- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Julian Assange’s Political Honeytrap

By Stephen Baskerville

[1]The impending extradition of Julian Assange on obviously trumped-up sex charges brings the new politics of sex into vivid relief. As with the tribulations of Silvio Berlusconi, there is more here than meets the media’s eye.

The Swedes call such ordeals sexfalla, or “honeytraps,” where women use sexual charms as a weapon against men who wrong them. The men who succumb to such wiles may deserve what they get, but when such a sexual drama becomes ensnared with law and politics, the rest of us have an interest in the matter. Assange, in his public and private life, may be far from admirable. But conservatives eager to cast the first stone might consider how Assange’s experience is becoming the experience of us all.

Assange’s biography reads like a textbook of the sexual revolution. Even sketchy accounts of Assange’s life illustrate how extensively his ordeal has been shaped throughout by the new sexual order.

change_me

First, Assange’s freewheeling and sexually liberated mother, through divorce, deprived him of a father and a stable home, thus ensuring him his share of the problems now well known to accompany such upbringings. In Assange’s case, this seems to have set him on the course of a kind of global nomad, lacking firm attachment to family, home, community, country, or God. His own marriage likewise turned out to be another honeytrap, as marriage has become for millions of men, with the government confiscation of his own son and a prolonged legal battle with the Western democracies’ most corrupt and authoritarian machinery—one designed to neuter, eliminate, and criminalize “male chauvinist” fathers. By several accounts, this was the defining moment in his adult life, leaving him (like many other men) intensely embittered against all government. His experience with the feminist divorce apparat also seems to have diverted his leftist upbringing into a more libertarian distrust of all authority.

We can dismiss this with standard euphemisms about a “nasty divorce” and “ugly custody battle” and smear him, as some conservatives seem eager to do, with sneers about his “failed marriage.” But there is no need for armchair psychology to see that Assange is yet another product of our great experiment with single parenthood.

Nor do we need conspiracy theories to realize that Assange’s current prosecution is very political indeed, though less in the way the left wants to see it than in the way the left itself has made it. Once again Assange has fallen into the clutches of the sisterhood. Indeed, if his arrest did not involve US pressure, its politicization is all the more serious.

For it is not a conspiracy, but a vindication of an ancient truth. Men fool themselves that their high political machinations determine the fates of nations. Meanwhile, “the hand that rocks the cradle”… Here as elsewhere, feminists have not eliminated gender “stereotypes” so much as they have politicized them.

It is hardly conspiratorial that American officials and Swedish prosecutrixes have entered a marriage of convenience using the silver bullet of political prosecutions: fabricated sex charges.
How do I know they are fabricated? Anyone familiar with the politics of the feminist rape industry [2] can immediately spot the setup, and the New York Times, one of the mouthpieces of that industry, makes it very plain [3].

“When Julian Assange…asked two Swedish women out on dates in August, he may not have known that Swedish laws protecting women in their sexual encounters include wide-ranging definitions of sexual assault and rape.” Translation: Laws against “rape” have nothing to do with actual rapes. Repeatedly the Times bends over backwards to disguise the reality that rape law is political, its purpose to criminalize men regardless of actual culpability. “Swedish prosecutors who want to question him on whether separate sexual encounters he had with each of the women became nonconsensual after he was no longer using a condom.” Translation: The women clearly consented, but feminist prosecutors are charging him anyway.

As if to emphasize the politics of rape prosecutions, the Times adds that “female empowerment – economic, social, and also legal — has a different quality in Sweden than in other countries.” In other words, rape law is so politicized that it can convict innocent men with no fear of scrutiny by journalistic watchdogs. The Times admits that “Sweden’s current criminal code is not much stricter on sexual offenses than those of other European countries” or the US, where miscarriages of justice over rape are routine, if not out of control. One need only glance at the cases of various innocence projects (or a daily newspaper) to see that almost all consist of rape trumped-up charges.

The Times account is an open admission that feminist rape laws constitute a standing miscarriage of justice designed to criminalize men, as is now on full display. Not content with this, the feminist gestapo “contend that the definition of rape should be expanded to include situations in which a woman does not explicitly say no to sex, but clearly signals her opposition in other ways.” This manipulation of law to debase the language and create criminals already operates in the US.

Accounts of Assange’s experience bear out the politics very clearly: His first accuser is a professional feminist. “While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protégée of a militant feminist -academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’,” according to the Daily Mail [4]. “Fighting male discrimination in all forms…was her forte.”

Along with the other accuser, she enlisted a prominent “gender lawyer” and “leading supporter of a campaign to extend the legal -definition of rape to help bring more [alleged?] rapists to justice.” Her website offered “7 Steps to Legal Revenge,” advising women how easily they can use trumped-up accusations to punish men for personal hurts. After the “rape” the woman had sex with her “rapist” again and threw a party for him, while the other accuser cooked him breakfast.

In short, there is not a shred of evidence that Assange raped anyone and very clear indications that he did not. Assange himself sees into whose trap he fell: “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,” he tells the Sunday Times. “I fell into a hornets’ nest of revolutionary feminism.”

Even some feminists are embarrassed. In a satirical piece in The Huffington Post, Naomi Wolf writes, “As a feminist, I am also pleased that the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings. That’s what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!”

Wolf’s sisters responded by castigating her for “trivializing rape,” another confirmation that the trumped-up charges against Assange are nothing exceptional but part of the standard feminist modus operandi against men without the publicity or leftist support Assange enjoys.

Indeed, what Wolf is trivializing is not rape but men imprisoned for crimes not simply that they did not commit, but that everyone knows did not happen. The women are not using only “feminist-inspired rhetoric”; they are using the criminal charges, which imprison the innocent for decades.

There was no rape, and everyone knows there was no rape. Yet everyone involved from the left to the right has political reasons for implying there might have been, for pretending to see the emperor’s clothes, for blurring the distinction between innocence and guilt, between truth and falsehood.

Thus we all become part of the brave new post-modern world where words can be deconstructed to mean whatever we want them to mean, where there is no objective truth and we all — prompted most likely by political motives — follow the truth that is “right for us.” It is hardly surprising if our governments follow our lead and legislate the meaning of words and “findings of fact” to create their own reality and make us all criminals. As usual, one deconstructed reality (what used to be called a “lie”) necessitates another, until our political agendas require that we remain silent as we watch innocent men being led away in handcuffs.

Thus we all trade virtue (literally, one hesitates to point out, “manhood”) to become operatives of the servile state. And then we all have the hubris to claim we are defending freedom.

But this is the disposition of lackeys and tyrants, where brave men are cowed into abject silence by feminists wielding government power, and where everyone finds it handy to have a criminal charge available to pin on anyone who hurts our feelings or threatens our power.

This is more than a sideline to national security. National secrets are kept ostensibly to protect our freedom. But servility cannot sustain freedom. A society that averts its eyes and holds its tongue as criminal charges become political weapons will not maintain freedom long.

Do the ends here justify the means? Perhaps, but in that case it is much healthier to be straightforward about it. If the US government determined that Assange truly threatened national security, methods exist to deal with him quietly. The international political environment is lawless enough that eliminating nuisances is often the only option, without the sanctimonious pretence that principles other than power and self-interest are in play.

That is part of international espionage, and anyone in Assange’s business knows the risks. (Assange’s prototype may not be the glamorous James Bond, as some suggest, but Alec Leamas, the spy manipulated by forces beyond his control.) Such expedients may or may not have been appropriate in this case, but they are less threatening to freedom than kangaroo courts that mock and debase justice. Expressions of outrage would follow, precipitating a morally elevating public debate about whether assassinating foreign troublemakers is ethically acceptable.

But such unpleasant realities do not accord with the new gender sensitivity. So instead impotent men hide behind Swedish women and indulge in the high-minded pretence that we are employing the rule of law (defending wronged women, no less), when what is occuring is just as much the naked exercise of power as if Assange were quietly snuffed out in a corner. And thereby we cheapen the rule of law, not only internationally (where it cannot be expected to operate), but also within that fragile balance we call free societies. This is the honeytrap which catches us all.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family [5].

The American Conservative needs the support of readers. Please subscribe [6] or make a contribution today [7].

23 Comments (Open | Close)

23 Comments To "Julian Assange’s Political Honeytrap"

#1 Comment By Kirt Higdon On February 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

Although wishy-washy on the use of national security as an excuse to commit murder, Mr. Baskerville is absolutely right on the loathsome sexual politics of the campaign against Assange. One interesting aspect of this is that the alleged failure of Assange to use a condom constituted rape. Combine this with the feminist inspired elimination of the spousal exception in rape law and behold – procreational sex within marriage, once the main purpose of marriage for the entire human race, is now rape!

#2 Comment By NY Teacher On February 26, 2011 @ 10:39 am

And leftists argue that liberalism is not “anti-family” & “anti-human?” How then can we ever convince them that such by extension is also 24-karat “Evil?” Or that this slippery-slope theology leads to nascent societal crimes (70% of African-American babies are woefully aborted; an equal %age are in the judicial system), and national wars of lucrative plunder…The only slippery concept they embrace is the condom of perennial lust and wonton mayhem, that blinds citizens to these consequences.
BTW, NeoCons of the Bush-Palin elk, masquerading as the antidote to leftists, are equally if not more, heinous.

#3 Comment By A Northener On February 26, 2011 @ 10:50 am

Don’t you think t’s safer and healthier to have a partner of same sex? When last time you read about a lesbian been charged of rape?

#4 Comment By Paul Greiner On February 26, 2011 @ 11:13 am

I don’t understand the rush to judgment on Assange. Who has the right to judge this man’s personal life. They should be looking at the lives of the two women who are accusing him. I also don’t understand why so many conservatives fault him for publishing the documents regarding the US. The entire diplomatic corp is corrupt and Assange owes the US nothing that I can see. Leave this guy alone on all fronts. This is just more feminist crap and a witch hunt by corrupt politicians.

#5 Comment By jbofsc On February 26, 2011 @ 11:45 am

Agreed.

Anybody who has ever been victimized by family courts will realize that criminals have more rights than parents of alternate residence.

The whole US family court system is corrupt.

#6 Comment By David Peterson On February 26, 2011 @ 11:52 am

This incident is an ominous illustration of the post Cold War “Anglo-American Imperialism”– a grotesque operetta, sung first by Bush #1, and followed by leading men, Clinton and W Bush and Barak. Mr. Baskerville’s excellent piece demonstrates how effectively Political Correctness i. e. tyranny, has been sucessfully phased in replacing the Judeo-Christian paradigm, and the rule of law. How ironic that Orwell’s 1984 vision got such a big boost with the demise of the Soviets.

#7 Comment By Brian On February 26, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

When you create a website specifically designed to embarras the United States and put us at a horrendous strategic disadvantage, this man must be stopped.

The numbers of documents leaked from totalitarian countries on Assange’s site have been miniscule. Additionally, Assange’s virulent hatred of the US is perfectly clear. Why some libertarians and other anti-statists adore this man is a complete mystery to me – he is NOT pro-Free Market at all. He is a neo-Marxist who sees the United States as a threat to socialism, and is acting accordingly.

Wikileaks is not some wonderful anti-state silver bullet. It is a vehicle by which our officials commit treason, our military personnel are put at risk, and our agents get exposed – and die. Perhaps no American, YET, has died as a direct result of Wikileaks, but such a situation, if one has anything more than a brain stem, must be seen as inevitable. In fact, it may have happened already – the government may be keeping it under wraps, or the dots on the agent/soldier’s death have not been connected properly.

No nation has existed without some secrecy. History clearly shows that nations that have their secrecy repeatedly compromised suffer dire consequences – up to and including their total destruction.

As for this criminal case, it does look like some sort of set-up. But what is to be expected? This man is endangering thousands of Americans around the world! He is also endangering allied forces and civilians. The more open the society is, the more likely that some traitor will upload documents to Wikileaks. Therefore, it’s continued existence can only lead to one result: states becoming even more repressive to protect their secrets.

Why people, especially Americans, do not view Wikileaks as an unmitigated disaster is beyond me. Stop portraying Assange as some sort of anti-state libertarian anarcho-hero.

Shut Wikileaks down.

#8 Comment By Stan Rains On February 26, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

Dr. Baskerville firmly addresses the many falsehoods of feminism in clear and uncompromising language. Dr. Baskerville also lays bare the partnership between feminism and pandering politicians hungry for dependency votes from single mothers and government workers. Feminism creates large armies of both who vote to protect their entitlements and dependencies.

Feminism, especially extreme feminism, depends upon the largesse of the public coffers. It takes the money taken from taxpayers who work and earn to pay for the dependency vote of single mothers and their feral or dysfunctional children whom make up 95% of our drug addicts, 90%+ of our prostitutes, the vast majority of our violent sex offenders and mass murderers.

We have seen, through the ‘Grand’ feminist experiment the advent of massive markets for drugs, the profits from which support narco-wars in multiples of regions of the world that have killed 30,000 in Mexico in a very short period of time. They were murdered by feminism as surely as if the feminists pulled the triggers and cut off the heads, themselves.

Baskerville exposes many of the mechanisms of abuse by pandering politicians and a feminist elite delivering ever growing numbers of dependency, single mother, voters to those entitlement oriented legislators. The rest of us pay the bills while the feminists and demagogic politicians get ever fatter.

#9 Comment By mrmtp On February 26, 2011 @ 11:38 pm

Wow! OMG amazing! Thank you for puting in writing my uneasy feelings about this case from the beginning.

#10 Comment By Michael Wren On February 27, 2011 @ 4:17 am

You state: “Indeed, if his arrest did not involve US pressure, its politicization is all the more serious.”

Assange’s supporters began by trying to make out that he was the victim of some sort of conspiracy between the Swedish authorities and American intelligence.

When they failed to stand up this self-evidently ludicrous proposition they resort to the theory that he is the victim of some sort of international feminist conspiracy. Though you fail to address the issue you no doubt feel that Assange’s current legal machinations in the UK to avoid extradition to Sweden are justified.

The reality is that Assange – whatever his other virtues – is a serial philanderer who is addicted ‘rough sex’ in whatever form. Whether this constitutes rape depends on what society he happens to be ‘visiting’ at the time. Behaviour that might pass unremarked in the Philippines or the US is best avoided in Scandinavia. One would have thought that Assange is an intelligent enough person to have realised this. Apparently not.

He should therefore face his Swedish accusers and accept the verdict of the court if he wishes to retain whatever credibility he has left.

#11 Comment By Roger Eldridge On February 27, 2011 @ 7:11 am

Another great article Stephen. if only more men listened to what you have to say rather than falling into the feminists traps. Radio5Live, the BBC’s Sports/Current Affairs radio programme, aimed exclusively at males have always been very strong on irony yet after having the programme on “Rape’ on the show last week (astride the Champions League draw so as to maximise its propaganda value) and the senior officer from the police service saying that her position was that “the victim (woman) is always believed” meaning the accused man is always guilty in her eyes until he can prove himself innocent, it is not a little ironic that their next feature was to bring us an interview with an alleged Rapist, Julian Assange and treat him as if he were an honoured celebrity and not as a man who by the police’s definition is already guilty of Rape.

Clearly the presenters and producers on Radio5Live believe that left-wing ideologues like Assange should be treated differently from other Rapists who are definitely not put on house arrest in a luxury hotel.

The definition of “Rape’, by the way, still actually means “violent seizure of property, carrying off a person by force” from the Latin rapere ‘seize.’

The criminal charge is Rape and Sexual Assault where a person has seized a woman or man against their will, carried them off and then had sexual intercourse with them. Without the person being “seized” and dragged somewhere, i.e. where the person voluntarily went with the alleged perpetrator the charge is sexual assault, not rape. That is why it is ludicrous to ever claim that a Wife can be raped. She has a duty to cohabit with her Husband and so is with him by law. However obviously he can be guilty of sexual assault if he forces her against her will, but NOT RAPE.

By Radio5Live insisting on conflating the two distinct crimes it makes it more difficult for persons (the increase in men suffering actual rape is greater than that of women) who have genuinely been raped to get justice and allows persons who have regretted their own indiscretions to be treated as if they are the genuine victims of rape.

Radio5Live’s indiscriminate use of the term rape to include all acts of sex that the alleged victim later regrets is an act of misandry – contempt for all men as it creates the position that “the victim (woman) is always believed” meaning the accused man is always guilty” and is perverse when the station is supposed to be perhaps the only one which is aimed at providing some comfort for men. The rest of the BBC’s output is aimed at women primarily.

As Stephen comments, all reputable studies show that acts of sexual assault and inter-personal conflict disproportionately take place outside of Marriage. If the BBC and Radio5Live were genuine about helping women they would be promoting Marriage. Until they do it is clear that their agenda is to eradicate the institution of Marriage and create an unstable and poisoned society that would be susceptible to take over by a totalitarian secularist regime.

#12 Comment By AdVader On February 27, 2011 @ 7:37 am

sophism-despotism: despite all the ‘patriotisms’ and other deceptive appearences, regarding numbers&quality of inhumanity&dehumanizations U$A-UN is the lowest ‘culture’ ever in history of mankind! U$A-UN is the greatest facilitator, the greatest tyrant, the greatest dictator, the greatest terrorist ever!

#13 Comment By Robert Pinkerton On February 27, 2011 @ 9:28 am

About “family courts:”: I am no one important, (legitimate) son of no one important, happily resident in obscurity on the margin of society in a provincial city; thus I am, and appear to be, the opposite of the sort to whom the Gods might grant a world-historical turning-point favor. Nonetheless, I have the temerity to say that, if the Gods were ever disposed to grant a favor that large, what I ask is a change in United States divorce law, consistent throughout in depth and breadth, whereby henceforth custody of children in divorce automatically defaults to the father.

#14 Comment By NY Teacher On February 27, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

Amazing how so many ranting imbeciles above have shot the messenger, rather than his message. Sure, Assange’s message is propagated thru unconventional media (ie, “Leaked”), but his message about the real rape and plunder of millions around the world, at the hands of merciless corporate generals, using millions of commoners as their warrior pawns, and trillions of taxpayer funds, is exactly what is too lewd for comfort.
So let’s hang the wonton messenger.

#15 Comment By phelps On February 28, 2011 @ 11:09 am

How anyone can blame Assange for embarrassing the U.S. is absurd. It wasn’t Assange who created this mess. It was our policy makers in D.C. Don’t let facts get in the way of your beliefs no matter how absurd those beliefs are.

I doubt Assange hates Americans, but I’ll bet he hates governments regardless of which government it is.

The collapse of governments taking place now and those that will follow are the result of government officials catering to the whims of favored groups, attempting to make up for past sins whether they are real or imagined.

The foolish feel good crowd and politically favored among us sees nothing wrong with the aburdity of government policy, which take us all down in due course.

#16 Comment By John Q On February 28, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

Wow, just wow…

So, if a woman says to a man, “I’m agree-able to sex only if you use a contraceptive to protect me from disease and to prevent me from getting pregnant”, and the man completely ignores her, what is the penalty?

I guess forcing a partner to risk disease exposure and bare a child against her will is a trivial thing compared to a “traditional” rape.

There ought to be a law or something.

Oh, there is? Oh, just not everywhere.

Huh, imagine that. A law that requires a man to behave in a sexually responsible way or face jail-time. Might be something we should look into here in the States. Why, it could mean less single parents(Moms), less welfare expense, and even less abortions. Write your congressman…

Splitting hairs…just sayin’. On a side note I personally find the sex while one participant was sleeping a bit of a stretch. But I suppose it might well be an unwelcome surprise in a casual encounter where two people like those involved don’t know each other very well. Wait a minute, that’s starting to sound suspiciously like rape, OR a string of very poor decisions made by both parties. For instance, if some girl I just met decided to experiment with my tolerance to kinky acts while I slept unawares. It would be my mistake for not asking her predilections first, before getting into bed. I’d feel used yes, violated yes, but raped? No.

A few reasons why this case and article are meaningless:

This joker isn’t a U.S. national and didn’t commit any crimes on U.S. soil. Irresponsible reporting of news isn’t a crime. If it were, most news outlets in the U.S. would be wide open to litigation. None of the cables were acquired by him personally, in the U.S., or at the behest of some foreign power, so it’s not really something that can be legitimately prosecuted as espionage here in the U.S. Americans may not like it, or find it very palatable, but the 1st Amendment protects him from liability as his information was factual and relevant news, though embarrassing and damaging to the U.S. government. The real concern is how such sensitive information could be removed from secure government networks by a lowly army private.

His issues in Sweden, are Sweden’s problem and his. He’s an idiot for acting like a rock-star instead of a journalist. He went bed romping without even considering regional norms or local laws. The closed door court system in Sweden is used to protect crime victims AND the accused. The issue that made this case into a political conspiracy, was that (1) the names of the involved parties weren’t supposed to be public, and (2) the case was outright dropped for lack of evidence, and through an irregularity re-brought against him by a politically higher up prosecutor.

U.S. political pressure? Maybe…or maybe pressure from one of the dozens of other governments and companies wikileaks made look real, real bad in the eyes of the public… By printing, amazingly, the TRUTH. Not a subject that all sides can agree on, or anyone-anywhere in positions of power want out there in the wild, for anyone and everyone to gain awareness of.

Like him? Hate Him? Who cares? He’s just a journalist that behaved badly(possibly criminally) in his personal life, and is having it used against him by his enemies like any public figure.

#17 Comment By Ken – Free Thinking Radical On February 28, 2011 @ 11:35 pm

This is the sort of situation that ultimately will lead to the dismantling of Western society. I can only hope I will be alive to see it, because it is the only thing that will save our civilization.

The problem is that men have become cowards. Cowards who hide behind shallow legalisms and specious rhetoric (see “John Q.’s” post) to justify the ongoing enslavement of our society. They obviously feel insecure and fearful, and promote the straitjacket society as a way to salve their pathetic ego.

We, as men (the few that are left) should simply stop playing this game of diminishing returns.

If you want to build a civilization, you do it the way our ancestors did: Conquor you enemies, drive them out, and send little whiney cretins like John Q out to gather berries and roots with the other women while the men get manly things done.

The strong rule, the weak submit or die.

Ken

#18 Pingback By Julian Assange’s Political Honeytrap-by Stephen Baskerville « Political Review Online On March 1, 2011 @ 1:31 am

[…] The American Conservative. Posted in WikiLeaks. Tags: Julian Assange, Wikileaks. Leave a Comment » LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

#19 Comment By David R Usher On March 1, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

One must be aware that the “honeytrap” aspect of feminism was born in the United States. The website above discusses the history of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan and how it ultimately came to control the KKK. Everyone must read the book “Women of the Klan”, by Kathleen Blee. In this book, she interviewed former Klanswomen and documents the creation of feminism up until about 1930.

The “Hand the rocks the cradle” quote was first published in a WKKK broadside in Evansville, Indiana, in about 1888 (this slogan was not invented by suffragettes or feminists in the 1960’s).

The original KKK/WKKK machinery worked by protecting the virtue of white women from miscegenation. Sexual fears were the rocket fuel of discrimination. The movie “Rosewood” relates a real occurence in Florida where a white woman claimed she had been raped by a black man to cover for an affair she was having with another man. The KKK burned the whole black part of Rosewood, Florida to the ground and killed many black men.

But from this, WKKK women learned they could manipulated all men. While the WKKK did support the 19th Amendment, legitimate suffragettes including my grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson would have nothing to do with them. After passage of the 19th Amendment, a WKKK woman doffed the Grand Dragon in a hail of sexual accusations, and ran the KKK via a puppet officemate. This is recorded in congress, which studied the KKK in the 1920’s, and found that it was run by a woman.

Feminists no longer needed the Klan and left it in about 1930. They were captivated with Marxists who moved to the U.S. after WWI, and Freud. From these, feminists learned how to use pseudopsychology to legitimize faux victimization, and learned how to apply Frankfurt School methodology to their advantage.

In the 50’s, feminists latched on to Kinsey, discovered sexual liberation, and learned how to misuse sex as a honeytrap.

When the feminist movement emerged in th 1960’s, it had a complete set of psychological, sexual, ideological, and political weapons in its arsenal.

Feminists did not stop there. Their latest pogrom, “same sex marriage”, is intended to turn control of marriage over to the National Organization for Women. They know that if women can marry each other (regardless of sexual orientation), keep their two incomes, have children with various boy-toys, and collect various child support subsidies and welfare — all enforced by government apparatus — they will have a “family” with unparalleled economic advantages and political power, compared to heterosexual marriages, which have only two incomes.

The Chicago feminist machine powered Obama’s nomination and election, which he won handsomely powered by promises of giving free health care as yet another subsidy encouraging the creation of more single-mother families. In a day when illegitimacy is at record levels, Obamacare only points to further social declines, uncivil behavior, and taxes that will destroy America.

Feminism is the most dangerous movement on the planet, and more insidious than the Muslim religion. It is easy to see the damage radical muslims do. Feminism has been conducting a silent war for decades. You cannot see the blood in the streets or the human rights violations. The effects of feminism on America are fantastic. The majority of uncontrollable deficit spending that has led to the collapse of the dollar traces back to feminist policy.

It is time we walk away from this shifty culture war and rebuild marriage in America. We are working on this at the Center for Marriage Policy, and have a model that will leave feminism to drown in a swamp that nobody dares to wade into ever again.

#20 Comment By Denis On March 1, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

There is a war against men, in the U.S. And across the western world. Men are waking up to this. All of the governments and institutions that promote and profit from this MUST be taken down. Everywhere.

#21 Comment By POIUYT On March 2, 2011 @ 2:17 am

Stephen Baskerville is correct to say genderism is nothing but an institutional politicization and entrenchment of existing sex-stereotypes profiting women and those male dominated institutions and individuals that enforce and extend the genderist code.

Andrew Usher is also quite astute in his observation that public institutions in genderist societies are now purely wealth appropriation machines giving theft, expropriation, deceit and usury the respectable facade as only ever being done for the protection of women.

These degenerating features of our societies however, because they are democratically accented to, and agreed upon by just as many men as women are not forced upon us or imposed from without. They are manifestations of the express will of the masses and majority of peoples, however odious, unjust, violating and imoral they seem.

And it is just as well that this or that purported solution to it, be it of a particular party policy, religion, theory, idea or conception be long examined for its efficacey.

In india and china for example, occupied 100% by an non-white majority of socially conservative men and women, the same sicknesses of institutional genderism and state-sexism has taken foothold, and is rearing its ugly head.

It is going to take a whole lot more ingenuity, plus purposeful political and cultural brooding, to devise a universal solution to this contaminating scourge of genderism that we all seek to have permanently even violently obliterated from human history.

#22 Comment By Blaise On March 2, 2011 @ 8:17 am

Well said Mr Baskerville

I, like many western men have noticed without any shadow of a doubt that we are being affected in a massive way by the feminist propaganda fuelled agenda. Here in the UK I notice every day how a good percentage of western women are basically walking hatred machines towards men and boys. And that’s all you can really call them anymore, because they are so brainwashed and eaten up with this false equality nonsense, that they are a shadow of what I understood women to be about. You hear expressions like ALPHA female now! What the…K

I know myself how I feel about this on a day to day basis, and believe me, I feel that if something doesn’t stop this media fuelled feminist ego trip, that eventually something will give. And I believe that it will give in a BIG way.

I’m sick and tired of hearing the same old attempt to brainwash us into believing how bad we are supposed to be. When these so called feminists of today are harping on about how hard done by they were in the past it beggars belief. I’m not responsible for what happened many years ago, yet I find myself bombarded on a daily basis because I’m a man, that I have something to answer for. What the…K

That’s what really gets my back up, and I’m sure a lot of others too. So let’s settle this once and for all and take it back to basics. Women and Feminists want this so called equality that they harp on about relentlessly don’t they? Well, let’s give them the ultimate equality, if that’s their desire.

Take them all to a bare field with a few trees etc and wait to see the reaction. I’m sure there will be many asking why they are there in the first place. Then simply say, this was how we started out many years ago, until men and boys alike built roads, towns, schools, etc…the list goes on with attributes that, as a male race, we have in shed loads. Take away all the luxuries that these toxic women bathe in by the bucket load toady, and let’s see how they get on shall we. All the foul mouthed feminist varieties that constantly tell us how useless we men are supposed to be…Help yourselves to an empty field, and then lets see how you get on.

#23 Comment By Hans Laven On May 26, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Governments have taken advantage of feminist ideology to make laws that can easily and readily be used to imprison men. This makes a society easier to control and its population easier to exploit. If you destroy family units, you weaken the population, make much of the population directly dependant upon the state, and remove the biggest threat to government, i.e. families, the one reason that would motivate most men to challenge a government causing injustice and abuse. If you have a raft of laws that can easily imprison men for long periods on the basis of unevidenced allegations (e.g. regarding sex or domestic violence), convenient definitions (e.g. ‘consent’ to sex clearly given can later be said not to have been given on various technical grounds), contrived offences (e.g. sending your child a birthday card becomes an imprisonable offence of ‘breaching a protection order’), or even men’s misfortune (e.g. lose a job, can’t afford so-called ‘child support’ so go to jail), then it’s easier to rule, exploit and abuse the population. Any uprising against an unjust state would rely mainly on men (note recent uprisings in Egypt etc), so Western governments intending to exploit its populations have used feminist ideology as a convenient excuse to give themselves many easy legal means to imprison men.