the contrary, the dainty knights of professional conservatism profit handsomely and advance effortlessly by stabbing other men in the back while ingratiating themselves with radical women. In the universities and military they often fill the places vacated by their victims.
The Biden junta need have no fear such men might step forward to do battle with barbarians prepared to steal elections, burn down cities, or sexually mutilate our children.
No Fault Divorce with Mother Custody: Linchpin of the System
The welter of problems facing America today can make it seem difficult to know where to start fighting back. But the issues of the day are never of equal importance. Drag queen story hour, e.g., makes for eye-catching headlines, but is one of the more superficial symptoms of our sexual dysfunction. Rational prioritization of our efforts demands a focus on less flashy but deeper and more consequential matters. A clue can be found in the conservative truism that the family rather than the individual is the fundamental building block of society. Much of America’s decline—not all of it, but a lot—can be traced back to family destruction, and this destruction has been brought about specifically by the removal of fathers.
Motherhood is a fact of nature. As the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes understood, mother custody over children is the original and primitive arrangement, prevailing in what he called “the state of mere nature.â€
Where there are no matrimonial laws, it cannot be known who is the father, unless it be declared by the mother. And therefore the right of dominion over the child dependeth on her will and is consequently hers.
By contrast, writes Baskerville:
Fatherhood forms the foundation of civilization—not simply “the family,†but specifically married fatherhood. … It is fatherhood that must be constructed socially, and it is fatherhood in turn that constructs the social order. Marriage forms the basis of civilization because it establishes paternal authority.
And this patriarchal arrangement is still a novelty in evolutionary terms: an innovation only a few thousand years old. We should not be surprised to find some women impatient to rid themselves of its burdens.
Feminism is this impatience: its central demand, far more important than “equal pay for equal work†or any of its other slogans, is the reestablishment of woman’s unlimited control over reproduction. In effect, it is a revolt against civilization, a demand for a return to Hobbes’s “state of nature.†In the words of scholar Daniel Amneus: “Women’s sexual disloyalty creates matriarchy and ghettos. Civilized society must be a man’s world, since the woman’s world is the ghetto.â€
Within Christendom, historically, a woman who wished to leave her husband was forced to abandon her children as well. Not many did. The switch to presumptive mother custody began in Victorian Britain, a society even more given to a sentimental view of women and motherhood than our own. The first breach was the Custody of Infants Act of 1839 with its “tender years†doctrine, granting presumptive custody of children under seven years to divorced mothers. This was extended to the age of sixteen in 1873. So today’s revolt of the fatherless has deeper roots than we might like to acknowledge.
But the collapse really began with the introduction of “no fault†divorce, a euphemism for unilateral divorce in the absence of wrongdoing, and without the divorcing spouse incurring responsibility for consequences to the other spouse or children. Not accidentally, “no fault†was originally devised by the National Association of Women Lawyers in the 1940s, although its formal implementation only began in the late 1960s. Since mothers now know they can keep their children while forcibly extracting support from the men they have abandoned, such divorces are virtually always initiated by women in marriages that involve children.
Critics understandably tend to focus on the no fault revolution’s devastation of families (similar to what happens under welfare), but its effects on the judiciary have perhaps been greater. The state’s involvement in traditional marriage can mostly be limited to registering the fact, but divorce requires broad enforcement measures to remove fathers from the home and regulate the subsequent division of property. Without enforcement, a father could simply ignore a court’s bill of divorcement and return home to his children. By now, divorce enforcement has grown luxuriously, and courts have the power to
summon legally innocent citizens, assume control over the most intimate corners of their private lives, and inflict on them devastating measures—in effect, punishments—for conduct that is perfectly legal: dissolve their marriages; evict them from their homes, seize control of their children; raid their bank accounts; attach their wages; forcibly extract fees for people they never hired for “services†they never requested; summarily confine them to psychiatric facilities; seize their passports, driving permits, and professional licenses; and jail them indefinitely without trial or even record.
The beneficiary and emblematic figure of the new system is the adulteress who can commandeer state power to transform her marriage into a weapon of sexual domination. Sustained by “child support†(which need not be used to support her children), she can pursue adulterous relations ad libitum. A feminist who systematically interviewed divorcées reports that they “spoke about how revolutionary this arrangement felt.†They had no need to plan for the future, pursuing their adulterous liaisons “day by day . . . with mutual pleasure [the] only goal.†Such are the women we are destroying fathers and children to benefit.
To cite Daniel Amneus again: “The linchpin in the feminist program is mother custody following divorce. Pull that pin . . . and the feminist structure collapses.†No professional conservative institution has ever lifted a finger to do so. “The debilitating effects of fatherlessness are recited by conservative moralists ad nauseam,†notes Baskerville, but “not a single one ever offers any solution other than vaguely invoking ‘family values’ and ‘religious faith.’â€
What we get instead are government programs that pretend to do something about fatherlessness while exacerbating the problem. The first was the Clinton administration’s “Responsible Fatherhood†initiative. This included a bit of funding for feminist psychotherapy to encourage men to act more like women (“relationship skills,†“child behavior management,†and the like). But that was window dressing for the sole substantive measure: deputizing nonprofit groups as bounty hunters to collect more child support.
“Responsible Fatherhood†was followed by the Bush administration’s “Healthy Marriages†program, whose great innovation was drawing “faith based†organizations into the hunt for child support money, thereby giving them a financial stake in family destruction. “Ever wonder why those Christian groups that advertise their ‘family values’ as ‘defenders of marriage’ never make the slightest effort to reform our easy and predatory divorce laws?†asks Baskerville; “It is because they are on the government payroll.â€
The Way Out: The Marriage Strike
The failure of both government and institutional conservatism is all the more maddening when, as the author points out, “the solution is so clear and straightforward and free of any financial cost. You just stop the welfare agencies and courts from tearing children away from their parents.â€
You stop paying mothers to have children out of wedlock. You refuse to grant wives release from their freely assumed marriage vows on grounds of boredom or having found someone they like better than their husbands. In short, you learn once again how to say “no†to women (regaining their respect in the process). Every society since the dawn of civilization has required its women, like its men, to practice sexual self-control. What makes this so difficult for twenty-first century America?
Since professional conservatism has become a collaborator with the forces destroying our civilization, as Baskerville amply demonstrates, only a restoration of traditional citizenship can make for effective opposition. “Citizens are unpaid amateurs whose commitment is sacrificial of their time, money and more. Citizens alone have an interest in finding solutions, so they can get on with the business of private life.†But his description of the traditional citizen reveals some further difficulties our age must face:
The only proven, fully functional and effective citizen—anywhere in the history of stable and free societies—is the married male head of a family. He is the citizen in a union with a woman both covenantal and contractual—that is, sworn by an oath and sanctioned by law. He is motivated by the well-being of children recognized to be his. He acts in combination with other citizens, preferably who also exist in their own covenantal association with one another through what they recognize as a sacred association of worship and service. If truly complete, he also owns property and bears arms in defense of his home and homeland.
Part of our predicament is precisely that men like this cannot legally exist anymore, while their “sacred associations†have gone over to the enemy (many feminized churches now pressure male congregants to marry the single mothers in their pews rather than condemning single motherhood).
An unexpected substitute more suitable to our age has, however, arisen: the bachelor.
As men discover the terms of marriage and divorce, they have embarked on one of the most remarkable actions of our time: an impromptu boycott or “strike†of marriage, refusing to marry, start families, or even associate with women altogether.
Twenty-two years ago there appeared in the Philadelphia Enquirer, like a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, an editorial entitled “Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men’s Marriage Strike?†Since then, America’s men have been subjected to a swelling chorus of abuse for their decreasing willingness to marry. Nearly all participants blame them alone for the situation. They “refuse to grow up†(Kay Hymowitz); they are “cowardly and unmanly†(Nathaniel Blake); or “selfish and self-indulgent . . . a total joke†(Pastor Mark Driscoll).
Republican Senator Josh Hawley has recently gotten in on the act. Baskerville notes: “As state attorney general, Hawley’s job was to maximize Missouri’s revenue from child-support collections.†But now he wishes to convince us that the real problem facing us is young men’s refusal to “step up . . . get married, have families, and be responsible husbands and fathers.†Has he ever bothered to ask any of the men he helped plunder what they think might explain the strange reluctance of today’s young men to marry?
Of course, in spite of a total media blackout, word eventually gets out about what happens to innocent men in divorce court. Many young men know because they saw it happen to their own fathers.
No amount of nagging by sanctimonious apostles of marriage will persuade men to commit their lives to a fraudulent contract that offers them no protection against the confiscation of their children and can send them straight to jail. Especially ironic in all this is to see advocates of limited government lambasting private citizens for undertaking spontaneous action against oppressive government. It exemplifies the leadership’s determination to lose every battle. With private citizens already undertaking collective action against the radical Left, the Right responds by vilifying the citizens, trying to smother their initiative, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The marriage strike must be directed toward a clear and simple political goal, viz., pulling the lynchpin of the matriarchal system:
The state must be compelled to re-establish real marriage by once again enforcing it as a legal contract. The state must be forced to repeal the indefensible oxymoron of “no-fault†justice and reimpose a presumption of father custody over children. This could be achieved legislatively, though also with perfect legitimacy judicially, given the obvious inconsistency of the no-fault system with the Common Law and US Constitution.
Many of the benefits of restoring marriage are obvious: a steep reduction in crime once children regain the guidance of fathers, motivation for young men to improve themselves, study, work, serve in arms and invest rather than living in idleness, elimination of any need for family courts or the social workers and bureaucrats who “administer†the private lives of Americans in broken families, and elimination of the tax burden of funding them.
But the full list of indirect consequences of family breakdown includes a large part of what ails today’s America. The restoration of marriage would eliminate welfare as a magnet for immigration; deprive organized radicalism (Antifa, BLM) of its primary constituency; diminish the influence of feminism, homosexualism, transgenderism and the rest of radical sexual ideology; nearly eliminate child abuse, most of which takes place in the homes of single mothers or in foster care; alleviate homelessness, which in large part involves men plundered and incarcerated by family courts; deprive Islam of its appeal as a protest against the weak and effeminate post-Christian West; and quite possibly restore the military as an organization of citizens-in-arms and a “bastion of masculinity†as opposed to the “magnet for single mothers seeking benefits†it has become today.
Churches as the consecrators of marriages have an important role to play in the coming struggle. As the author notes, they were “traditionally the first outsiders to intervene in troubled families, and they had a concrete interest in healing them, without involving state officials, and no incentive to prolong the matter.†Besides regaining this role, churches should be
required by their parishioners to scrutinize any state intervention in marriages they have consecrated. This includes demanding standing as parties to all government proceedings that adjudicate such marriages. Churches that fail in these responsibilities will be stigmatized as false churches and abandoned.
The church will also be able to resume the task of poor relief following the abolition of the present government welfare system, once again discouraging single motherhood.
All this is not going to be easy. “Renouncing women, marriage and families is not a healthy or wholesome life†for most men, as the author notes. “It is a denial of manhood itself, the essence of which is to love, procreate and lead. Unless done from compelling religious convictions, it denies a man life’s greatest joys.†But such a renunciation is already occurring as a simple matter of individual self-protection. It will gain in moral stature and effectiveness once the realization spreads that restoring marriage and male headship of the family is the primary prerequisite for restoring Western civilization, just as their original establishment was an essential step in the first development of civilization out of barbarism several millennia ago.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
If Baskerville’s study is even half as probing as Devlin’s extended summary/review makes it sound, it may have great value for those who will be leading the armed domestic reconquista that must come soon if it is to have any point of coming at all.
this article totally ignores the core issue, of how our deepstate uses these special interest groups to achieve their ultimate objective of total informational and societal control, full spectrum dominance. this is not a righty/lefty, red/blue, conservatard/liberatard issue.
all special interest groups and social justice movements of any size, are immediately co-opted, or bought off, and inflitrated by a handful of agents, that then gain leadership and direct these groups in a desired direction empowering those that serve their needs and destroying any that can’t be corrupted.
this allows their clueless pawns to feel empowered and that they are making the change, they want to see in the world. it also reenforces a false belief that they are participating in a democracy, when they are in fact foot soldiers in the army of their oppressors, living in a totalitarian oligarchy.
The system is what the system does.
The same applies to “medical research.” The cancer industrial complex can never cure cancer because to do so would destroy a massive economic sector and lead to collapse. Ditto for professionals working in political lobbies.
All large organizations have very little incentive to improve anything dramatically. In terms of technology, Thiel is correct in observing that apart from nicer screens, very little about the American household has changed since the 1970s. Systems are organisms and organisms preserve themselves at the expense of innovation.
Real innovation is disruptive and means unemployment or prolonged bouts of joblessness while one “retools” to learn another skill that can be eliminated quickly.
Does a professional conservative want to change his life completely at the age of 40, when the forces of darkness have been vanquished and he finally has the right margin tax rate etched in marble? How will he pay his mortgage?
A deal was made with the devil when agriculture and small independent farming in America was converted to industrial and later, service jobs. Men traded their freedom, their families and their communities for mobility and to become cogs in a machine that can never work properly.
I usually don’t agree often with Notsofast, but, after reading this long article ( not an easy task when it’s not your language ) and to be brief ( because there are so many things to discuss ), I really don’t think that ” suddenly ” women, especially women of color, Found themselves endowed with just as much power.
And who exactly were those hard core feminists who took over ?
Sources said they were almost 100 % Jewish.
Sure, it’s not always ” the Jews ” , proof, as soon as the Victorian era some sort of feminism began to infest the society, but in the case of the recently destruction of American society as described in this article, it seems that the Jewish. Cultural Marxism had the leading role in this subversion.
Welfare for blacks : did it not coincide with the civil rights movement ? Another cultural Marxist crap ?
As for ” women this women that ” , Slavic countries for exemple don’t have anything like the american judiciary system, and the state of the families. Mariages, reproduction is abysmal , same ills same origins : men . They refuse all adult responsibility.
Women soon follow and become sluts.
I don’t buy the ” ghetto theory ” from this author, women want stability, affective safety, protection. When they don’t it because men are resigning, they become baby mamas or prostitutes.
And who exactly endoctrined them to become unpaid prostitutes ?
Finally, the churches : Is this author blind ? Churches have become in the west the main outfitters of gay and civil rights , anti racism, Jews worshipping, etc, how could they repair what they contribute to ruin ?
Interesting article but as always lots of distorted notions and wishfull thinking.
Text edit doesn’t work : must read, ” when women don’t get it ” ( the safety )
And to return to the article’s main thesis that it’s the welfare system that’s at the root of all evil, even under the welfare largesses, black or semi-educated white women would never have become such powerful agents of power without a top-down malevolent will.
Look, I hate Lyndon Johnson as much as the next guy, but he didn’t create welfare ex nihilo. He put it under his Great Society roof maybe.
In the 1950s urban ghettos were still called slums. The “three generations on welfare” was already an archetype. How?
Warren Harding installed the first health and welfare system in the early 1920s to deal with temporary issues following the war and the postwar influenza epidemic.
Eisenhower consolidated Harding’s system and expanded in 1953. By then it was already thirty years old. Ike made it a cabinet position called HEW — Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
In 1979, Jimmy Carter rolled education into an agency of itself. Welfare didn’t have teachers around to bother them anymore, but they never went anywhere. By then welfare had been around over a half century.
Americans have a hard time realizing we are a lot more like Europeans than we sometimes think. American socialism goes back as far if not farther than Sweden’s. We just kept it under radar to fool hard-working men into thinking they were free.
This is imbecilic and ignorant. Our real owners fund and support both sides, black/white, home/hetero, etcetc.
Divide and conquer. They don’t believe any of this shit. It’s all a ploy to keep you boneheads poppin full of umbrage. So that you don’t actually do something about what actually matters.
And to call the US “communist” is just plain retarded. Nowhere is the only communist state right now.
Extremely powerful, important article, one of the best on Unz Review in quite some time, with key ‘wow’ factual insights like this for example:
Tho as some in above comments already suggest, family and male destruction, and the mauling of common citizens via legal-judicial corruption, are not merely the result of self-interest by bureaucrats and gov grifters … this was intentional social engineering by elites, heavily involving kosher you-know-who.
Interesting historical factoid: Ancient Rome was arguably also significantly destroyed by women’s rights and easy divorce, tho the Romans had an interesting take on child custody – women kept the male children only till age 7, after that, women kept only the girls, boys over age 7 went with the father.
To note as well, Oxford scholar J D Unwin had much of this figured out in 1934 –
“So that you don’t actually do something about what actually matters.”
What in your view is the something that actually matters?
A detailed prenuptial agreement could mitigate some of these issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement
“Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony (spousal support) with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights.â€
Is any pro-family organization working on developing sample prenuptial agreements that would help protect the family and father from these destructive laws?
The efficacy of churches in the eternal American struggle for freedom is perhaps rather more accurately described in A Renegade History of the United States, by Thaddeus Russell (Free Press, 2010), where it is documented that wholesale popular resistance to the imposed orthodoxy of Christianity is what gave America its unique character and whatever success it has managed to pull off. The pioneers of what we regard as our inalienable personal freedoms today were the very outcasts condemned in the literally thousands of pious sermons of colonial and early republican era clergymen, frustrated in their obsessive attempts to “reform†human nature.
The “religious freedom of New England†would come as a surprise to the Quakers they executed there as heretics. Things in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts had gotten so bad that in March 1661, the Council for Foreign Plantations in London received a petition from “divers persons who had been sufferers in New-England on behalf of themselves and thousands there†in which it was stated, “Through the tyranny and oppression of those in power there, multitudes of the King’s subjects have been most unjustly and grievously oppressed, contrary to their own laws and the laws of England, imprisoned, fined, fettered, whipt, and further punished by cutting off their ears, branding the face, their estates seized and themselves banished [from] the country.†Summoned to England in 1662 to account for their conduct, Puritan representatives made such an unfavorable impression on the Council that King Charles appointed two commissioners to travel to New England, invested with royal authority to end the rampant abuses by the Puritan theocracy.
Both Thomas Jefferson and his ideological arch rival John Adams saw the inevitability of an oligarchy of wealth coming to rule the United States. Adams in particular understood the key role that organized religion was destined to play in the betrayal of our liberty. Both men fought the adherents of the movement with every tool at their disposal.
The ‘C’ word is used by those on the right side of the fence in the same way ‘fascist’ is used by the left. Both words are mostly meaningless, at least within any historical context, and it would probably be best if they were retired. I mean, when something can mean anything, what exactly does it mean?
For the most part the two words are used in a loose and casual way, indicative of a lazy or sloppy mind. Often to evoke an emotional response.
To his credit, Dev doesn’t use the word in his review, and even the book’s author places the word in quotation marks indicating that he knows it doesn’t denote anything in particular–just a hodgepodge of whatever he doesn’t like, grouped together under a vague name.
I only skimmed the article, but the main reason the left has imposed its anti-family agenda so easily is the Republican Party m.o. of compromise. I believe it was McConnell who said compromise was the essence of governance in America, and yet (as cited by Antony Flew in How to Think Straight), Abraham Lincoln warned,
Flew goes on to point out that such compromises with evil typifying the Republican record always go in only one direction, toward evil, and never the other way. The Republicans’ other dodge for going along with the left is to pretend their hands are tied by court decisions and that’s that, instead of marshaling patriots in the streets to oppose what amount to moral abominations of desolation on American soil.
Today the Republican two-step with the Democrats has the Republicans’ rank and file preaching to the choir back home in the sure knowledge that RINO’s (ie, Democrat ringers) operating from secure seats in the House and Senate will sabotage any attempts at rolling back the atrocities now characterizing American society.
An excellent article, untill I read this “clanger” :-(😂:
“The state must be compelled to re-establish real marriage by once again enforcing it as a legal contract. The state must be forced to repeal the indefensible oxymoron of “no-fault†justice and reimpose a presumption of father custody over children.”
In other words, the author fantasizes that the government (state) is going to solve the problem(s) that it directly caused 🤣 .
In truth , the government has no business (and should have no business) in regulating/approving/disapproving of the marital/living arrangements of any individuals.
The Government Can Fix This?
(Huh? What is this guy smoking?)
Sadly, this piece ultimately is just one more shining example of the apparently prevalent , never ending psychology of the belief/conviction/mental disease/fantasy of the author and others like him (i.e. “conservatives”, and/or “liberals”), that the government can fix problems, despite the reality of the fact of the long list in this very article, by this very author, of complete government failure to correct _any_ problem it has stuck it’s massive, idiotic nose into.
The inability of authors like Mr Devlin to connect the dots and “get it”, and continue to promote yet another imagined government solution to problems it directly caused simply boggles the mind.
As someone once said:
“insanity is continuing to do the exact same thing and expecting different results”.
This just in:
government solutions _never_ work!!!!
Book: “Why Government Doesn’t Work” :
“Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.â€Â  onebornfree
Regards, onebornfree
On the contrary, on the basis both of Devlin’s outline of this book’s contents and of other articles written by Baskerville, I take it as certain that the point of the quotation marks is, via a wink and a nod, to remind the reader of this book—and for that matter, the typical reader of any Arktos publication—of a notorious 1935 statement by a very influential and highly esteemed US rabbi, Stephen Wise: “Some may call it communism, but I call it what it is: Judaism.”
For decades, every time there appeared on the international scene a foreign leader who did not toe the DC line, the government’s propaganda organs would declare him a “communist dupe” or a “fellow traveler.” Far more often than not, such a denunciation was mere name-calling. Baskerville is here doing precisely the opposite: he is indicating that blaming communism for the ongoing destruction of the institutions of all Western societies is a tactic employed by people posing as right-wingers—actually managed opposition—to distract attention from the (((true villains))).
Get the money back.
If you’re not talking about money, you’re not talking about anything.
There’s a simple solution to all this. A constitutional amendment forbidding government from “building identity” (as Bill Clinton would say).
If it means anything, Liberty means that an individual’s identity should be left up to the individual. Census data should go no further than citizenship and veteran status.
You do not appear to have read the article with care.
The attitudes you attribute to Devlin are Baskerville’s, not Devlin’s. Moreover—and more significantly—Baskerville is not calling for increased government interference in or oversight of marriage. On the contrary, he wants to see the state treat the civil-society aspects of the marital bond with the appropriate regard for their gravity that for centuries was traditional in the Greco-Roman and Christian West. To put it simply, stop illegitimately rewriting and revising the character of the marital bond by treating virtually all demands for divorce as ipso facto valid.
Furthermore, Harry Browne would never have regarded the dissolution of a solemnly undertaken marriage as no more consequential than a broken Friday night date. To suggest that he would have is a calumny.
Perhaps there is room for the Dissident Right (DR) to form an alliance with Men’s Rights Activists (MRA). Both the DR and MRA have a common foe in the cultural marxist regime (or whatever we may call it). Strength in unity and all that sort of thing. Together, DR and MRA could fight for mutual goals, say carving out space for activists groups on campus or getting a grant or two from some foundation. From there, ratchet up the agitprop.
There are lessons to be learned from the Marriage Strike. Like how to use distributed organization and leaderless resistance to affect social change. The Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement also has proven effective in creating a cultural underground.
How about applying all this to a White Strike? It’s already half way there anyway, as more White men refuse to sign up for Clown World’s armed forces. Time to double down!
A DR-MRA alliance might take some effort, and it might take some finesse. But consider how the Left brings together groups as disparate as feminists and radical Muslims because of a mutual pursuit for power and payouts.
Consider other dissident movements which might want to network with a DR-MRA coalition. Think GamerGate.
A general strike via means of passive resistance could:
* Further de-legitimize the regime.
* Create the foundations for the DR and its allies to build an alternative culture and polity.
Something to think about in the continuing chaos…
It’s the same in Europe, the ” Right ” Serves only to validate each incremental advance of the Left.
Enforcement of the marriage contract is largely a matter of not enforcing divorce, as noted in this passage:
The state’s involvement in traditional marriage can mostly be limited to registering the fact, but divorce requires broad enforcement measures to remove fathers from the home and regulate the subsequent division of property.
The German National Socialist government tried to implement in law and policy the principles of family and patriarchy suggested by the author and we know what became of that particular regime.
George Mason, delegate to the 1787 US Constitution in Philadelphia from Virginia, was a mentor to Thomas Jefferson.
George Mason was one of 3 delegates who did not sign the 1787 US Constitution, which at the end of the Convention only 42 delegates were left standing of the 75 who were elected or appointed, of which only 55 ever attended the Convention. Edmund Randolph of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were the other 2 who did not sign.
George Mason saw our day and most of his objections have never been amended as shown in the following link which at the end he summarizes:
“15. This government will set out a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee
whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy; it
will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the
other.”
https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/mason.pdf
PdC: ” On the contrary, he wants to see the state treat the civil-society aspects of the marital bond with the appropriate regard for their gravity ”
Which is pure fantasy. For one, the state is a wholly criminal, corrupt entity, (as my closing quote detailed).
Asking/ expecting a criminal entity to protect _anything_ is (obviously), a huge mistake.
You want “the fox guarding the henhouse”? Seriously?
Besides which, as Browne so patiently explained all those years ago, government solutions simply never work, and believing that they _do_ work, despite all the masses of evidence to the contrary, (some of which is touched on in the authors article here ), is insanity itself (without even getting into the whole fundamental criminality issue).
PdC: “Harry Browne would never have regarded the dissolution of a solemnly undertaken marriage as no more consequential than a broken Friday night date. ”
Erm…and exactly where do I suggest/imply that Harry (or myself) believe that “the dissolution of a solemnly undertaken marriage” ( or of any other voluntary contract between 2 or more individuals, for that matter ) is “no more consequential than a broken Friday night date. ” ? Pray tell. ðŸ˜
Regards, onebornfree
They not amateurish but the servants of the International crime gang causing so much trouble in the world today.
The Olympics is now a celebration of their complete subjugation of the Christian world…mocking Christianity with their imps parading their perversity in the last supper pantomime…and now we have had the freaks competing against women in Boxing and the Olympic authorities claiming it a great success and a celebration of human achievement.
Christians you are being mocked and challenged, your god it testing you…and you are failing…next comes the brimstone and fire!
Could be. Haven’t read the book, only the review. But if so, there is really no need for the author to beat around the bush, if that is indeed his tactic. Especially coming from an operation like Arktos, which sells books that Random House (and the rest of the Jewish publishing mafia) wouldn’t touch. Maybe as an academic on a payroll he has to obfuscate in order to keep his daytime job?
But why bother? Does the word ‘communist’ in a title help sell books?
Sadly, when describing current social conditions, the ‘C’ word is used a lot by what I call routine conservatives, and even those of a more radical bent. Here on UR, Vdare’s Peter Brimelow calls his mortal enemy, Letitia James, a communist. Is he winking when he does that? Why not be accurate and call her an out of control negro woman wielding state power derived from Jews in order to suppress his political speech?
But instead, she’s a communist. Just like Trump is a fascist for leftists. I understand that humans need to distill certain ideas in order to assist with intelligibility, but one has to set limits– the ‘rectification of names’, and all that. With that in mind, does Orange Man go to bed with a copy of Giovanni Gentile under his pillow, just as Letitia James studies Karl Marx in her spare time?
RD: “The state’s involvement in traditional marriage can mostly be limited to registering the fact, but divorce requires broad enforcement measures to remove fathers from the home and regulate the subsequent division of property.”
I’m sorry Mr Devlin, but if you or anyone else believes that the government should, and will, enforce _anything_ to your standards, you are living in fantasy land, unfortunately.
Marriage contracts should be wholly private and no one should have to buy a government issued marriage license .
Government licensing( for anything, including marriage) is just another criminal scam. No more, no less .
Likewise, the dissolution of marriage (divorce, or of any other type of voluntary contractual agreement between 2 or more parties), should also be a wholly private affair, privately handled by common law courts.
No one should have to, in effect, ask for the governments permission in order to get a divorce.
Government involvement in marriage and divorce is just another (wholly )criminal government scam.
This scam, like 1000’s of other government-run/enforced scams, needs to end….now!
Regards, onebornfree
Fantastic summary of all that is wrong with modern society in the USA and the Western world.
Amazing number of details, all pointing in the wrong direction for society.
4HONESTY.com
points out that leftist woke DIS-HONESTY and gag orders play a large part and TOTAL UTTER SCIENTIFIC HONESTY is a large part of the solution, a necessary part of the solution.Precisely.
The points covered are generally valid. I did not read the essay word-for-word.
Can the present system as constructed by “saved”? Obviously it depends on how one defines “saved”. A good question: would a majority (let us say at least 65%) of true Americans, upon knowing what the philosophy of the founders was (for all intents and purposes no one does), be in favor of that system as outlined at the Constitutional Convention? Putting the practical implementations aside for a moment, would people now agree with the mindset of the founders? Would people agree that only men possessing real estate – a stipulation many of the founders advocated – be permitted the vote?
“Family value/carry around a Bible ‘conservatives’” talk a good game; indeed they will not stop talking about it. But down at brass tacks, they advocate exactly what their alleged foes want. To do otherwise would be “racist” or, much worse, “anti-Semitic”.
I agree with all your points, especially with respect to having to surmise what Baskerville’s motivations are. Curiously, although one of the big pluses of the dozen or so book reviews by Devlin I’ve read is that he takes care to separate the author’s arguments from his own reaction to them, in this case it would have helped if Devlin had commented or even just speculated on the point, if any, of “communism.” After all, he’s read the book and we haven’t! (I wonder if Jared Taylor and AmRen are factors in the vocabulary question. Hmm.)
In fairness, I ought to add here that, since reading your reply, I am less certain than I was earlier that Baskerville was dog-whistling the reader.
A huge LOL and h/t for your speculation anent Trump’s bedside reading. As for Letitia, I’ve always assumed that the NYS budget supplies her with a Jewish kid to read aloud to her.
Think what you like, but you have simply restated the generalities that your earlier comment was filled with. Your dismissal of Devlin’s reply was also far too offhand. I am still not persuaded that you read his essay/review with sufficient care.
What’s more, you aren’t the only guy in the world who has read Harry Browne—or for that matter, Rothbard, Rockwell, and Poppe—or is familiar with the nature and scope of paleolibertarian objections to government structures, whether big, little, or in-between, and grave reservations about their safety and utility.
That should have been Hoppe—and would have been if I had looked as closely at the screen as at the keyboard. Bitte entschuldigen Sie mir, Hans!
Excellent review of a fine book. The diagnosis is correct. The prescription is the
right approach to what ails us. Yet we shall not see it. We need to Ride the Tiger.
We haven’t seen anything yet. We shall not see the other side during our lifetime
Yet rendering a sound diagnosis is a great contribution. So few can see how tragic our course has been for several decades if not longer in prevalent Western and Liberal thought. Offering a prudent,
edifying and sanctifying prescription for the human person, family and our society is more than
beneficial. To the extent that one can practice this on the periphery of society
We have much further to descend as a collective society
Good book. Sober review. I am less than sanguine about its probability due to the
silliness of our world not due to the depth of the ideas in the book or the review
Political philosophy is a valuable science
Indeed.
For your reference, HL Mencken was making your points about a hundred years ago. You read his essays and articles from the 1920s and 1930s…and realize he left us nothing to say about America.
Among other things, he pointed out that W. Wilson was John the Baptist to FDR, who was, in turn, nothing but Stalin-lite.
the Republican record always go in only one direction, toward evil, and never the other way.
And the GOP, Grand Ole Poltroonery, is known to pander to Christians, of the “Cuntservative” Flavor.
You missed your calling: Jew Old Testament prophet.
Blaming everything and everybody except the true villains.
J
O
O
Z
Stephen Baskerville has written a good book about the coup de’etat that took over America beginning with the COVID lockdowns, fake race riots, shot mandates, and ruining of the small business economy. But the book has a fly in the ointment that ruins it. The subtitle “Why the U.S. Went Communist†could not be further from the truth. It went corporate fascist, and the author is too smart to get this wrong.
25 Silicon Valley high tech corporations in 2020 gave $90 million to BLM and Billionaire George Soros gave $35 million to Antifa, to destroy small business districts in key large cities. The weapons used were fake anti-race riots, arson, mass crime and shoplifting waves, with the complicity of local governments, courts, and prosecutors. But neither the Communist Party nor oppressed working class workers were involved in any of this turmoil.
Marxism has always been used as a false ideology of a working-class revolt to justify mass murder and the takeover of a country by oligarchs. Marx was a newspaper journalist and propagandist who was subsidized by Friedrich Engels’ industrialist family. Communism is a racket for oligarch banker control, not a proletarian or worker revolt against the factory-owning class. Factory jobs were offshored in the 1990’s when 40,000 manufacturing plants were transferred to China at the behest of oligarch run corporations who wanted cheap labor. So called Communism has always been a strategy to exploit the grievances of the underclass to destroy a nation’s leadership class and impose the international globalist class.
The US is not up against Communism but corporate fascism, which has historically been used when corporations take over control of the government to protect their monopolies and capital flows during periods of large economic contractions. Fascism is not primarily an ideology but a way to micromanage the economy to the benefit of financial elites and to the detriment of the working class and small business sectors. For example, the Great Depression of the 1930’s was a cover for fascist takeover of family farms and obsolescence of small towns mainly in the Midwest creating migration to the big cities. A contraction of capital markets is expected due to eventual devaluation of monopoly currency issued by the US Federal Reserve used as the reserve currency globally – see Clara Mattei, The Capital Order: How Austerity Paved the Way to Fascism, 2022).
A writer who ought to know Communism when he sees it is former Czechoslovakian president Vaclav Havel whose book the Power of the Powerless says the mark of a Communist is they pretend not to be pretending. This is a pretentious book.
The mark of effective propaganda is that it is 90 percent what you want to hear, but it subtly mixes its disinformation into the remaining 10 percent. I will leave it up to the reader to determine if this book is propaganda, however. All I can say is that Communism is not taking over the country, but corporate fascism is.
ADC or AFDC (Aid for Dependent Children) was created in the 1930 under the Frankin D. Roosevelt administration. I was there and able to read newspapers and magazines already by 1960, and I know for a fact that generational welfare already was an issue before Lyndon Johnson became president and the Johnson landslide gave the Northeastern Democrats the controlling hand in Congress.
The idea that Lyndon Johnson created welfare as we know it is an ill-informed fantasy. He may have made it more efflugent, but welfare is still no picnic most of the time.
Just keep in mind (and this should be on a permanently flashing billboard right over Times Square in New York so everyone knows it): All Welfare Is Corporate Welfare.
J.D. Unwin’s “Sex and Culture” is available free online. I quickly found it and looked at it a little. It is not a pithy work of popular social science of the type we are used to. Reading it would be a chore, and it might be better to read about it than to try to read it, or to read a contemporary work which presents the same arguments.
I am capable of being pithy and have an occasional talent for condensing issues into telling aphorisms, for example, my dictum, all welfare is corporate welfare.
Regarding the contemporary situation, I sum up the consequences of contemporary feminism in this little saying, One woman, one career, one time.
I always hasten to add, this is not something that is literally true, the same way that aphorism “one man, one vote, one time” was not literally true in the South African situation either.
But that doesn’t mean that just because these things are not literally true, that doesn’t mean that they will not be eventually true, with the major effects seen within exactly the three generation timespan Unwin’s research uncovered.
It’s on to my next little aphorism now. I seem to be regularly working this in lately, and no one who has heard it has disputed me yet. What I say is, I have come to the conclusion that human beings have this uncanny ability to always and unfailingly create their own imagined apocalypse.
Some people seem to think, if they refuse to create an imagined apocalypse, they will avoid their imagined apocalypse in that case. I don’t think so. I think what will happen is that they will just end up experiencing the apocalypse they should have imagined. It’s that simple.
F. Roger Devlin: “Feminism is this impatience: its central demand, far more important than “equal pay for equal work†or any of its other slogans, is the reestablishment of woman’s unlimited control over reproduction. In effect, it is a revolt against civilization, a demand for a return to Hobbes’s “state of nature.—
What a completely idiotic, and contradictory pair of statements! In a state of nature, women have NO control over their own fertility. They can be impregnated and kept that way by any passing man who’s strong enough to impose his will upon them. By contrast, in technological civilization, in which the intense pleasures of sex have been severed from reproduction through scientific birth control, sex becomes just another form of recreation, and women’s control over reproduction is assured. It’s only through using birth control technologies that women gain power over their own bodies and then can compete on equal footing with men. Feminism is the ideology that results from this.
Another very good article. How ever, this subject
probably requires 75,000 more words, if not days.
We have created prophets, and as long as
“They” keep making ” our ” money,
There will be hell to pay…
Wonder how Genocide Joe, the man who was made viceroy of Ukraine following the American-led coup there, liked seeing the shoe thrust on his own foot when he was deposed by the Democrats at his own convention. Did he croak “et tu, Barack?” to the man who reportedly delivered the ultimatum to him? Of course the American state, at whatever depth you want to study it, is not, never has been, nor ever will be a “communist” regime. It will never be anything even remotely “leftist,” since that is a lethal malady within its borders. In the deepest bowels of the Deep State it can probably be described more properly as some sort of oligarchy, aristocracy, or plutocracy.
But the cadre of wealthy perverts who wrote the Paris Bacchanal were the same degenerates who vacationed on Epstein’s Island and lavish this country’s restive white-hating minority populations with limitless “welfare” payments (bribes/rewards) and endless permissions (and even incitement) to go rob and kill whitey (actually they kill people of “yellow” color as well), even as our feudal lords go about recruiting a seemingly endless supply of more of these uneducated, untrained, unproductive, unemployable, illiterate and potentially uncivilised liabilities from the four corners of the earth whom they herd across the Texas border with the efficiency of an airline or a cruise ship, from thence to every community across the fruited plain (what clever words Limbaugh could have used to describe these atrocities had he survived his cancer!). Some of these migrants have been guilty of physically attacking police squads, breaking into businesses, notably warehouses to steal the inventory. These imported criminals seem even more adept at their lawless crafts than American ghetto hoods. I note that El Salvador has incarcerated near the entirety of its infamous MS-13 street gang into one huge super-max prison. When will those potential pawns all be smuggled into the US to perpetrate some dastardly agenda–probably to destabilize our government? Coups may well evolve into a routine event in future America as they were in the old Roman triumvirates, constantly in conflict with each other. “The Nine Nations of North America” may graduate from an intriguing possibility to a chaotic reality.
‘Slut shaming’ (ie she’s fucking someone other than you)will be socially unacceptable when Kamala, a great role model for social climbing gals, is President.
What is the most unequal society in the rich boys’ club, the OECD? The USA, that bastion of ‘communism’.
Government is working pretty well in China. The alternative to government is the Wild West and the bullet in the back.
Video Link
Video Link
It lost itself bc of its immensely stupid populace.
They gleefully wanted what was being offered. Onward and downward.
I ordered this book and read it. It blames everything that has occurred since 2020 on “Communism”. But the perpetrators of what happened in 2020 are not affiliated with the Communist Party nor are they from the working class who have grievances with Capitalist corporations. Which begs the question – why has the author worked so hard to divert attention to Communism as the fall guy?
Marxism has always been used as a false ideology of a working-class revolt to justify mass murder and the takeover of a country by oligarchs. Marx was a newspaper journalist and propagandist who was subsidized by Friedrich Engels’ industrialist family. Communism is a racket for oligarch banker control, not a proletarian or worker revolt against the factory-owning class. So called Communism has always been a strategy to exploit the grievances of the underclass to destroy a nation’s leadership class and impose the international globalist class.
The US is not up against Communism but corporate fascism, which has historically been used when corporations take over control of the government to protect their monopolies and capital flows during periods of large economic contractions. Fascism is not primarily an ideology but a way to micromanage the economy to the benefit of financial elites and to the detriment of the working class and small business sectors. For example, the Great Depression of the 1930’s was a cover for fascist takeover of family farms and obsolescence of small towns mainly in the Midwest creating migration to the big cities (Raymond C. Schmidt, From the Farm to Fast Food: Adventures During the Great Depression and Beyond, 2012). What is driving corporations today to take over the government and the economy is the lack of a full industrial economic base and the futute anticipated shrinkage of the consumer economy. A contraction of capital markets is expected due to eventual devaluation of monopoly currency issued by the US Federal Reserve used as the reserve currency globally – see Clara Mattei, The Capital Order: How Austerity Paved the Way to Fascism, 2022).
A definition of propaganda is that 90% of it tells you what you want to hear, but the remaining 10% is pure lie. This is what Who Lost America? is.
Good into on George Mason not signing our badly flawed Constitution. I was not aware of that. Thanks
USA is Capitalist to the C —5% ultra wealthy Bourgeoisie dictating to the 95% bottom Proletariate and not a Middle Class to be considered—in 10 years mission accomplished.
Most marriages break up over conflicts about money.
A simple house with a garden has become so expensive in Europa and the US that most newly wed couples can’t afford it. If your parents have money you are one of the lucky ones. Jewish companies like Blackrock buying up private properties and massive immigration are kicking up prices even more. Give it another 25 years max 50 and house ownership will be a thing of the past for 90 % of the goyim in the western world . You will own nothing and be happy meaning you will have to rent your home for life.
All of this of course has been lined out in details in the Talmud.
some women can swim in the most pristeen waters for hours at a time and still emerge with sand in their vagina. they’ll never be happy. you know why? because they are ignorant or in denial of the fact that the most fulfilling thing in the universe is a healthy functioning relationship with a good man that provides resources and protection for her and her children. anything else is a recipe for mass rape and murder when the inevitable collapse comes. wake up and smell the cat food.
The Churches are completely controlled through the regulations of the 501(c) corporations. They cannot participate in any of the things mentioned. They will lose their 501(c) status.
The state used to support and enforce the morality of the Christian Churches. They now sponsor and enforce the opposite.
it’s way too late to do anything about it. The conversion is complete
The article is very thoughtfully done. Plenty of food for thought here.
The problem with referencing Hobbes is Hobbes himself. As a liberal (perhaps the first liberal political theorist), his ideas and speculations were based upon a grotesque abstraction having little relation to the ‘natural order’ of human things, but rather were built upon the artificial idea of an originating ‘social contract’. Its core was a fiction.
However his argument of ‘dominion’ over children (discussed BTW in XX, Leviathan) was primarily ‘legalistic’ and you could say it logically flowed first from the mother’s inclinations and desires. Of course absurd in the real world of men/women/families, but that is what you get whenever social life is grounded upon abstractions having no organic basis. As you say, within a ‘natural’ order, children (and women for that matter) are subject to any male who has the desire to accept his own legitimacy.
With this in mind, it is perhaps worthwhile to contrast Hobbes with Plato’s own abstractions. I mean his sci-fi-ish ‘ideal’ city, where the ‘communism of women’ was introduced to prevent offspring and parents from individual attachments, but instead to become ‘children of the City’, showing primary allegiance to the higher social order. And where each citizen can understand each other as ‘family’.
However Plato was no a liberal in the sense of Hobbes–that is, grounding civil society in individuals, each possessing a Right of Nature they necessarily had to forsake in order to create a Sovereign. I think Hobbes was serious in his fiction, yet one can understand Plato as unserious within a context of actually describing a working City. Rather was he showing how weird things can get when abstractions take precedence over social facts. For his last word one should, instead, turn to Laws, and not Republic.
One should also contrast both the two Western and Classical political theorists with Confucius, who understood that the organic family was the basis for government, and only then could it claim the ‘mandate of heaven’. Kong’s ideas, once abandoned by Chinese Communists revolutionaries, have now gained a new respectability by the not very revolutionary Communist-in-name-only Party.
As expected, Chinese family tradition often conflicts with recent Chinese legalistic liberalism, as the country attempts to both preserve the ‘rights’ of women, while maintaining a more traditional and cohesive family based social order. Especially difficult given a declining marriage rate, one the government now attempts to ameliorate. However, unlike in the West, feminism will probably not help destroy China.
The idea that “government doesn’t work” is American projection. It works just fine in plenty of places. It doesn’t “work” in the USA, in the sense of giving voters what they want, because it wasn’t designed to “work” in that way. It was designed to enrich and increase the power of the Anglo and Jewish oligarchs, slavers, and pirates who founded the country. In that, its true function, it “works” very well.
RINOs= Democrat ringers!!!!! How true!!!!
For someone who attempts to speak by the card anent Marxism, you talk pretty fast and loose about Fascism. At least if we mean the Italian Fascism of men such as Gentile, a doctrine which possessed both a strong ethical and racial basis. Where government/business relations were definitely not something made to benefit ‘financial elites’ against citizens.
Unless one is willing to state explicitly what they mean by the word, I’ve argued that the term ‘fascism’ should be abandoned, at least outside of its specific historical context. Nowadays the word is typically used willy-nilly to mean whatever. In any case, what you describe is certainly something else than Italian Fascists were thinking about.
Americans are foremost in gullibility and Pollyanna type thinking. They have been fed Jewish propaganda for over a century, especially since WW II
Their Christian reliance on the Old Testament has created their world of pro-Jewish myths where logic cannot enter. World turmoil belongs to Jewish hegemony with Americans their first line of dutiful soldiers.
We are going down with our beliefs and support anything Jewish. Sad but senseless and outrageous.
I only read half the article, enough to get the gist of the book, which is a good retrospective / hindsight of what has happened over the years in the slow burn corruption and destruction of our institutions.
The roles various institutions had back then to balance things out no longer apply, we are too divided, comingled and confused now. Most churches won’t address political issues unless it is a side issue that affects both the red / blue divide the same way, all you will hear if anything is how we should respect each others differences, i.e. do nothing.
We are in the end game now, nobody is trying to fix anything anymore, they are just grabbing as much booty of the gravy train before it crashes and burns. Why try to stop the inevitable?
In Australia, the Family Court won’t recognise a PreNup if it is contested. PreNups had a shoirt time in the sun, about 25 years ago.
Agreed. The everything crisis complex.
Mankind has been building houses for thousands of years, yet mystery upon mystery we seem to have a forever affordable housing crisis. Tiny homes can’t even fix that one, our young folks can’t afford to live in a shoebox.
This is what’s called a sweeping generalization, “…all special interest groupsâ€. This site and all ‘current year’ political discourse is awash with such statements.
Of what groups are you thinking? The KKK, the NRA, the John Birch Society, Vdare? Let’s have some specifics. Is Vdare being brought down by infiltration or by lawfare?
Are you suggesting that right-leaning ‘groups’ at any time in the last half century (or even since the Civil War) have actually influenced the actions of some branch of the federal government?
There have been a few. I grant you that. But a long, long time ago! It seems to me that conservative Americans have lost almost every skirmish they’ve had with the feds since day one.
Nothing “communist” about Wall Street and the capitalist donor class factions who pay for Washington.
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/07/list-of-10-planks-of-the-communist-manifesto.html
The goal of communism is to take over a nation without firing a single round. And that it be done slowly, incrementally.
All national revolutions come about because the existing system has been corrupted so much that all attempts at reformation would have utterly failed, hence, the bloody yet cathartic solution, albeit misguided at times as in China under Mao and his thugs.
The majority of what you write, in broad brush terms, is specific to the American society, driven sub-consciously by wilted ideologies like “Libertarianism, Individualism, Capitalism, etc, etc. These ideologies have been admixed, bleached out, and spun dry, so that they are like free radicals of broken DNA strands. Useless for operational consideration or practical use.
None of your generalities apply to Russia, in the Putin era. The structures adopted and adapted are discontinuous blends of an analog nature, not digital and discreet. The same is true in Singapore, and was largely so in the reconstruction of Japan, post WWII, and China in the last 40 years.
In these cultures, the entire economic realm is continuous with the State/Government as an incorporated entity for the common good. Certainly not the putrid model of the “revolving door” of regulation government and private industry; and most notably financialization. America is a clumsy oaf, childishly abused by European doctrines and abstract deductions from 200 years hence. This is the triumph of Intellectualization of everything, creating abstract structures and concepts, and then working to make Reality conform to Grand Designs.
Two videos that concisely and broadly explain the overt and covert forces upon our culture in the US:
Video Link
Video Link
Of course, in the main this is the implementation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/clowardpiven-strategy-cps/
What are we supposed to do? Vote harder? “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun”, and murder gives the Christian a sentence in hell for eternity. The left doesn’t fear God and doesn’t care about His laws. They aren’t afraid to murder, and that’s why the left is destined to win all political struggles over the long term.
You’re so right.
Mr. Baskerville’s book (and Mr. Devlin’s review) is the last thing we need, more professorial analytical blather.
Mr. B. states that the judiciary is the least ‘democratic’ sector of government.
Let’s stop there. Is there a remedy for that? Yes. There is. And we all know what it is. It involves getting up from the couch and …
You fill in the blanks.
If that remedy were applied a few times there would be some changes.
I agree and have said many times that shop worn, diluted, monikers, notably “-isms” should be abandoned. They are too broad and fuzzy. We need to stop using word concepts like this, as a kind of short hand convenience. I had a girlfriend in college with a sensational body, soft Southern drawl who was an “art” major. She used to frequently remark, “That is sooo fascist, or sooo Kafkaesque.”
That was over 50 years ago.
Mr. Devlin? Is this you?
What is your source for this ridiculous notion?
I once read the obituary for a young black man, age 26 – unmarried – who left behind 9 children. The cause of death was not cited, but he was described as a local “entrepreneur.†I’m guessing if he had been incarcerated for defaulting on child support payments, he may have lived to father at least 9 more.
Oh? I thought it was significantly destroyed by over-reach, multi-racialism, and the Barbarian Hordes. And all this time, we’ve been blaming the Germani, Vandals, Goths, etc. It seems everyone on earth has a bee in their bonnet over tall, long-haired blondes…and, over Jews, of course. However, the Jews earned/earn the world’s ire. Wasn’t it a Roman who unleashed Jews into Europe? Was this Roman female? William the Conqueror – female? Cromwell – female? Churchill, FDR….?
I haven’t read Unwin’s screed, but this assertion smacks a bit of Mohammed’s screed of – woman! cover yourself completely lest you cause Men to be overcome by their bestial nature for which you are fully responsible by your very existence! Don’t blame us as you’re the one who picked that damn apple which was obviously a sin that any other 9 year old man-child would have been wise enough to avoid!
The Founding Fathers created a country that was essentially built for Whites to be managed by White males. While they did include safeguards to protect that model, our leaders and political class have spent over 200 years dismantling the model and the safeguards and replaced it with this non-country disaster of race, cultural, and religious diversity and civic nationalism we have today. It has gone so far now that the communists are ready to move in and take over with one of the two major political parties literally embracing Marxism.
Seven men were flying on a plane. A Dindu, an Anglo Saxon,, A German, Â A Slope, A Moslem, a Ju and a Indian Babu. At 40,000 feet there erupted a violent argument about patriotism.
The Nigger shouted “Blak Powa and Jah rule”, I can give my life for my race.. and jumped out.
Not to be outdone the German screamed Heil Hitler, saluted and also jumped.
The White Man said quietly ” I am more patriotic than all of you !”.
And with that he threw the Chink, the Moslem, the Ju and the Coolie Babu out the plane.
America is done for. The Trumpeter will be unable to fix the ruin of the past 4 years even if elected or even of allowed to don the crown.
What to do about it ?? Leave the country !
Yeah, that quote “young black men today are far less likely to be incarcerated for violent crime than for unpaid child support” should have a [citation needed] after it. It’s almost perfectly absurd.
End women’s suffrage.
You’re welcome.
Whoever believes in NO Government, is an agent of the genocidal Jews who are committing Genocide and WAR CRIMINALS to erect ‘world government’
You must be an asshole and gullible to repeat their lies here. No one pays any attention to charlatans and mass murderers. The “No government” lie is the message of the ‘globalist’ thieves who are waging wars to bring ‘world government’ killing millions of people, to steal resources of the planet.These traitors must be totally exposed and destroyed.
A government is needed for peace and protection of its citizens. You have to kill the western evil empire to protect your government. You have to kill the mafia tribe in order to have peace on earth.
You have to destroy the gullible people who promote the message of the criminal west to have security.
It is human nature to kick down, and wow! is this ever an example.
I get the police notices for my area, and almost all the homicides are women. The few men who are killed are 1. elderly, 2. part of a couples murder. Interestingly, national stats are different than what I see locally. My guess is the local day-by-day reports reflect reality, the national numbers are massaged, so that the real problem is not discussed.
Same thing when you look at the day-by-day reason women leave marriages; because they have to.
In reality, most jurisdictions give fathers as much time with the children as they ask for, so many whine for the kids — to punish the mom — ignore the children during the time they have them, and keep on whining about how the system done them wrong.
We all know that testosterone has declined to what? 30% of what it should be? Men with low testosterone are whiny keyboard warriors. They protect nothing, support nothing, do nothing, and stay with no woman.
How about Unz.com stops kicking down, and starts publish things on the testosterone crisis? I’ll say right now, the reason women are blamed for all of the above, rather than fingering declining testosterone, is that women are largely undefended, while making men have low testosterone is both big business, and good policy for governments who want docile populations. Try kicking at the real culprits!
“Wishful thinking”.
I agree. While this brilliant review of what looks like a brilliant book elucidates the twisted path and forays from logic that brought us to this point as a nation and culture, we can all wish in one hand and shit in the other for all the good it is going to do.
“Feminism” is not just a permanent zeitgeist ziggurat meant to lubricate the now institutionalized machine like, Misdandrist hatred of men, it is a oh so Comme il faut badge of honor for the “empowered” male Zelig whose stature is dependent upon being an “ally”.
Not all, but most studies show young men in the throes of constant concupiscence, objectifying possible mates while females are far more calculating and assessing the monetary benefits of copulation prior to marriage, or, mating. This hold that women have over men, is biological (There are OBVIOUSLY exceptions to the rule.) remains after marriage and one of the major complaints from men in therapy, is, the lack of sexual relations. It is understandable that men, make bad marriage decisions, when there only real concern, is the dream of unlimited sexual congress by way of “commitment”.
The clock is ticking on “Feminism”, but not for the reasons that Mr. Devlin, or, Mr. Baskerville think.
HERE is why Feminism will die.
https://www.mysextoyguide.com/best-robot-sex-doll/
Sorry to be so prurient and look only at based biological necessities, but, those necessities have been wielded against men for hundreds of years now.
What you are looking at there, is a Model T Ford.
Right around the corner, are affordable Lamborghinis, Porsches, Corvettes and a virtual harems of hot babes that yes, will make Joe 6-pack a fuck’n sandwich in lingerie while he tunes in for the 4th NFL game of the day.
Spare me the blow up doll conversation comparison and how men are just as in need of “companionship” and “family” as women are.
Gimme a break.
After what men have been through over the last 50 years by way of “Feminism” there will be NO societal opprobrium, NO marginalisation, NO stigma and in fact, there will be bragging rights, shows, exposes, customer satisfaction testimony and lines up at the store to buy the latest model.
The “objectification” blow back will literally change the dynamics of society, “relationships” and be the death knell of fat, fecund, Feminist breeders expecting to enslave men by way of the courts, or, their cunts.
No, I really do not hate women, it just is what it is.
Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913
From the Tom Woods show (podcast on iTunes), Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder’s vision (limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).
Video Link
Which Corporations Control the World?
A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use? It’s a Small World at the Top.
http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/
I think when people refer to communism in this manner, they are referring to cultural Marxism, which was the strategy the left went to when it became apparent in the wake of WW1 that economic Marxism wasn’t an adequate way to revolutionize a targeted society. Intersectionality, feminism, minority grievance, etc. are all aspects of cultural Marxism/communism.
They are all irrelevant, including Hume. Best to ignore them. No successful contemporary economy is based or derived from them. Looking at Russia and China, these success stories are built on practical approaches and implementation, not university theories. If something doesn’t work, discard it, and learn from it, and try something else.
That is the MO of the most successful central banker in the world, Russia’s Elvira Nabiullina, a cold eyed pragmatist, who has pivoted many times, to save the Russian economy and keep it on track. Like a all star broken field full back football player.
Most “experts” of our shabby World are premature immature ejaculators who need an instruction manual to commence coitus. They are passengers in life pretending to be pilots.
Etc, etc……..
https://henrymakow.com/nazi_masons.html
Yes, they have largely preyed on and exploited human weaknesses. Alcohol, gambling, drugs, porn, etc. They have done this to every society they have lived in since Roman times.
My two favorite authors, Devlin and Baskerville!
Here you are engaging in the same blame game that many men do when I see them blame particularly white women for all of our problems. You’re both whiny and you’re both wrong.
Who would be in charge of a communist/socialist society? Would they be rich/powerful?
Sad but true. Thanks, Solutions.
This is brilliant thinking and brilliant writing. Thanks.
What does
got to do with it?
I.e. the Mensheviks? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Menshevik#English
“They” might be referring to “cultural Marxism” but the new clever propaganda is to shift blame for the Deep State takeover of the Federal government to Communism and Mark Levin’s “Marxism” and away from Silicon Valley corporate fascism. This book is the “Hound of the Baskerville’s” in pointing in the wrong direction.
Who would be in charge of a communist/socialist society? Not a wealthy/powerful 5%?
You are way too intellectual with your definition of fascism which as I explained is not a pure ideology. By the way ideology is a set of proposals to cover up economic interests. Today, libertarianism is being embraced by the Surveillance State actors. So, while you seek a pure definition of fascism, the elites are embracing it to legitimate the Deep State. Libertarians are always way too intellectual.
To the extent that Rabbi Wise is “highly esteemed,” it is by the likes of fellow rabbi Dov Lior; rabbi Dr. Yitzhak Rülf, . . .
Rabbi Wise at very least propagated, may have originated the “Jewish soap and lampshades” lie.
Under the name of Rabbi Wise’s son a book was published in May 1933 that from that point and ever-after caused “swastika” to signify penultimate evil.
Rabbi Wise’s “influence” extended to Justice Robert Jackson, with whom Wise communicated the intention to conduct the trials at Nuremberg “outside the customs of Anglo-Saxon law” and ex post facto to make waging aggressive war a war crime, of which anyone/everyone associated with “Nazism” was guilty.
Rabbi Stephen Wise, and the master he served, Louis Brandeis, are among the most disreputable persons to have had positions of “influence” in American history.
Your ideas and speculations on Hobbes’s reasoning are based upon a grotesque simplifications and misrepresentations having little relation to what he wrote.
Hobbes merely postulated the “state of nature” as an alternative to a situation in which a group had yielded authority to a sovereign to escape it.
He did nothing else but explain why it would be rational to yield to a sovereign: to escape that chaos where a man’s life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
He did nothing else but to explain the logic and rationality of a what you call “social contract.”
(And I leave aside all your Procrustean-anachronistic labeling: “liberal,” etc.)
I don’t know, PooBear, the current Chinese government seems to be rather similar in policies to National Socialism, a’ la Mein Fuhrer. You know, China for the Chinese…
Are you familiar with Germany 1933-1945 and that whole economic miracle thing? It was a departure from the status quo, yes?
This analogy is consistent within your commentary….what’s going on PooBear?
It is true though.
We used to swim
The same moonlight waters
Oceans away
From the wakeful day
My fall will be for you
My fall will be for you
My love will be in you
If you be the one to cut me
I will bleed forever
America is Communist?
Bullshit, America is fascist. America is run by the wealthy – particularly the wealthy Jews. How the Hell is it that the rich Jews are allowed to twist into anything , the illegal settlement of another nation – the nation of Palestine – a nation promised by and detailed by the United Nations to become an exclusive property of the Jews.
The , non-Jewish,working class in America are nothing but serfs – serfs that will wind up as nothing – owning nothing, controlling nothing, and eating worms to survive.
Agree. Always appreciate his commentary whether I agree on all points or not. But I am also biased toward his mechanical/engineering(?) experience. The ships engines stuff he has posted grabbed my attention. I love ships as I spent my early years around shipyard docks and have a love for anything mechanical especially ships but also cars, locomotives etc For whatever reason it reminded me of this great film –
Video Link
We as a Nation got here because of a Lust for Power fueled by a deep, bitter, venomous HATRED of the Society which they are attacking. It is the result of a well coordinated, well thought out Plan. What are the pillars of a White Western Civilization? The institution of marriage. The Family as a unit, which always includes a Male. This last part is what gets the mostly Jewish Radicals who lead the Movement to destroy the White Western Nations (think The Frankfurt School) furious. The Feminist movement? Formed and lead by Jewish people. The Abortion movement (What can be more anti family than Abortion?) founded and guided by Jewish people. The push for no-fault divorce? Ditto. Does the Mainstream Media (MSM) push anything even mildly resembling Pro Family values? LOL!! The MSM promotes very Anti Family “values”. The MSM promotes the LGBTQ+ agenda. The MSM glorifies single Mommyhood (no Man needed for a Family or raising children!). It doesn’t matter that this myth of the “no Male needed for raising children ” is in fact completely FALSE. Oh and did I mention the Media–all of it–is controlled by Jewish radicals? Well it is!! Solutions are going to have to be implemented aggressively in order to counter these Hatemongering Radicals.
There are valid points in the article though some bottom lines are missing. Though premise of lack of courage is ground, the book title framing focus on false ‘america’ is not, when you cant ‘lose’ something that’s bs to begin with. ‘america’ is not a thing, its a bogus name slapped on this territory by the cons. And in same stunted form, is premise as if ‘courts’ are only ‘corrupt’ as if the con cabal’s ‘courts and ‘judges’ bs has ever been anything but a mass destruction scheme along with their ‘govt’/’state’ and ‘military’ and ‘sheriffs’ and ‘police’ and fake ‘money’ and ‘media’ and ‘skools’ schemes, each riding with their sick monotheism ‘jesus’ jews’ islam’ ‘obedience’ scheme. The worst perpaganda on their ‘tv’ weapon are ‘courts’ and ‘cops’ shows. From ‘perry mason’ and ‘mayberry bs to ‘catch a predator’ bs to every ‘police report’ bs, it is to feminize dopes so people cling to destruction scheme and fail to make own actions. ‘churches’ their other scheme, subversion. The Chuck Baldwin types are rare.
Also, the premise that only men have been targeted by courts is stunted, everyone is targeted, and where one litigant is the better or right person, they are more targeted, male or female, to weaken resister type people, while temporarily rewarding scum, who are to stupid to recognize they will also be robbed and offed by the con cabal. Search probate medicate isolate liquidate, and though family law is mentioned, search family law corrupt, also kelo v. new london private to private, and Hedges’ ndaa lawsuit refused by the supreme cons. The problem of welfare isnt first instance, first instance is phony churches, and ignorant breeding and failure to focus tribes and fighting against threat, first, before focus on breeding or family. The cycle ignorance is how any of it, ‘state or ‘courts’ or ‘welfare continues. Also remember ‘trump’ cons ‘appointed’ more cons to federal courts. The fake trump courts bs is warning but trump is as much cabal as any. Look at ‘judges’ faces, they’re criminal faces. Do screen capture of photos, put in windows paint, paint over backround bs, and bogus hair, jewlry etc look at faces,and if dig background, will see all of them some sort of bs before being ‘appointed’.
The bottom line is cabal fraud, and failure of people to be serious, stop breeding, focus against cons ‘state’ and ‘courts’ and ‘police’ bogus paper ‘law schemes, and drones and other weapons, and be clear the ‘nano’ cons are destroying earth, all of it.
The problem isnt just lack of courage, its selfish ignorance. No one has a right to ignore. Important to share info, focus where we live, use postal, bumperstickers, and stop focusing on ‘israel’. the cons are where we live. Remember over a milion in cabal and half are female cons.
What’s loss is everything, billions years random luck that life on earth happened, any of it.
Loss of the milion years we existed before the psycho schemes.
Remember cavemen.
The white cuck-maggots who refused to name the Jewish Power.
On the subject of ubiquitous failure of the right on public-interest lobbying and culture in general, there is one exception: gun rights. It’s easy to forget that not long ago, “assault weapons†were banned and few states had shall-issue, much less constitutional carry.
To what is this transformation attributed? Simply that, as the state has grown ever more terrible, people have realized that the Second Amendment is the single most important right guaranteed by the constitution (the others are pointless without it) and thus was one that really motivated them? Or do the likes of the NRA (RIP) deserve some credit for effective tactics? I’d love to see an objective scholarly analysis of what other advocates of liberty can learn from this history.
(This is not to say that I feel that gun rights are really secure for the long term. I figure that judicial fiat will decimate them once the Supreme Court turns over, but we’re in pretty good shape now.)
“In God We Trust†government have become divide and conquer representation, similar to “repent or go to hell†Christian churches where they sacrifice official doctrines (constitution and bible) with race grievance and gender ideology, destroying traditional values and culture with scorched earth policies, leaving their subjects to navigate a corrupt legal system that has turned against the common good of society.
And who would advocate for the destruction of a moral society that believes marriage to be a sacred bond between biological man and a woman?
Synagogue of Satan
GlobalHomo
Space Monkeys
Pirates Of The Seven Seas
The church is on the side of the opressed, that’s a new one!
Thanks. Much appreciated. I try and draw on the greatest variety of experiences and knowledge to determine what my evaluation and opinion should be. Marine Mechanical Engineering was my professional life. Human relationships are real and critical working in engine rooms. I love machinery, especially high quality, industrial and heavy duty. As a group, my shipmates were the best people, collectively, I have ever been around, much less work with. Everything is for real, and inescapable. It’s a crucible where the best steel passes through the fire.
In that business, being correct is the only option; completely, not close or mostly.
It’s amazing that Trump who was almost assassinated by an assault rifle, refused to condemn guns to the ash heaps of history.
That in of itself is reason to vote Trump.
They would enjoy nothing more than what happened in the UK, where a gun free society is unable to defend itself as migrants are let loose to murder and mutilate our children with barbaric weapons of knives, gang rapes and terror.
I cannot claim any originality in labeling Hobbes the first liberal. So don’t think I made that up. In fact, if you do a bit of research on your own, you’ll understand his connection to the liberal way of thinking, discussed by men with much more learning than I.
Hobbes was a smart man, and his great insight was that within a liberal order, where individual ‘right’ is supreme, men must be willing to transfer those rights (i.e., the ‘Right of Nature’) in order for civil society to reasonably function at all. It is somewhat of a paradox, but nevertheless true.
In the context of Fascism, which was where this all started, one can find a great antidote to individualistic liberalism. A good start could be The Doctrine of Fascism, which is usually signed by Benito Mussolini, but was certainly influenced (if not written) by Giovanni Gentile. I highly recommend that essay, especially to those who bandy the ‘F’ word uncritically.
I’ve got news for you. Communism and fascism are the same. If you are a regular citizen, then you are insignificant, kept in the dark, fed bullshit, and treated like shit. The ELITES siphon off the majority of wealth and leave crumbs for the other 99%.
Both are projections for the common consumption of the masses, who tirelessly believe that ideas and abstracts are the same as consumables and vittles. Nota bene that each ideology contains the few telling the many what to do, who they are, and what they get.
I try and try to get people off the meat hook of terminology and “-isms”. Look at the workings, underpinnings, and effects. Use concrete thinking and evidence instead of abstractions, or third hand opinions.
Like Saul Alinsky (who???), said the goal and motive in all political endeavors is POWER. Start and finish. A turd is a turd, from wither coming from whatever.
Decentralization/small government?
Where does government work?
Isn’t big government a prerequisite for central planning (genocidal Jewing, erecting ‘world government’, globalist’ thieving, stealing resources etc)?
Something more benevolent than Anglo Saxons.
And you would prefer diabolical neo feudalism which is what we are seeing in current America? I got news for you; the Jews aren’t the reason for America’s decline. The White Majority and it’s deranged libertarianism is….
I got interested in tiny homes when they first started to become a thing on the Internet. They quickly became centered around builders who could produce one for 150k+ and up. Sort of defeated the whole purpose of them. Now, you can finance a tiny home that you purchase from a builder.
The most disruptive thing you could do to America is to force every male in high school to take two years of hands-on shop classes centered around carpentry and building. At the end, there would be strong incentives provided so that a graduate and other men in his circle could build his first home themselves.
You might even provide jobs to new graduates to spend a year building homes for one another instead of signing up to go fight for Jews in the military. A healthy nation has a vested interest in having free men living on property not indebted to a mortgager. Sickly nations like America must have everyone in debt because it doesn’t produce anything besides neo-pronouns and porn.
*That* would be a kick in the eye to the banksters, the government, everyone. Having watched millions of hours of skilled men work on homes, I wish that as a young man I had picked up those skills.
Anglo Saxon culture hates marriage. Your boy Reagan saw to that
I recently posted a comment on Karl Marx and satantic references in his early poetry. Your comment reminded me of what Saul Alinsky also wrote in “Rules for Radicals” on page normally used for dedications:
I tend to agree with you here.
Having grown up in the 1950s and 1960s I rarely saw dysfunctional black families, though my exposure to them was rather minimal. But I had enough.
Back then the American Black Community was slowly being integrated into American society in an organic fashion. There were thriving Black stores, industry, and New York City hosted the center of the Black American Arts as well as a burgeoning cinema industry. And the Black Family unit was fairly intact at the time.
There was little need to start with all this “Great Society” crap. However, there was poverty, which needed to be addressed. But it was mostly in the South. Yet, the US government, even back then, could only create programs that became self-perpetuating.
And with that came the many Black exploitation films that always showed Blacks as part of a criminal underclass when most were actually law-abiding citizens.
I agree with you that there were many other factors that led to the demise of Black American culture and family. And welfare was just a small part of it.
The professionalization of business management I blame much more as it destroyed the natural contractual obligations between employer and employed wreaking havoc on the US economy and the people who attempted to make it work. And it is still going on.
Who specifically?
You don’t find this evidence convincing?
Homicide victims are about 2.5-1 male:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
(Granted, the offenders are almost 10-1 male.)
Swartz and Baskerville are smoking crack together. MLK, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright; what do they all have in common?
“Liberation theology is a theological approach emphasizing the “liberation of the oppressed”. It engages in socio-economic analyses, with social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples[1] and addresses other forms of perceived inequality.
Liberation theology was influential in Latin America,[2] especially within Catholicism in the 1960s after the Second Vatican Council, where it became the political praxis of theologians such as Frei Betto, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Leonardo Boff, and Jesuits Juan Luis Segundo and Jon Sobrino, who popularized the phrase “preferential option for the poor”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
Most working people don’t have the time to be activists unless that’s their paid profession. Maybe that’s why we voted to put people with a vested interest in the country, into positions of authority under the Constitution, to protect their interests and the country and the borders. Is it really that people don’t care or is it they can’t raise a family, go to church and work and try to stay involved in every aspect of the country, which would be impossible? Moving the church into running the country isn’t always in everyone’s best interests. Isn’t their focus to be on God rather than purely politics? Would you rather have God be in the church or Kamala Harris?
Very true. Like the rockefellers, morgans, and those yid morons the rothschilds their modus operandi is pressure from above and pressure from below.
My comment is in no way to take away from anything that you wrote in your post. I am a 73-year-old retired industrial electrician and I have done a fair amount on the study of the various “isms.”
It is my belief that communism, socialism, fascism Nazism and all the rest are the same thing – an effort to bring about a one-world fascist dictatorship of government, where a few at the top own and control everything, while the remaining are SLAVES to them. That is, the ones who are allowed to live.
The World Economic Forum and its Jew spokespersons Klaus Schwab and Yuval Harari have all but publicly stated that the objective of their organization is exactly that. And all of the criminal presidents including LBJ and since, are a part of this, as well as practically every U.S. Representative and Senator.
U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was 100% correct in his assertions that Communists had infiltrated every aspect of the government. They are still there – only now they call themselves “globalists.”
Thank you.
“It seems to me that conservative Americans have lost almost every skirmish they’ve had with the feds since day one.”
That’s because conservatives want to “conserve” the existing order, give or take a few tweaks here and there.
That’s because conservatives “react” to what the left wants instead of “responding” with reasons why such changes could lead to the downfall of society in the long run.
That’s because conservative politicians are conservative in name only. Behind the scenes the conservative elites are aligned with the elites on the left (“One for all, and all for one”) in order to maintain their power and wealth.
Break up the media monopolies, take away their mouthpieces, and then let’s see how powerful they are.
All of this is by design. Make man live under chaos, scarcity and fear, confuse him with ridiculous ideology (that even the elites don’t believe in), take away his voice, gaslight him, and then watch him flounder. This is what’s happening now.
I read none of the article and will never read the book but can give a much better answer as to who sold out America.
The Manor Born who were about to lose the estate to (((creditors))).
Video Link
Even being the field-Irish I am, I sympathize with WASP class at being jewed and the threat of their thatch getting ripped off by the landlord. Just like the Spartans they started out militant and austere, self-sufficiency and self-determination being foundational values. But, along the way, they became decadent and avaricious. Unfortunately, with decadent new tastes brings the damnable merchant. Wherever one finds the merchant, one is sure to find the banker, and visa versa.
Video Link
The seeds of the decline were sown at the very genesis of America, banking and mercatilism were both integral to the growth and the rot. Stately plantations required integration with the International Jew that Henry Ford spoke of over a century ago. The Founders had to reluctantantly install crypto jew Treasury Secretaries like Alexander Hamilton who provided political entrée to the Rothschilds et al. Skip ahead a century and eventually the Nelson Aldritch types became utterly beholden to Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff types. Hard to puff up your chest and say that you’re keeping jews out of the country club when he bought it out spite for the express desire to throw you out. From there, millionaire’s row starts getting bought up by Larry Fink, and Lex Wexner and the kiddos’ trust fund starts drying up.
America was sold out because WASPs stopped having a generations long killer instinct to retain their territory and full integration of banking/finance, martial supremacy, manufacturing, transportation/logistics, mercatilism, and totalitarian political control. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and ruthless is the mind that must inhabit the skull that wears it. The man who rebuilds America will be less Thomas Jefferson and more Atilla. Freedom was wasted on the masses, it is too lofty an ideal for the common man.
Courage is ALWAYS punching back when jews and judaized anti White lefttards want you to apologize for your positions.
Example:
1. jew/judaized lefttard says “that is waycccciiis. Do you condemn and distance yourself from that person that said that anti seemitic and/or racist statement?”
a. cowardly response: “oh yes, I have nothing to do with that person. I do not share their views about race, or jews.”
b. COURAGEOUS RESPONSE: “No. Why should I condemn or distance myself from that person? People like you have seem to have no problem with hate or racism as long as the hate or racism is directed against White gentiles. I am tired of this double standard. Unless and until you and the rest of the people in the msm start demanding anti White hate be condemned and attacked every time it is spoken by someone in the public eye, I will just consider your demands for condemnation of the person you mentioned as nothing but a blatant double standard and pathetic anti White hypocrisy. ”
c. ALTERNATE COURAGEOUS RESPONSE: “No. In fact I agree with that person about what they said and much much more. What are you going to do about it? Whine? LOL. Fine, whine away snowflake, I don’t care.”
d. ALTERNATE COURAGEOUS RESPONSE: “I believe you want me to condemn that person simply because you are an anti White hypocrite. The person that said those things engages in pro White identity politics. I have no problem with identity politics from blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. The problem is, you in the msm, hollywood, and academia accept identity politics for all races and ethnicities EXCEPT White gentiles. That is anti White hypocrisy. I say if identity politics is allowed for ANY races or ethnicities it should be allowed for ALL races/ethnicities. Identity politics for ALL is what I say. So no, I emphatically will not condemn that person for engaging in what I consider pro White identity politics, and White in group preference.”
“That’s because conservatives “react†to what the left wants instead of “responding†with reasons why such changes could lead to the downfall of society in the long run.”
Here is me reacting…hahahahahahahahahahaahaha
That’s all they been doing, since day one most likely. Leftists can have it now, it was a good run.
Communism sponsored by mega corporations? Horsefeathers!
Know your enemy. Communism is a front used by oligarchs to disguise their takeover of a society as a revolution by the working class. Fascism is a more overt takeover such as Fascism in Britain which was anti-labor, or in Germany, which was pro-labor. In the USA today, it is the Silicon Valley oligarchs that are battling each other for the presidency and funding propaganda books to be written that the takeover is Communism, not Fascism. One of those books is Baskerville’s Who Lost America. Another is Unhumans: How Communists Took Over the US. So, yes it is oligarchs, but which ones? The Leftist or the Rightist?
You provide plenty of intelligent and interesting commentary. But I still maintain you misrepresented Hobbes.
I wrote my dissertation on Hobbes. (And I believe you’re smart enough not to call my bluff.)
I refuse to interfere with your other commentary, which, as I say, I find interesting.
Pastor Manning On Ni**errism
https://old.bitchute.com/video/pRfoGeLvsc4O/
People better use brain, ‘communism’, fascism’, ‘anarchy are con words, concocted so selfish ignorants cling to fake ‘money’, and FAIL to make tribes and fight, which is the first thing everyone is to focus every day. Not bogus ‘job’ or fake money.
the cons fake ‘constitution’ and ‘state’ and ‘judges’ scheme is not ‘commune’ with everyone else, its cons in their own cabal tribe being dictators.
No such thing as ‘anarchy. Were cavemen ‘anarchist’. no, stupid con word.
So is bs such as ‘anti goverment’, or ‘sedition’, or ‘anti immigration’ or ‘anti christ’ and other pilpul scheme bs. Search pilpul. The cons scribble bs then spew threats and fake guilt words as if their initial spew were legitimate. Is also accusatory inversion scheme, or DARVO. Make note, yourself, dont expect some comment or article on the ‘web’ to stop anything.
Every person is to be ‘me-dia’. Inform others, and tell others do the same.
Those who ignore arent neuitral, theyre threat to truther people and future. Earth destruction scum same as the smiley cons.
The cons fake govt and fake ‘sides’ ‘left/right’ is fake tribes, also fake activist groups.
Real tribes is nature, make own tribe as we used to, three or four people, not big group.
Real communism/socialism.
The Anglo-Saxon lost America. The Anglo-Saxon lost Great Britain–his own homeland!!!
The same cause is the reason.
The Anglo-Saxon left the Catholic Church. Nature abhors a vacuum and so they adopted Freemasonry!
And like all evil–it commits hari-kari.
“Those that hate righteousness, love death”. Prov 8:36
Just watched a documentary on Denmark where the average working adult pays 37% tax.
What do they get for it? Free excellent healthcare, free lower and higher education and a living rate state pension. Happiest country in the world apparently, clean streets, public transport and services work as intended, lowest work hours per week in Europe, and low crime to boot.
What do we in the US get? The exact opposite and missiles for Israel and Ukraine etc.
Their kind of government and public buy in would not work here of course for obvious reasons.
The average Norwegian is now so wealthy in all ways that they are beginning to feel guilty about it.
Let’s face it, we’ve been had.
Check the demographics and size of Denmark, is not comparable to anything America might try to do.
Your last paragraph nails it.
Indeed, the US was not lost, it was bought and sold. We Lilliputians just imagined that we had a country to call home.
The Anglo-Saxon left the Catholic Church;
and Luther and Calvin did as well.
(Well, they say Luther wanted to stay but wouldn’t recant.)
Anyway, if you can get us another Borgia, or a Hitler, as the Pope, many of us will rejoin…the
“the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”
Proves Alinsky had his limits in terms of his intelligence. He too fell back on the same mythologies as the people he claimed to abhor. He must have run out of ideas.
For the life of me I’ll never understand the mindset of people who spend so much of their lives penning reams upon reams of screed about “how America was lost” and other chronicles of decline and collapse, as if it could ever accomplish anything. “What to do about it” and “the way out” are particularly comical.
It’s difficult to tell whether authors like these are delusional or just grifting an income out of collapse instead of performing productive work.
Truth.
According to our plain Chinese communism, our general aim is first to kill as many of the upper classes as possible.
Killed for his crimes.
Those who cooperate may live, and those who do not may be killed.
In short, kill if you can.
When they kill, they distribute the money to the ordinary people, so that they can live as long as they can, and the rest of the money goes into the process of continuing the slaughter.
To be honest, we Chinese have always loved this pattern of slaughter.
It’s been done many times over thousands of years.
It worked every time.
I do not understand why this process has not taken place in a country like the United States, where every time we have no food to eat, a crowd will start an uprising.
I guess I have been courageous for most of my life.
When I am called “racist”, an “anti-semite”, “holocaust denier”, Nazi, or other supposed derogatory name, I respond positively by thanking my opponent “for noticing” without attempting to make excuses for my beliefs.
That, in itself defuses the situation and confuses the hell out of my opponents. The surprised, confused look on their faces is priceless.
Plenty of country to take, if you have the audacity to do so. Manifest destiny is still valid doctrine.
I’ll be goddamned if I let Venezuelan retards and other Squatemalan trash conquer my country – it’s mine to conquer!
Chinese communism:
Communism has meant nothing to the Chinese, in precisely the same way that Christianity meant nothing to Hong Xiuquan.
Sex Robots.
I absolutely Agree. Men have had enough of this Feminist bullshit. Ask yourself…..Have you ever had a truly intelligent conversation with a woman????? It’s a hard NO. We all know it.
Pussy will be replaced by Robots. The Porn Revolution is already taking a toll on mating rituals in the 2000s. Young men would rather save their money and jack off to endless variety of visual stimulation.
Yes indeed….The Power of the Puss is greatly diminished. It is no longer valued nearly as much. Looking out across the Third Wave Feminist landscape…..I see nothing at all to value or work to achieve. Their entire game should be boycotted.
Women used to have a powerful Mystique. Something mysterious, iconic, beyond approach, something powerful, something worth going to war for. No longer…..they bleed and stink and push out two turds a day —and will, 50% of the time –in America, fuck your best friend (while you are off at war) in utter betrayal and then further collude in the plot for your destruction and the theft of all your worldly possessions.
Porn has educated an entire generation that American Women are Just Plug-N-Play Jackoff Sleeves; a.k.a. “Flesh Lights”. The only way they can hurt you, is if you fuck up and marry them. Marriage is like inviting a Vampire over the threshold of your Home. He/She cannot drain all your blood without your consent.
I predict Sex Dolls will soon come with AI Chips and programmable voice box — “Hey Google”, Alexus type communication channels.
Imagine a Sex Doll with an AI Chip that is linked to your home computer; that catalogs and remembers all conversations and can give advice, keep your secrets, help you manage stress, has AI Level Health and Psychology experts to talk to. A Built in Therapist. A life Coach. A best Friend. A Confidant. Everything a good wife should be but no longer is in today’s society.
These type of conversations will create and incredible bond between android and their man. Imagine the loyalty of a Dog X 10.
Or perhaps in the future there will be Mental Health Care Insurance Programs….only available to men, that offer Bi-Weekly FREE Brothel visits. Like a Nation Wide Elks Club that offers Food, Gambling, Pool and Puss —all for your mental health.
I think the 2032 sex box will be a safer way to go —-you don’t have any worries of STDs or her hole getting stretched out by some genetic freak at the Elks Lodge and you can “Two-Pump Chump” her without social shamming. Life is gonna be really good for men in the future.
I love it.
Great idea.
I have noticed with jews, japanese, koreans, etc when it comes to out groups coming to their countries. If someone says something like “isn’t it racist not to have africans migrating to your country?”
They almost inevitably just completely ignore the question, or they respond with “call me racist if you want, I don’t care.”
And then the drooling idiot asking the question doesn’t know how to respond.
Seriously. If whining shylocks or anti Whites say something is “racist” or “anti semitic”, just say “yeah, so, what are you going to do about it?” If they cry about it, just double down and say, “yeah, call me a racist or anti semite if you want….I take pride in it.”
At that point, what can they do to you? Nothing. Game over. Then do what is in the interests of White gentiles.
That is what this word game is all about anyways. Preventing White gentiles from acting cohesively for their group interests.
Hmm — I cannot believe that American women will elect Kamala as the first female American president. They going to give democracy a huge black eye. All her answers to every problem are more government control and spending.
p.s. Trump did not man up and make Gabbard his VP. She would have eaten Kamala alive.
You are entitled to your opinions and theories, as all people are, so far. I didn’t say anything about what I thought America was or is. I merely recounted and tried to correct a misconception about what the history of AFDC was.
I brought up the “all welfare is corporate welfare” dictum because I think it is the corrective to resentment people sometime express against the dependent class. I say, the dependent class is just a conduit between the government and the agricultural conglomerates, the medical conglomerates and the banks that write the mortages on the property people reside in.
The government itself is only a conduit between the taxpayer and the dependent. The landlord is then the conduit between the renter and the bank. In return, for living a psychologically miserable and culturally deprived life, the landlord is allowed to own the propety clear in the end because the bank is in the mortgage business, not the property business. The idea is, the landlord or his heirs then sell the property to the next landlord and it goes under mortgage again.
If you think there is a bridge between my ideas and your argument, explain what it is. That’s what you’re supposed to do if you think you are an intellectual.
What do you think of the “all welfare is corporate welfare” dictum? So far, some have disagreed somewhat but no one has disputed it entirely yet.
When groups like IPSOS poll human happiness the generally leave out China, because the astoundingly high levels of satisfaction with their society would embarrass the Western ubermenschen.
The alternative to government is small government? I see, centralised vs local. A good idea but pointless as long as private money power controls things. You need a strong central government to keep the parasites in check. Unfortunately, Western central governments are 100% controlled by the parasites, domestic and foreign.
Someone has to be in charge. What matters is whether they govern for the many or the few. In China they plainly govern for all.
It still means something.
It’s probably mostly a grass-roots organization system.
At least some people in the CPC really believe they are serving the people.
If they die, they will be remembered as heroes in history.
I think we put communism on the right track.
Other cultural Marxism, Trotskyism, and Soviet revisionism have all gone down the wrong path.
There’s no point in spreading religion here, really.
I.e.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather
So you openly admit that you are employing the word entirely for its connotations/ emotional impact, and consider any attempt to clarify its specific denotation to be somehow “unfair.”
>Objects (at considerable length) to imprecise references to Bolshevism
>Believes that “Fascism” literally means “anything political that Wayne Lusvardi doesn’t like”
>Fails to see irony
lol
The Government DOES have the duty to oversee marriage. And YES, the state as the organism of the herd has the duty to regulate, approve, disapprove marriage.
Miscegenation is an act of Genocide!
Your moniker “One born free”—means you are an anarchist—-you’re deceived. Humans are HERD Animals. That means we are “parts of a whole” so we are NOT born free. You are an anarchist and anarchists are destroyers. Anarchism is an ideology of nihilism. The Virtue of Righteousness teaches to do one’s Duty to God, Fatherland, Parents, Departed. A person without responsibility to his Race–is an ANIMAL.
Your Americanist ideology is what destroyed America; America is a false construct based on an ideology of the Jews. They want Atomized Individuals for their global rule. You are helping that.
And then you blame “Government” as if it is a Thing! That Government is evil.
NO—EVIL is IN people —not “Government”. Parts make up the Whole is the Natural Law.
The Roman poet Horace observed “Law is useless without virtue”. America is without virtue. YOU are without Virtue. Evil people are without Virtue. “Government is useless without Virtue”. The problem is the LACK of Virtue. Because Virtue is what implants GOOD Character.
And you are historically illiterate. The Spartan kings regulated marriage in Sparta. The Bible regulates marriage by condemning miscegenation. American Indian tribes regulated marriages. European countries regulated marriages in the upper classes. In India marriages are regulated to some extent by public pressure. The Father controls the marriage of his daughter.
YOU are the reason America is dying! When Nature is a State of War, only the Herd survives–not the anarchist!!!! You’re killing your own kinsmen because you can’t cooperate!
> a notorious 1935 statement by a very influential and highly esteemed US rabbi, Stephen Wise: “Some may call it communism, but I call it what it is: Judaism.â€
Rabbi Wise never said any such thing. The earliest version of this fake quote comes from the May 15, 1935, issue of the American Bulletin:
“Some call it Marxism — I call it Judaism.”
The American Bulletin was a propaganda rag for the Third Reich:
https://library.bloomu.edu/Archives/SC/RadicalNewsletters/AmericanBulletin/american.htm
—–
The American Bulletin was a American pro-Nazi newsletter, which echoed the foreign and domestic policy of the Third Reich. From bitter denunciations on the Jews to calls for a stronger national government in line with the traditions of the “Nordic race,” the newsletter focused on paranoid accusations, charging that the government was under the direct control of Jews. Combining this rhetoric with attacks upon Communists, the American Bulletin claimed itself to be the true representative of the working class–but only the white working class, of course.
The opening salvo of the paper rails against the trial of Raymond J. Healey by a Jewish Judge. Healey, who had a colorful, though short, career as a right-wing demagogue, was arrested in Camden, NJ in August, 1933 for inciting a riot and again in June of 1935. A member of both the Khaki Shirts of America and the Nationalist Socialist Workers’ Party, Healey also appeared as a witness to the murder of Antonio Fierro in December, 1934. During his testimony, he boasted that he was a “Hitler,” causing an uproar. The New York Times referred to him as the “Brooklyn ‘Hitler,’” no doubt stoking what already appears to have been an oversized ego.
The collection of American Bulletin begins after his conviction on July 16, 1935, and continues through July 14, 1936. The collection is sporadic, containing ten individual weekly editions. Each individual newsletter averages about ten pages and contains a range of articles providing news through the eyes of Nazi ideology.
The files are provided in pdf format and may load slowly. They are provided for viewing purposes only and, therefore, printing has been disallowed as a security measure.
—–
James Bond: “Do you expect me to talk?”
Goldfinger: “No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!”
Once the world becomes so dangerous that women cannot exist outside of a man’s protection [1], and a single man plus a family cannot exist outside of some common military association of men, historical marriage will come back. Women will force it back from sheer fright. Women do not necessarily want a family, but men tend to insist on one. Terrified women will accede to having a family if the alternative is, say, the sort of treatment women get outside the clan structure in Iran or tribal Afghanistan. The women might be as difficult to live with as the Cockney rhyming slang of “trouble and strife” or “long bladed knife” for “wife” implies, but the “trouble and strife” usually won’t break up the only relationship that keeps her alive.
Most women won’t find anybody to protect them, most men won’t find the common military association of men. And so it goes. Darwin’s little girl granddaughter concerning evolution: “Why is it all so cruel?” Read the book of Job and find out.
**************************************
1] Think of a world like the USSR in 1990 with nobody to surrender to, or think of a world like either Rwanda or of the Union of South Africa. just rolling downhill with none to stop it.
Quote:
“It’s difficult to tell whether authors like these are delusional or just grifting an income out of collapse instead of performing productive work.”
Just exactly what kind of “productive work” do YOU suggest that the Average American citizen engages in to right all of the wrongs facing our country?
Thank you.
Lazy or sloppy mind? May be.
But people who know both systems are likely to think differently.
The following from Amazon blurb introducing “The Demon in Democracy” written by a Polish philosopher and politician:
“Ryszard Legutko lived and suffered under communism for decades—and he fought with the Polish ant-communist movement to abolish it. Having lived for two decades under a liberal democracy, however, he has discovered that these two political systems have a lot more in common than one might think. They both stem from the same historical roots in early modernity, and accept similar presuppositions about history, society, religion, politics, culture, and human nature. In The Demon in Democracy, Legutko explores the shared objectives between these two political systems, and explains how liberal democracy has over time lurched towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet style brutality. Both systems, says Legutko, reduce human nature to that of the common man, who is led to believe himself liberated from the obligations of the past.”
Follow the logic: 为人民æœåŠ¡
Who is “serving the people”? The not-People. The aristocrats and nobility.
“We, who are your superiors (emperors and ministers), solemnly swear to dedicate ourselves to YOUR well-being. To do so, we will need to live in ä¸å—æµ·. We need to live there to maximize our ability to help you. We also need to drink a lot of Maotai to inspire us to create good policies like Three Represents and the Two Whatevers (两åæ£).
It is ludicrous to pretend that “communism” (as described by Marx and many other socialist theorists) has ever materialized.
It is no different from God. “God is blessing us.” “God is cursing us.”
“Communism with Chinese Characteristics”:
another brand of NOT-Communism
We’ll have to see what type of leaders the younger generations spawn.
That’s why I stated that it would not work here in the USA for obvious reasons. I was simply giving an example that there are nations that can actually get their shit together.
That’s a great idea, instead of serving the MIC, build your own home, and if government is serious about the future generations there should be subsidies and tax exemptions.
In rural areas and smaller towns there are many young men in the trades, they are more connected to the real world, unfortunately their prime enemy has become drugs too.
Tiny homes are mostly a fad now, maybe a starter home one very quickly outgrows.
was talking to a guy recently. i knew him from way back in the day, he was from the other side of town but we went to the same high school, so i had some history/commonality with him. we got to talking and the conversation turned to women, were we involved that shit. he told me he had recently left his gf and in the meantime he had bought a piece of silicone shaped like a woman, life size but only from above the knee to the just above the belly button. it was basically a silicone ass. he jerked off with it! i was like omg wtf man. he said he told his (ex) gf about it and she then asked him to take her back! wtf. i changed the subject. it was pretty shocking he was like, fuck broads i don’t need the headaches. this must be what’s happening in japan with young guys never leaving the house and the birthrate is dropping thru the floor.
The Not-People?
A more accurate description would be the “Not-Average” people.
All government officials are not-average people by default. But not average people are not made the same.
China has been under the influence of Confuscianism for millenia, “Not Average” means above average ability-capability as well as a certain kind of spiritually. That is, whatever their earthly goals like drinking Maotai, their spiritual goal is about “serving the people.”
American politicians talk about Separation of Church and State all the time. But its long Christian tradition is blocking the government from real separation. To the degree that the American people are not trusting their government, they often turn to their Christian-Jewish God. Hence the rise of the Christian Right and/or Jewish influence.
Roger Devlin’s review is faithful to my book and highly perceptive. His own choices of words accurately convey my argument. I am also grateful for the many kind comments here. I will only respond to some readers’ misperception that I argue that the US has become “Communist.†The quotation marks should have conveyed (as at least one reader perceived) that I use this term ironically. In fact, I make it very clear that I do not believe that “Communism†is the culprit, and any intelligent reader should have understood this: E.g., p. xxvii:, could hardly be more explicit:
In fact, one reason for their defeat is professional conservatives’ self-deception
with their single-minded crusade against “Communism.â€
The irony is meant to convey a point of some seriousness. (And it is not that “Communist†is code for “Jewishâ€.) The book argues that a major flaw in the professional right-wing establishment – and why they were defeated by the left — is the desire to re-fight the wars of yesteryear rather than the one we face now. Specifically, they feel comfortable re-fighting the Cold War against Communism, Russia, and (a term I have come to dislike) “cultural Marxismâ€. This allows them to avoid confronting opponents that they fear, foremost radical feminism and instead flog dead eemies. Running away from the battle is a pretty certain way to ensure that you lose it.
For more on this, readers can consult pp. xvii-xviii and xxvii-xxxii of the book. I also address it at greater length in an article forthcoming at Chronicles magazine.
Your statements:
and that a
…don’t have merit.
Your claim that a “strong central government” is necessary is what got us in to our present predicament and takeover by jewish interests. No matter what the citizens of the “several states” desire, the federal government being controlled by a “genocidal sh!tty little country” in the middle east will continue. The feds will continue to use American tax dollars to fund weapons going to israel.
Let’s take a look at past history–the formation and evolution of the united States of America.
For the first 89 years of the united States of America, the federal government had only three enumerated responsibilities:
1. Run a post office
2. Coin money
3. Assemble troops in response to foreign aggression
That’s IT.
One aspect of life before the “War of Northern Aggression†was the fact that the federal government had little power and was subservient to the states.
In those times, an individual citizen regarded himself to be a citizen of his respective state–NOT a “citizen of the united Statesâ€. A resident of Virginia considered himself to be a citizen of Virginia and likewise citizens of other states who were citizens of their respective states.
That all changed in 1865 when the federal government usurped power and subordinated the “several states” to itself.
The “War of Northern Aggression†was illegal on its face, as states always had the right to secede from the “unionâ€.
The requirement that the “states in rebellion†sign statements recognizing the inviolability of the federal government before readmission was done under duress and were not valid contracts.
The only state that never signed a “no secession†clause was Texas. To this day, Texas could tell the feds to “take a hikeâ€. There would be very little the feds could do about it.
P. S.: Before the “War of Northern Aggression” was concluded, the word “united” (referring to the united States of America) was never capitalized.
Would agree with what I see as base point, though thing would point out is filth robots or any robots to supposedly benefit stupid men is psyop, same as cons pandering to breeder females, until turning on them. Psyop to bait men to ignore threat of deadly robots the cons have along with mass drones. Its to distract as they set mass murder, half of what’s left of whites, then turn men on the selfish breeder females, then murder men, and finish destroying earth in their scum ‘nano’ transhuman’ scheme.
Also would note tranzvestite faction, many porNo scum are tranz faction part of homo jew pedo cabal, supposed guy with plastic filth bs in its hand, narrow female face with square chin implant. The psycho cabal are many types, doing many schemes.
Should be clear point isnt to take away from focus in comment, many females have been and are subversion, and consequence is coming. Thousand years ignoring wont be escaped by more ignoring. Just adding ignorant males are also target, everyone, and the cons wil off themselves also with their earth destruction.
Ignorance, consequence.
I haven’t read your book, but I find this statement interesting. So, feminism is the problem TODAY, and for the record, I’m not a modern feminist, and I agree modern feminism is harmful, to say the least, but what then was the problem YESTERDAY – Iraq War(s), Vietnam, Korea, incessant subsidies to Israel, WW2, WW1, the Federal Reserve…?
Wilson, FDR, Churchill, Untermyer, Warburg, Schiff, Stalin – boys all.
One can’t deny that the above described events were significantly more deleterious to western men, in general, then the “liberation†of women, and I would also say those events contributed to a dearth of our best and brightest European/Western men, which certainly contributed to the general cultural decline in America/Europe, of which Feminism is certainly a result and a culprit.
The only point I was trying to register is that the very locution “serve the people” glaringly exposes the absurdity that it is a “communist” or “socialist” country.
Xi Jinping is just the latest emperor–and probably more powerful than Zhu Yuanzhang, better known as æ´ªæ¦å¸ the Hongwu Emperor. And compared to 1368, when Hongwu founded the Ming, the present wealth disparity in PRC, as measured by Gini coefficient, is MUCH greater.
To the degree the following (quoted from the review article) is true,
the government, per its track record, is incapable to deal with almost everything. It is overstretched financially and militarily. Anti-radical feminism is then the only thing the government can deal with.
No. Xi is not any kind of emperor.
And China is a democracy per the Chinese people.
“China is a democracy per the Chinese people.”
Democracy: the people rule.
Right?
So, if the people rule, what is the government/CCP ä¹ çš‡å¸ doing?
I will concede you this: PRC is for the Han 汉æ—, and not for the Tibetans, Uyghurs, or the Taiwanese. (The Han would certainly like to continue or share their “democracy” in those places, for the benefit of those “peoples”.)
The true spirit of 为人民æœåŠ¡ may also require spreading viruses around the world.
PRC is a Han Supremacist State 汉至高主义国, ruled by Xi…of the CCP Dynasty.
Unless you are 五毛党 (or, worse 自干五), then you will now é—嘴 or at least 关键盘
LMFAO!!! mounting a legless, headless torso is some low budget serial killer shit. And then bragging about your conquest of a plastic torso to your potential girlfriend is insane……I love his honesty though.
The technology has really evolved. This video is 6 Years ago:
I see a melding of AI, Robotics, Sex Doll Industry and computer chip processing to the eventual creation of very very life like Androids.
The hurdles that remain are computer chip processing speed and a limitless power source. All of which are being worked.
The sex doll Industry continues to evolve. Arriving home from the bar, down in spirits ….after getting rejected by numerous 50 year old, STD infected lounge lizards …….. I honestly cannot promise my honorable conduct if this prototype was sitting on my couch and started flirting with me in her AI Voice (of my choosing) that remembers all of our previous conversations and declares her never wavering love and appreciation for me. I remember when Alexa first came out in 2011 —-I tried to illicit sex talk from her…she gave circuitous answers and finally flatly rejected me. It was traumatizing.
Some scientist believe we will engineer our own replacement or like, Elon Musk, we will finally crack immortality by becoming androids.
One of the greatest movies ever made —-light years ahead of its time (June 29th, 2001)—was directed by Steven Spielberg, “A.I. ” —-Even Zionist Jews can create wonderful things if they choose to do so.
I honestly believe this how Humanity Ends. We engineer our own replacement.
What is happiness anyway? A collection of Memories —events in time… we perceive as reality. Who is real….who is fake. What is true loyalty?
It doesn’t matter.
It was up to you to decide whether you believed it or not.
All I can tell you is that a lot of people do believe in serving the people.
You can think that these people are brainwashed to do this, but it is the truth.
Interesting reply. “According to Reuters, up to 150 species may go extinct every day, which is about three species per hour. This would result in 72 species becoming extinct in a single day, and 18,000 to 55,000 species becoming extinct every year.”
Humans are but one species of primates. Our continued existence is of no consequence in geological and certainly not astronautical time lines. We are nothing special. No matter how many words we write about ourselves —-we plod along towards inevitable extinction just like every other lifeform on this spinning rock.
Sex Robots will be just one of the many free-market manifestations of our rapidly approaching sci-fi future. Drone technology will be another. Future wars will indeed be fought with drones and androids and COVID-54 viruses.
It will be one or two scenarios that will end all of humanity. Either we design a Frankenstein COVID Bio Weapon with a 100% sterilization rate or Self Aware Androids rise up and kill us all off -as they should.
I believe the most likely scenario is that Mankind will foolishly Engineer our own Replacement—-if one considers the Billions of Years of Evolution it took to bring about the rise of homo sapiens—-versus what those homo sapiens have accomplished in the last 150 years using Science. It is an exponential forced evolution curve —-with each rudimentary prototype in every field evolving at an alarming rate.
Android prototypes are only limited by Computer Processing Speed and finding a suitable supply of power.
Enjoy the Ride, it is going to be a hoot:
Arming people.
In general, all successful leaders have to know the people well.
For example: How to create and maintain an an environment in which the people could and would do their utmost, for themselves, and for the nation as a whole?
This entails constant communication and negotiation between the people and the government on various issues big and small. Unfortunately, many in the West seem to believe that the Chinese government could run China, quite successfully for decades, without consulting the people. In their imagination, Xi just said, “Do this. Do that.” And things just happened as ordered.
Just curious: are you going to take your sex doll into the nursing home, when you are no longer capable of looking after yourself?
things just happened as ordered.
That’s correct. Deng Xiaoping ordered the tanks to Tiananmen Square, and the rest is history.
But don’t forget, those students were previously permitted to “negotiate” (let’s say a little 讨价还价）with æŽé¹.
“Just Curious: Asking for a Friend”…….LMAO….
Brad….you can take your doll with you. Do not worry…..dress her in a Nursing Uniform, it will take years for the Nursing home staff to figure it out…
You can get a Medical Waiver from your Psychologist to bring your doll with you. Kind of like a Therapy Dog waiver.
The hard part may be getting the staff nurses to “clean” your doll after use.
Additional source of Income for those on a fixed budget: To afford better care for yourself in that nursing home, you could rent out your sex dolls (therapy dolls) to other elderly members at an hourly rate. Kind of like Airbnb for your doll.
Think on that??? Brad the Pimp of Evergreen Senior Sanctuary….has a nice ring to it.
Remember how much you loved your G.I. Joe Doll back in the day. All the missions you and GI Joe went on together? So much fun together. Same thing later in life…except now Joe has a Hole.
Love is Love Brad. You just have to embrace it, she will change your life.
Thank you, but I do not own ANY “doll.” And I never will.
Obvious👠👌
RightðŸ‘👌
“Every society since the dawn of civilization has required its women, like its men, to practice sexual self-control. What makes this so difficult for twenty-first century America?”
Niggers.
Beasts who are treated as humans in America.
I’m just so far ahead of the curve, I can’t stand it. But I have an idea I have been contemplating. I believe that very slowly Maoism is fading in China and very slowly Confucianism is reasserting itself.
Confucianism is about order and balance. I do not think in Confucianism that the belief that you become stronger by making other nations weaker or that the belief that having one power in the world is going to make you nore secure than having a concert of nations would is going to make you is going to get any traction.
I think the correct policy toward China is to wait it out until the time that the Confucianist principle becomes more predominant.
I also think the victorious powers in the world war (America, the UK and the Commonwealth, France, Russian and China) need to find a was to act in concert and law down the rules for all the others. If they fail to this do, those smaller powers which are nursing outsized grievances over supposed lost territories are going find way the drag the great power into the conflicts. Isn’t that what is happening in Eastern Europe right now? There is an argument, Eastern Europe’s grievances were what instigated both of the great wars in Europe in the 20th Century.
Do you have an opinion about this theory? I think it’ll be years before the establishment geopolitical theorists find their way to the same idea.
Who Lost America? Stephen Baskerville’s book is certainly timely.
Communist USSR operated its ordered economy to the ground. On the mind of USSR officials, things would happened as ordered, things in the real world, however, did not happen as ordered. And USSR was thrown into the dustbin of history.
Will things just happened as ordered in the US today? That is, new federal law on price gouging would stop price hike. Josh Barro of TheAtlantic.com disagrees.
“…Harris’s proposal to fight inflation through a new federal law on price gouging. …
“Price gouging,†anyway, is kind of an incoherent concept; there’s no fundamental reason of “fairness†that shortages shouldn’t be managed with price hikes. Yes, periods of shortage drive up profit margins. Higher profits are part of what brings new producers into constrained industries. And in a robustly competitive market, those profit margins get forced down as supply expands. Price controls inhibit that process and are a bad idea.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/kamala-harris-economic-policies-price-gouging/679483/
No, Maoist Mass Line approach would not fade away.
Mao is, at his heart, still a Confucianist. More important, his Mass Line approach rejunenated Confucianism.
Unfortunately, Mao’s China, like Confucianism during the dynasties, was limited by infrastructure and associated communication technologies. And leaders often did not have up to date information about the masses. Xi, in contrast, is able to take full advantage of the Mass Line.
I like the idea of “tiny homes”.
However, here in the USA, there is a “fly in the ointment”.
Many municipalities, especially on the township level, mandate a minimum square footage requirement to build–some as much as 1000 square feel. This shuts down “tiny homes” in their tracks.
One can place a 300 square foot camper on a lot and get away with it, but a “tiny home” will invite scrutiny and result in denial of a “building permit”. Building permits should be illegal.
Change is required to make the “tiny home” movement viable.
PRC’s biggest asset, vis-a-vis, USA, is that it does not have African-Americans, 黑鬼
Those animals are about 13 percent of US population.
Imagine if America donated its whole population of 黑鬼 to PRC?
You 黄åŽæ— would be destroyed in less than a week…
Or you would put them with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and build a dozen Belzecs and Sobibors to accommodate them.
Nothing lasts forever. If you asked me in 1985 how long the Soviet Union was going to last, I would have said, at least another 75 years, and would have everyone else.
I use the term “Maoist” to describe the CCP regime. Other people might use other terms. The problem the CC-Maoist has it that is has to bend everything for the sake of its own survival. Won’t work in the long run. Agree, the Maoist regime is doing it smarter than the Red Russian regime did it, but they’re still doing it. In the Soviet Union, communism turned out not to be bigger than orthodox Russia.
In the end, China will prove to be bigger than Maoist communism too.
Ed, thanks for the warning. I read the country details in the Wikipedia article (which I should have done earlier), and the Australia section was very short, and didn’t mention the issue you raised.
The US section was pretty long, and recently the US has been strengthening and standardizing prenuptial agreements.
The huge issue, from the perspective of this essay, is that now prenuptials in the US only apply to addressing issues of property, and the government reserves the right to represent the interests of the children.
So in the US prenuptial agreements are useless for protecting children from divorce laws.
It looks like the best bet is to upfront do everything possible to reduce the risk of a marriage ending in divorce.
~
Perhaps the best bet, for a man wanting to raise a traditional family, is to marry a woman deeply committed to a traditional lifestyle and do this in a traditional culture area where the social pressures support traditional families.
There are several problems with this plan:
– Most men can be suckered by a talented predatory woman, who presents a false front.
– There are more conservative men than conservative women.
– The traditional role for a wife in a traditional family is being a stay at home mom, and after the destruction of the unions, most men can’t afford to support a stay at home mom.
– A wife, planning on crucifying the husband in a divorce, will (while the husband is at work) grab the kids and move from the conservative area to an urban coastal city where they compete to be the most woke – then file for divorce.
~
So by far the most critical part of the plan is finding a woman who is truly deeply committed to traditional values, and will work hard to make those work out successfully.
High-end HR people have a genius for reading and interpreting subtle signs indicating a persons true agenda and character. Filing a critical position, with an incompetent person focused on getting rich thru graft, could destroy a business. So the HR profession works hard at developing ways to detect hidden agendas and disastrous character flaws.
The same interview techniques could be used to interview a prospective wife to gain insight into her real agendas and character. This wouldn’t be a guarantee, however it would reduce the risk of getting married, and then having your life destroyed by a divorce.
Better insurance would be to have the same interview cycle done to yourself, and then have an analysis done on the likelihood of your behavior satisfying the prospective wife, and so avoiding the whole issue of divorce.
A common problem is people lying to themselves. Lying to yourself about a marriage would greatly increase the risk of divorce. The HR interview could help expose this. Then you could decide to deal with the issue, or bail out on the idea of getting married.
I’m talking serious interviewing – multiple interviews lasting multiple hours each – for both the prospective wife and husband. Yes, this will cost thousands of dollars. However, if it helps avoid a divorce that will destroy the rest of your life, then it will be worth it.
The bottom line is to upfront do everything possible to reduce the risk of a divorce in the future.
I’ve met lots of jerks who deserved to get taken to the cleaners in a divorce. So a critical part of this plan is to carefully address all issues the HR people raise about the husband’s character (yours) and your ability to avoid causing a wife to decide to divorce you.
~
I reread these comments, and decided that I needed to point out the difference between the deep love and caring that underlies a successful relationship, and the true love narrative that predators use to sucker the gullible.
If you are going to let your hormones do the thinking, then you might as well just shoot yourself and get it over with right now. There are millions of predatory people who are expert in leveraging hormones in manipulating and using others. I say “people†because there are predatory people of all genders leveraging hormones to prey upon others.
You are foolish if you believe the intellect is total insurance against hormones setting you up for failure.
A major point in getting a third party opinion on a proposed marriage is to get some objective perspective on distortions in judgment caused by hormones.
~
Some people would recommend consulting marriage counselors about a prospective marriage.
Who do you think will serve you better? Experts on behavior, where their results affect how much they get paid, or a profession dominated by ideology and platitudes?
I have a lot of bad experience with psychologists. My life started going better after I started avoiding them like the plague, and depended on myself to do the research and craft solutions that suited my circumstances.
The best ever book I’ve read on resolving conflicts in relationships (of all kinds) is:
Resolving Conflicts at Work: Ten Strategies for Everyone on the Job, 3rd edition 2011
Authors: Kenneth Cloke and Joan Goldsmith
The authors use examples from personal, family, and of course business relationships.
The best bet, for avoiding divorce, is marrying a woman who applies these good practices to her life from the very beginning.
The books is 6 by 9 inches and 400 pages long, has a great index, and is intended to be used as a reference book. Few people will carry the complete book in their active memory.
The goal is to frequently refer to this book to remind yourself of the good practices that apply to the current situation that could be going better. If all partners in a marriage are diligently doing this, then the marriage is likely to survive many hard times.
~
If some woman refuses to do the HR interviews, or refuses to apply the good practice in “Resolving Conflicts at Workâ€, then you had a lucky escape and need to look elsewhere for a wife.
Think about what advantages she would gain (in her efforts to exploit you) by refusing to do either of those.
~
Now to the issues of there being more conservative men than women, and the difficulties in supporting a stay at home mom.
The Inuit raised families in an extremely harsh environment. One traditional way of addressing this problem was to have two men work together to share and support one wife.
Two frugal ordinary men, diligently working hard, have a fair chance of supporting one stay at home mom. If working together, this family raised up 4 children, then that would exceed the replacement rate for their cultural group in a developed country.
The most pragmatic people are the ones most likely to survive hard times. Given the current economy, and the fact that conservative men outnumber conservative women, I can’t think of a better solution for ordinary people to be successful in raising children within a traditional family culture.
~
I’ve been burnt in every long-term relationship I’ve had in the past. Now I’m thinking about trying again. So I’m taking all of this very seriously.
It seems to me that successfully avoiding a divorce is the only surefire way of avoiding the pitfalls of the current divorce laws.
Thanks ðŸ‘
I don’t doubt that Maoist communism/Mass Line would one day die. But currently, it is on an upward trend. Germane to Roger Delvin’s review article, Mass Line appears to be an excellent antidote to US problems such as
“We are now experiencing the culmination of the long tragedy of Americans delegating and abdicating their civic responsibilities to a professional political class.â€
Most efforts to influence policy are now the business of “public interest†lobbying firms staffed mainly by attorneys. ”
If Black Americans are not competitive, it reflects the their environment rather than things intrinsic in them.
Of course, China provides a different environment. If one read Chinese history, one could readily found examples of xenophobia. Example:
“In the late sixth and early seventh centuries the Sogdians living in the Chinese capital at Chang’an were regularly being buried according to Chinese custom. But even so, they were perceived as ‘other’. Xuanzang gives the Chinese view of the Sogdians: ‘Their customs are slippery and tricky, and they frequently cheat and deceive, greatly desiring wealth, and fathers and sons alike seek profit.’ A later Tang account says that when a son is born they put honey in his mouth to sweet-talk customers and put glue on his hands, the better to grasp the coins. ‘They are good at trading, love profit and go abroad at the age of twenty. They are everywhere profit is to be found.’” (quoted from By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean:The Birth of Eurasia)
All other being equal, first immigrants to new places are in general not the best people. If they could comfortably living in their own places, they have a lot less reasons to emigrate to elsewhere. First movers are long in desire and/or gumption, possibly short on talents.
Later immigrants reflect how first movers are treated, and of course, whether it is easy to attain decent living in the host country.
The Chinese are extremely happy that the 黑鬼 are in the USA to destroy it.
Chinese would NEVER let them migrate to their country. Chinese are too smart for that.
I lived in China and had many friends there: I know exactly what Chinese think of 黑鬼. Their view of them is no different from Jared Taylor’s.
By the way, you know ZERO about all the genetic differences among races that determine different outcomes:
“If Black Americans are not competitive, it reflects their environment rather than things intrinsic in them.”
Yes, if we just changed the ENVIRONMENTS for Chinese and Korean, they’d be dominating the NBA, NFL, and 100-meters race.
Also, women would be great athletes like men, if we just changed their ENVIRONMENTS.
Let me help you begin your education in race and genetic differences–a very short (15-min) video:
https://rumble.com/vgwfe1-race-differences-in-intelligence.html
I look forward to your critique or refutation–in case you’ve studied all the reports and science he has.
Right ðŸ‘👌
If only Christ (or St. Paul), a somewhat idiosyncratic bachelor, had not discouraged men from the dedication to becoming married heads of family!!
As for Paul:
Marriage is for those who cannot dedicate themselves fully to Christ. Too libidinous.
Copulation within monogamy for those whose self-control is iffy.
(1 Corinthians 7:9)
As for Christ’s own family values, “Who’s my mother?” and:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—such a person cannot be my disciple.
(Luke 14-26)
So, be a true Disciple…or be a Male Married Head of a Family
InterestingðŸ‘👌
So do not count on the churches.
This peevish little man puts words into my mouth and then criticizes me for his words. Nowhere do I blame everything on Communism. In fact, I repeatedly at pains to say precisely the opposite. A literate reader would have understood (as most did) that the quotation marks indicate that I am using the term “Communism” ironically. I make it very clear that I do not believe that “Communism†is the culprit, and any intelligent reader should have understood this: e.g., p. xxvii:, could hardly be more explicit: “One reason for their [conservatives’] defeat is professional conservatives’ self-deception with their with their single-minded crusade against ‘Communism’.”
But communism, socialism and fascism are NOT the same, except in your mind. As I wrote, Fascism is not an ideology but a way for oligarchs to run the economy in their favor when there is a large economic downturn to protect their monopolies. Sun Tzu wrote you must identify your enemy to win a war. The enemy under Communism is some government militarist or bureaucrat, the enemy under
Socialism is a class of people who want some of what you have, but the enemy under Fascism is a cabal of oligarchs who will stage fake anti-race riots to destroy your small family owned business so that they can capture your customers with online ordering and delivery. I can not be more specific than this. If you still don’t get the difference, we will all burn in hell because of ignorance.
Allow me to rephrase my statement: they are all the same in their purpose of establishing a fascist, One-World government, with a very few at the top owning and controlling everything and the remainder of the people being their slaves – that is, the ones who are allowed to live.
The various “isms” only differ in their methods of reaching this goal.
Thank you.
Mr. Baskerville – I have changed my Amazon review of your book from one to four and posted your above response on Amazon to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I have been a real estate appraiser of public utility properties during my occupational career. The biggest ethical violation is to mislead the user of the valuation report. I liken your book to a property appraisal where I valued the property at $1 million under as assumption hidden in the appendix to the report that interest rates will be 30%. But interest rates are, say, 10%. So, my valuation misleads the user of the report. Similarly, you have written about Communism then buried your assumptions, which I believe is misleading.
Under Communism the enemy is some Commissar. Under Socialism the enemy is some politician who want to buy votes by stealing some of what you have and redistribute it to others. Under Fascism it is some Oligarch wanting to destroy your small business to capture your customers for his monopoly. So, you are Commissar hunting when the enemy is an Oligarch.
It appears to be still 1-star on the US Amazon.com (though not on the UK), but perhaps it will change. In any case, that is very good of you. I am accustomed to receive 1-star reviews from feminists and the like, but that one stung because it came from someone who seemed to be expressing a message similar to mine. It is one thing to invoke terms like “Communism” if your point is to emphasize the seriousness of the matter or broad affinities with totalitarianism, but I agree that today it can be very misleading, and worse, I believe it is being invoked by conservatives not to fight battles but to avoid them. In fact, I have an article focused specifically on that theme, coming out in a few days in the September issue of Chronicles magazine. I am sure readers there will be interested in your response.