the "gynocracy"; the matriarchal hegemonic goal of hateful feminists
In Australia, Men are significant victims of violence, both by intimate (female) partners and generally, and their victimization and public vilification provokes almost no empathy or even recognition, if anything, it fans the feminist juggernaut to even greater outrageous power grabs and entitlement.
The level of hate speech by feminists in Australia is rising and government endorse. Extreme abhorrent claims like “kill all men” are now loudly lauded by their feminist sistas and enablers.
Thanks, Janice. The fact that feminists (as well as the anti-racists, anti-capitalists) are free to openly spew vicious opinions and false claims is something that can't be pointed out enough.
I don't object to their being free to spew -- it allows the rest of us to know who holds really awful views.
What's going on in Canada looks like your hate speech laws include a clause wherein the people who were the first to demand laws against hating another group get some sort of permanent exemption from prosecution under such laws.
All these movements trace back to Marx and Engels, for whom vicious opinions and false claims are essential parts of their strategy of polarization. The best rhetorical devices for them are claims that followers will believe and opponents will see as lies, because their agenda is to make everything about power struggles in which the importance of truth is diminished.
Dec 17, 2022·edited Dec 18, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I hate (ironically) the hate speech laws. What one consider to be "hate" is another person's truth. Furthermore, it's poorly defined in law, which sounds deliberate as it is a clever disguise to dupe people into thinking it's there to serve the greater good, but in reality it's to control the narrative and what one can say. Even feminists have fallen to this trap by criticizing transsexuals that has resulted in their incarceration. However, this hate speech laws has certainly shown a lot of flaws and double standards: no feminists were arrested for their externalized misandry as you have already shown in your article.
Its okay to say horrible things about men but not men who claim to be women. Our NZ Prime Minister who's trademark is 'be kind' was caught calling the leader of an opposition party an arrogant prick under her breath in Parliament recently. It was widely reported in the MSM as a joke.Imagine if he'd been caught calling her a stupid cxxt? She sent him a text non apology and has not withdrawn and apologized formally which is the process once a remark like this has gone on the official record.
I saw that! I must admit that I already have a bias against Jacinda Ardern. Something about the teeth, perhaps. Agreed, if a man had called her a stupid cxxt, there would have had to have been a six-months-long parliamentary committee investigation, with a 300-page report written, with recommendations, on misogyny in politics.
Dec 17, 2022·edited Dec 17, 2022Liked by Janice Fiamengo
I'm all too familiar with Jacinda Ardern and NZ politics, I'm Australian. Jacinda seems to suffer some form of mental illness, she doesn't seem quite right in her head. I'm currently questioning the west's voting system, we seem to have far too many mentally unstable people in politics: Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, etc...
Lots of people here especially women LOVE her. In fact my husband had a disagreement with the wife of a friend about her this afternoon. This person maintains Jacinda is wonderful and its all the previous government's fault now that things are going pear shaped. Not possible to have any kind of discussion. I don't think its the voting system (well MMP is crap) but that politics is not attracting people with a sense of service, duty or interest in being competent.
Or, it’s both the voting system *and* MP qualifications at fault.
Is simply still having a pulse on reaching an arbitrary and ever-lowering age a rational basis to award a franchise? Compared to the Athenian inventors of democracy who demanded three generations of citizenship, military service, and property as qualification?
wrt politics ‘not attracting people with a sense of service, duty or interest’, it is of note that Britain only started paying them in 1911. For 646 years (longer, if counting Parliament’s antecedents, the Saxon Witan and Moot), Westminster’s only salaried MPs were Crown Ministers (far fewer than in today’s ever-expanding governmental leviathan, and had to be MPs first so barrier to entry remained), and we had better MPs than ever since (e.g. J.S. Mill, Edmund Burke, radicals like William Cobbett, PMs such as Pitt (Younger), Wellington, Peel, Palmerston, Salisbury, etc.). Introducing salaries for MPs:
* turned a patriotic service into a mere job and get-rich quick scheme
* removed the need for talent at least sufficient to maintain themselves
* turned Crown’s subjects into Parliament’s cash-cows
As democracy expanded so did government (in both size and in areas they interfere in). There is also correlation between democracy’s expansion and the increasing savagery of war, noted by 19th C. contemporaries to modern writers, democracy making us all active participants in wars against, not governments and their militaries, but entire nations.
I'm American, and I notice the worst offenders against the principles of the US constitution, use one of two cloaks. The ones who demand restrictions on speech, invariably claim to be defending democracy. The ones who want to get rid of guns claim to defend the children. America, on a national level, was designed to be a Republic, and our founders were very clear about their opposition to democracy, as it always devolves into pure mob rule -- which I what I think we're seeing today in our country. While I don't know how Canadian government fell into the clutches of equally awful ideologues, they certainly seem to be cut of the same cloth as the ones we are suffering here.
John Adams foresaw the corruption that ‘democracy’ would entail:
‘[I]n the simple democracy, or representative democracy … it would be found, that the great leaders in the assembly would soon be as luxurious as ever kings or hereditary nobles were, and they would make partisans by admitting associates in a luxury, which they would support at the expense of the minority; and every particle of the executive power would be prostituted, new lucrative offices daily created, and larger appointments annexed to support it; nay, the power of judging would be prostituted to determine causes in favor of friends and against enemies, and the plunder devoted to the luxury. The people would be found as much inclined to vice and vanity as kings or grandees, and would run on to still greater excess and riot; for kings and nobles are always restrained, in some degree, by fear of the people, and their censures; whereas the people themselves, in the case we put, are not restrained by fear or shame, having all honor and applause at their disposal, as well as force. It does not appear, then, that they are less luxurious; on the contrary, they are more luxurious, and necessarily become so, in a simple democracy.’
(Adams, John. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787). ‘The Works of John Adams’, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. 6. Boston, 1851. 99.)
He also foresaw ‘democracy’ would have its own hereditary political class (what Patrick Deneen terms the ‘liberalocracy’), but one based on corruption as much as blood (where the 18th Duke could point to his eldest son, the future 19th, MPs and Congress-critters cut deals and exchange favours to get their family on the taxpayer-funded gravy train):
‘Continuation of power, in the same persons and families, will as certainly take place in a simple democracy, or a democracy by representation, as in an hereditary aristocracy or monarchy. This evil, if it be one, will not be avoided nor remedied, but increased and aggravated, by our author’s plan of government. The continuation will be certain; but it will be accomplished by corruption, which is worse than a continuation by birth; and if corruption cannot effect the continuation, sedition and rebellion will be recurred to; for a degraded, disappointed, rich and illustrious family would at any time annihilate heaven and earth, if it could, rather than fail of carrying its point.’
(Adams, John. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.” (1787) ‘The Works of John Adams’, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. 6. Boston, 1851. 54.)
We must all understand that roughly 80% of all people on this planet are disadvantaged in some way. Acts carried out to disadvantage people generally carry on with hurt feelings that manifest into some bias or prejudicial attitude. Groups form and carry out acts against other people who are just as disadvantaged as them, but in a different way. If you apply it to the 'Round Table' of history... the 20% of people who are not currently in the disadvantaged category elevate any group that can suppress another group. The 80% group ends up beating each other up because they are not mature enough to see that their acts will come around to hurt them. We are in an age of man bashing. Eventually, men will gather due to this and cause a Civil War. The men will die, the women will be violated... history will continue as it has for 5,000 years because people are simply not intelligent. People are one step away from going back to the jungle. I for one, am part of a group of Danes who were killed in 1002 AD. I am alive due only to the women of religion who kept my genes going. The reason... they want me to keep their intelligence alive. Yet, the same women keep my numbers low so as not to awaken what they destroyed so long ago. I feel sorry for myself, and for others. It's a sad world on both sides of the sexist equation. The same can be said for racist equations. When people get together great things happen. But, people are still prejudiced against the race called the Greats.
Has anyone ever filed criminal complaints with the Canadian police against the misandrist authors of these publications for their hate speech?
I agree that Claude Rochefort clearly committed no crime and his conviction is a result of feminist Gleichschaltung of the judicial branch of government.
It's a good question about criminal complaints. I don't know the answer. I suspect, however, that it would be a complete waste of time and energy because it is not possible for the establishment to believe women/feminists capable of criminal hate.
Of course, the authors of most of the tracts mentioned are American, not Canada, and America has very different laws, but the texts have frequently been taught in Canadian universities and quoted by Canadian feminists.
Gleichschaltung! What a word! Even my husband didn't know it. Thanks.
If there was a criminal investigation, couldn't the Canadian authorities have them extradited? It happens all the time in cybercrime even if the accused has never visited the country. If nothing else criminal charges would provide the public with another glaring example of feminist hypocrisy.
If you can't prosecute someone advocating in published print the eradication of 30% of the worlds population based on their chromosomes in order to create Lebensraum for feminists as hate speech, then what is the point of having the laws in the first place?
Considering how unfairly things go for men and/or opponents of feminism in Canada, someone trying to file such a suit would probably be the one who ends up prosecuted for violating the anti-hate law. Because, obviously, being opposed to feminism is the exact same thing as hating men (in the minds of those in power in Canada these days).
I agree. The person filing the complaint would have to be both vary brave and very savvy at dealing with the legal system and mobbing they would no doubt be subjected to. These feminists leaders have "driven themselves insane with ambition, jealousy, and an intense hatred of their own women hood. Their lives could have been as rich as any women's. If only....." Capt. James T. Kirk, "Turnabout Intruder".
Our society no longer seems to held together by the principles of liberal democracy and is instead held together by adherence to an ideology much like it was before the separation of church and state or like in the former Soviet Union. Consequently in order to keep its self intact, the government is forced to prosecute any speech that contradicts the dominant ideology.
I don't think our society has abandoned our principles, I think these principles are being shoved out of our society, and the people doing the shoving want us to think it's a natural development. I see signs that our real principles and values are still within the majority of people's hearts.
Consider how woke movies keep doing extremely poorly in both theaters and streaming services. The last 3 (woke) Disney animated movies tanked. Sure, people might go to movies less because of the cost (even though Top Gun Maverick was a huge hit). But people pay for streaming by the month and they're not watching the woke stuff on streaming at home, either. People are not watching content they've already paid for.
Also, if the woke, social justice, feminist, socialist ideology really was a natural development, would government need to enact such harsh penalties to try to keep us in line? We would just act and speak in woke ways as naturally as we breathe. But even committed wokeys can't keep pronouns straight for more than 2-3 sentences.
I'm so glad you mentioned "Turnabout Intruder." I re-watched that episode recently. Did you know Shatner won an Emmy for that performance? He and the actress playing Janice Lester did really good work portraying how an effort of will cannot keep clues of the individual's real sex suppressed.
There's so much in Star Trek TOS about the physical elements of human nature. The distinct nature of men and women, our need for each other, our mortality -- are all lost in later Star Trek, and other more recent sci fi. I think that's why there's so many dreadful Woke Trek projects. They flood the market with Woke Trek so the gems in the oldest episodes are buried and forgotten. Same with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, James Bond, and superheroes (even the female superheroes have been woke-i-fied, made into lesbians, race swapped, etc.). People aren't buying what the wokeys are selling.
I think there is definite malaise among the general population that civilization is crumbling around us because things are being run by incompetent people who have been hired using feminist and social justice criteria. Your children will not have a better life than you because of wealth transfer overseas with the intention of equalizing the standard of living between Canada and the rest of the world. Most people have been brainwashed by large corporations into thinking this is good. This wealth transfer helps big companies like Apple get into markets in Asia and makes them more profitable at the expense of the common man.
Our leaders are not interested in making the country better, they are interested in perpetuating the rule of a permanent ruling class and feminism is just one of many tricks they use to keep the population submissive. As Tucker Carlson pointed out, most politicians don't follow through on their election promises and toe the globalist SJ/Feminist line once they get into power because they get targeted and blackmailed by the deep state. Look how Rob Ford turned into Trudeau's yes man. Even Pierre Poilievre seems to have lost a lot of his fire since becoming party leader.
It will be interesting to see if Ron DeSantis in his new war on woke will drive the women's studies departments and the SJ out of the universities in Florida. He paraphrased the most famous speech of one of the 20th centuries greatest statesmen. If there isn't some serious changes in the culture at the universities in Florida he will be remembered as making a buffoonish satire of Churchill.
The US faces a similar problem to Thatcher and the coal miners. The coal miners union had been infiltrated by a hostile foreign power who's sole goal was to destroy the UK and turn Great Britten into a 3rd world country. Thatcher had a no choice but to use draconian measure to destroy the unions and break the coal miners. If the UK had not had a statesmen of her calibre, the UK would have ended up being like Czechoslovakia, Romania, or Ethiopia.
The US now faces the same threat. The universities have been infiltrated by a hostile power that's sole goal is the turn the US into a 3rd world country. However it is doubtful that their education system is now capable of producing a statemen of Churchill or Thatcher's abilities to save them.
Further recent evidence of a permeant ruling class is the U of T and their 'let them eat cake' attitude. Most people can no longer afford to buy fish or fresh vegetables because of inflation and the department of economics at the U of T has a a job posting for an economics professor and the position is only open to black applicants-- a total blind and fanatical adherence to ideology and total disregard for the plight of the common man given the state of the economy for U of T Economics department to be expanding their feminist/SJ league. This is like a NBA basket ball team putting a special Olympics athlete on the court in every quarter and wondering why they lose every game.
I don't think anyone, even the feminists, would disagree that the judicial branch of government has been completely corrupted by feminism. The corruption keeps one side in power so they promote and encourage the corruption. The consequence, however, is that it is creating an Normans versus the Saxons situation that gave rise to the Robin Hood legend.
The Ghomeshi trial demonstrated just how flagrant the corruption is. There hasn't been a more clear cut case of perjury in the entire history of the Canadian justice system yet not a single criminal charge was laid against the crown's witnesses. The judicial branch of government is brazen and does not even attempt to maintain the guise of justice. They are in the business of enforcing feminist ideology and they don't care who knows it.
I often wondered that myself. It is almost like there is total blindness to the issue. A big part of the problem is that we have gradually and insidiously been conditioned over the preceding decades.
I think that the blindness to double standards is at least in part due to human nature. For one thing, it's the nature of men to protect, help and cherish women, and the nature of women to be more fearful about potential danger than men are. Since women care for children, men would have a tendency to take seriously any fears or complaints from women.
With male and female nature as a foundation, feminism has been able to twist many institutions in our societies in the directions they prefer. Sadly, if they get full hegemony, our societies will rapidly become less comfortable for women than they were in the demonized 1950s (and before).
If you watch one of Janice's videos she talks about the literature written by men their stories were about heartbreak or how much they loved, desired or missed the woman in their lives.
How can a gender that is as you claim was "demonised"? in the 19th century, for example, be not held to the same criminal standard as men?
We only need to look at the White feather brigade to see which gender truly demonised the other.
Except women were not demonised in the 1950s and prior - just another feminist lie. According to the study 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness', women had greater level of happiness before the 1960s than today.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my comment. I meant that current feminists demonize the 1950s. In recent years, they've begun to demonize women who would prefer what they'd categorize as a 1950s lifestyle, caring for husband and children.
Feminists demonized traditional women going all the way back to the suffrage movement, when the vast majority of women opposed women's suffrage. Men were happy to give women the vote if they wanted it, but most didn't want it and certainly didn't want feminists to have it.
Hmm. I'm not sure of the time frame here, but if "early feminists" places the matter in the mid-19th century, then yes, most women worked. The huge majority of people lived on farms and farm women worked - hard. And those in the cities were largely working class women who very definitely had to work for a living.
They worked alongside their husbands in family farms and other enterprises. They didn't compete with men for power in corporate and government institutions.
Well I shall have to agree with Solanas that men are virtually on par with dogs. Dogs are, after all, a man's best friend. Plus they are more highly evolved and have a superior consciousness than any feminist I know of.
I just got your book, "Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say", today, too.
Thank you for doing all of this work.
For preparing us with the logical arguments, the words, the research to defend ourselves against this hateful force.
Growing up under this influence, I still witness glimmers of its effects on my behavior, reactions and mood - which can leave me feing a bit depressed and/or frustrated - even helpless.
However, your work brightens my day.
Happy New Years to you, Janice Fiamengo.
May the Wind Be at Your Back.
P.S. to anyone feeling burnt out, dissociative, unable to be present or to get into flow state or stuck in life - I've started to utilize somatic modalities of psychotherapy such as somatic experiencing, and have found it to be profoundly effective. Before that I did a year of regular talk therapy with internal family systems work, which was okay - but the somatic work has been way more impactful to me. Irene Lyon of irenelyon.com has been my teacher. She's fair and respectable. Somatic modalities teach trauma physiology, trauma as trapped survival stress and how to systematically release this stress via specific mindfulness exercises - asa result the nervous system can enter a truly deep parasympathetic low tone healing state. Based on the work of Dr. Peter Levine, Kathy Kain, Dr. Bessel Van Der Kolk, etc.
Apologies if this comes off as solicitous. I have no financial relationship with her. This Somatic Experiencing and other somatic modalities she teaches has helped me grow more resilient in a way that traditional talk therapy never even touched upon. If this resonates with anyone reading this - consider it's exploration.
That's the mistake of libertarians. Support the right of feminists to spew hate against boys and men, yet the feminists send police on men who merely criticize feminism. It's a losing proposition. The only way out of this feminist rot is an economic collapse or nuclear war.
Janice in one of your YouTube videos you spoke about in the 19th Century women got away with murder.
Another issue is discrimination in the courts of law and sentencing where research shows that women generally receive much lighter sentences than men when convicted of similar crimes.
Joseph Neuberger and Diane Davidson also discuss how some women are not held responsible for the consequences of their behaviour.
Yes. The foundational text examining the gender gap in the modern criminal justice system (in the United States) is Sonja Starr's 'Gender gaps in criminal sentencing.'
Feminists actually have the gall to claim that women receive harsher sentences for the same crimes as men (Mona Eltahawy makes this argument in her book), but Starr did the definitive study in 2013. I'm sure it's even worse now.
There are moves all the time to prevent women from going to jail at all, even for murder. Julie Bindel and her lesbian partner Harriet Wistrich (or perhaps mainly Wistrich) run an organization in England that strives to free female murderers. Usually, I believe, the claim is that the woman was an abuse victim. Men, of course, no matter how abused, are never justified in murdering women.
The claim that women receive harsher sentences is highly emotive, this is then used to manipulate. There also has been a move to close female prisons.
One thing I have noticed is how quickly the emotion around an event escalates and is highly exaggerated. Case in point, Rowan Baxter set fire to his wife and children, now in the media advocates are claiming that men who are being accused of Domestic Violence are using the threat of burning the victim alive.
Yet at the same time, the advocates ignore situations where mothers have set fire to their own children.
Speech is a behaviour. Everyone is capable of lying. Everyone is capable of error. The only effective remedy to bad speech is better speech.
Hate is an attitude. Everyone is capable of changing their minds. Even the world's best- paid psycho- babbler cannot perform Star Trek's Mind - Meld. No attribution of an attitude to another person can remotely be considered safe and definitive.
First of all, we have already reached peak higher education. Many institutions are closing their doors, affecting the female-majority student body to a greater extent than the remaining men. Most of the latter have gotten wise to the scam, and have bolted from college enrollment. Why spend $200K for a degree you might not even get to finish if you are expelled from school after “traumatizing” some co-ed by asking her for a date? Despite the faux complaints of women regarding the lack of men on campus, most feminists regard this as a feature, not a bug, as it clears the pipeline to positions of power and influence from male competition.
Second, the market for jobs requiring a degree is hardly growing. Cf. this piece, written in 2013:
I would find it hard to believe that the massive layoffs at Facebook and Twitter are limited to straight white males only. What are those girls affect going to do now? There simply aren’t a whole lot of jobs with six-figure salaries in corporate America for “critical queer studies” majors as “coordinators of diversity, equity, and sustainability”, or such other nonsense.
Third, male withdrawal from society is one thing as long as they’re left alone. When pursuit of female companionship is criminalized, more of them might react violently. Cf. Eliot Rodger, George Sodini, Marc Lepine, et al.
Fourth, the feminist state still requires male muscle to enforce its policy preferences, and men are withdrawing from this as well, as evidenced by shortfalls in military and law enforcement recruiting. Why should one put his life on the line as a soldier or a local cop when all the chiefs of police/sheriffs are female (many of them lesbians)?
Fifth, the perfection of reasonably priced sexbots in the next ten years will provide previously desperate men with an alternative. While such men would obviously prefer the real thing, substitutes will be a welcome relief, and that is why feminists react so viscerally to their adoption, because they want to demonstrate their sexual power by keeping as many men frustrated as possible. That is why you have the likes of Kathleen Richardson:
Sixth, expect more men to game the system by claiming membership in two newly privileged classes: gays and trannies. More Tootsies, more Chucks and Larrys.
Finally, in the long run, the barren feminist state will die off as it doesn’t reproduce, while more patriarchal societies—Muslims, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, survive and thrive. And note that the women in those communities are not precluded from pursuing professional careers. Those societies simply require family and children first.
Until all of this happens, one can only wonder how many lives (men, women, and children) have to be shattered in the process?
the "gynocracy"; the matriarchal hegemonic goal of hateful feminists
In Australia, Men are significant victims of violence, both by intimate (female) partners and generally, and their victimization and public vilification provokes almost no empathy or even recognition, if anything, it fans the feminist juggernaut to even greater outrageous power grabs and entitlement.
The level of hate speech by feminists in Australia is rising and government endorse. Extreme abhorrent claims like “kill all men” are now loudly lauded by their feminist sistas and enablers.
The worst spreader of anti-feminist hate is feminism. Every time I read something written by a feminist, I hate feminism more.
Ditto
Wow, Janice is firing on all cylinders in this one! Bravo for calling out the real haters in our society.
Thanks, Janice. The fact that feminists (as well as the anti-racists, anti-capitalists) are free to openly spew vicious opinions and false claims is something that can't be pointed out enough.
I don't object to their being free to spew -- it allows the rest of us to know who holds really awful views.
What's going on in Canada looks like your hate speech laws include a clause wherein the people who were the first to demand laws against hating another group get some sort of permanent exemption from prosecution under such laws.
All these movements trace back to Marx and Engels, for whom vicious opinions and false claims are essential parts of their strategy of polarization. The best rhetorical devices for them are claims that followers will believe and opponents will see as lies, because their agenda is to make everything about power struggles in which the importance of truth is diminished.
I hate (ironically) the hate speech laws. What one consider to be "hate" is another person's truth. Furthermore, it's poorly defined in law, which sounds deliberate as it is a clever disguise to dupe people into thinking it's there to serve the greater good, but in reality it's to control the narrative and what one can say. Even feminists have fallen to this trap by criticizing transsexuals that has resulted in their incarceration. However, this hate speech laws has certainly shown a lot of flaws and double standards: no feminists were arrested for their externalized misandry as you have already shown in your article.
Its okay to say horrible things about men but not men who claim to be women. Our NZ Prime Minister who's trademark is 'be kind' was caught calling the leader of an opposition party an arrogant prick under her breath in Parliament recently. It was widely reported in the MSM as a joke.Imagine if he'd been caught calling her a stupid cxxt? She sent him a text non apology and has not withdrawn and apologized formally which is the process once a remark like this has gone on the official record.
I saw that! I must admit that I already have a bias against Jacinda Ardern. Something about the teeth, perhaps. Agreed, if a man had called her a stupid cxxt, there would have had to have been a six-months-long parliamentary committee investigation, with a 300-page report written, with recommendations, on misogyny in politics.
I'm all too familiar with Jacinda Ardern and NZ politics, I'm Australian. Jacinda seems to suffer some form of mental illness, she doesn't seem quite right in her head. I'm currently questioning the west's voting system, we seem to have far too many mentally unstable people in politics: Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, etc...
Lots of people here especially women LOVE her. In fact my husband had a disagreement with the wife of a friend about her this afternoon. This person maintains Jacinda is wonderful and its all the previous government's fault now that things are going pear shaped. Not possible to have any kind of discussion. I don't think its the voting system (well MMP is crap) but that politics is not attracting people with a sense of service, duty or interest in being competent.
Or, it’s both the voting system *and* MP qualifications at fault.
Is simply still having a pulse on reaching an arbitrary and ever-lowering age a rational basis to award a franchise? Compared to the Athenian inventors of democracy who demanded three generations of citizenship, military service, and property as qualification?
wrt politics ‘not attracting people with a sense of service, duty or interest’, it is of note that Britain only started paying them in 1911. For 646 years (longer, if counting Parliament’s antecedents, the Saxon Witan and Moot), Westminster’s only salaried MPs were Crown Ministers (far fewer than in today’s ever-expanding governmental leviathan, and had to be MPs first so barrier to entry remained), and we had better MPs than ever since (e.g. J.S. Mill, Edmund Burke, radicals like William Cobbett, PMs such as Pitt (Younger), Wellington, Peel, Palmerston, Salisbury, etc.). Introducing salaries for MPs:
* turned a patriotic service into a mere job and get-rich quick scheme
* removed the need for talent at least sufficient to maintain themselves
* turned Crown’s subjects into Parliament’s cash-cows
As democracy expanded so did government (in both size and in areas they interfere in). There is also correlation between democracy’s expansion and the increasing savagery of war, noted by 19th C. contemporaries to modern writers, democracy making us all active participants in wars against, not governments and their militaries, but entire nations.
I'm American, and I notice the worst offenders against the principles of the US constitution, use one of two cloaks. The ones who demand restrictions on speech, invariably claim to be defending democracy. The ones who want to get rid of guns claim to defend the children. America, on a national level, was designed to be a Republic, and our founders were very clear about their opposition to democracy, as it always devolves into pure mob rule -- which I what I think we're seeing today in our country. While I don't know how Canadian government fell into the clutches of equally awful ideologues, they certainly seem to be cut of the same cloth as the ones we are suffering here.
John Adams foresaw the corruption that ‘democracy’ would entail:
‘[I]n the simple democracy, or representative democracy … it would be found, that the great leaders in the assembly would soon be as luxurious as ever kings or hereditary nobles were, and they would make partisans by admitting associates in a luxury, which they would support at the expense of the minority; and every particle of the executive power would be prostituted, new lucrative offices daily created, and larger appointments annexed to support it; nay, the power of judging would be prostituted to determine causes in favor of friends and against enemies, and the plunder devoted to the luxury. The people would be found as much inclined to vice and vanity as kings or grandees, and would run on to still greater excess and riot; for kings and nobles are always restrained, in some degree, by fear of the people, and their censures; whereas the people themselves, in the case we put, are not restrained by fear or shame, having all honor and applause at their disposal, as well as force. It does not appear, then, that they are less luxurious; on the contrary, they are more luxurious, and necessarily become so, in a simple democracy.’
(Adams, John. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787). ‘The Works of John Adams’, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. 6. Boston, 1851. 99.)
He also foresaw ‘democracy’ would have its own hereditary political class (what Patrick Deneen terms the ‘liberalocracy’), but one based on corruption as much as blood (where the 18th Duke could point to his eldest son, the future 19th, MPs and Congress-critters cut deals and exchange favours to get their family on the taxpayer-funded gravy train):
‘Continuation of power, in the same persons and families, will as certainly take place in a simple democracy, or a democracy by representation, as in an hereditary aristocracy or monarchy. This evil, if it be one, will not be avoided nor remedied, but increased and aggravated, by our author’s plan of government. The continuation will be certain; but it will be accomplished by corruption, which is worse than a continuation by birth; and if corruption cannot effect the continuation, sedition and rebellion will be recurred to; for a degraded, disappointed, rich and illustrious family would at any time annihilate heaven and earth, if it could, rather than fail of carrying its point.’
(Adams, John. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.” (1787) ‘The Works of John Adams’, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. 6. Boston, 1851. 54.)
We must all understand that roughly 80% of all people on this planet are disadvantaged in some way. Acts carried out to disadvantage people generally carry on with hurt feelings that manifest into some bias or prejudicial attitude. Groups form and carry out acts against other people who are just as disadvantaged as them, but in a different way. If you apply it to the 'Round Table' of history... the 20% of people who are not currently in the disadvantaged category elevate any group that can suppress another group. The 80% group ends up beating each other up because they are not mature enough to see that their acts will come around to hurt them. We are in an age of man bashing. Eventually, men will gather due to this and cause a Civil War. The men will die, the women will be violated... history will continue as it has for 5,000 years because people are simply not intelligent. People are one step away from going back to the jungle. I for one, am part of a group of Danes who were killed in 1002 AD. I am alive due only to the women of religion who kept my genes going. The reason... they want me to keep their intelligence alive. Yet, the same women keep my numbers low so as not to awaken what they destroyed so long ago. I feel sorry for myself, and for others. It's a sad world on both sides of the sexist equation. The same can be said for racist equations. When people get together great things happen. But, people are still prejudiced against the race called the Greats.
Has anyone ever filed criminal complaints with the Canadian police against the misandrist authors of these publications for their hate speech?
I agree that Claude Rochefort clearly committed no crime and his conviction is a result of feminist Gleichschaltung of the judicial branch of government.
It's a good question about criminal complaints. I don't know the answer. I suspect, however, that it would be a complete waste of time and energy because it is not possible for the establishment to believe women/feminists capable of criminal hate.
Of course, the authors of most of the tracts mentioned are American, not Canada, and America has very different laws, but the texts have frequently been taught in Canadian universities and quoted by Canadian feminists.
Gleichschaltung! What a word! Even my husband didn't know it. Thanks.
With their supremacy on feeling the feminists have literally taken a page out of Mein Kampf.
"the Nazi worldview openly exalted action over thought, feeling over rational inquiry"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/complicity-in-the-holocaust/universities-and-the-rise-of-hitler/CF7DD694DF39AF08BCDC906EC8217B9D
If there was a criminal investigation, couldn't the Canadian authorities have them extradited? It happens all the time in cybercrime even if the accused has never visited the country. If nothing else criminal charges would provide the public with another glaring example of feminist hypocrisy.
If you can't prosecute someone advocating in published print the eradication of 30% of the worlds population based on their chromosomes in order to create Lebensraum for feminists as hate speech, then what is the point of having the laws in the first place?
Considering how unfairly things go for men and/or opponents of feminism in Canada, someone trying to file such a suit would probably be the one who ends up prosecuted for violating the anti-hate law. Because, obviously, being opposed to feminism is the exact same thing as hating men (in the minds of those in power in Canada these days).
I agree. The person filing the complaint would have to be both vary brave and very savvy at dealing with the legal system and mobbing they would no doubt be subjected to. These feminists leaders have "driven themselves insane with ambition, jealousy, and an intense hatred of their own women hood. Their lives could have been as rich as any women's. If only....." Capt. James T. Kirk, "Turnabout Intruder".
Our society no longer seems to held together by the principles of liberal democracy and is instead held together by adherence to an ideology much like it was before the separation of church and state or like in the former Soviet Union. Consequently in order to keep its self intact, the government is forced to prosecute any speech that contradicts the dominant ideology.
I don't think our society has abandoned our principles, I think these principles are being shoved out of our society, and the people doing the shoving want us to think it's a natural development. I see signs that our real principles and values are still within the majority of people's hearts.
Consider how woke movies keep doing extremely poorly in both theaters and streaming services. The last 3 (woke) Disney animated movies tanked. Sure, people might go to movies less because of the cost (even though Top Gun Maverick was a huge hit). But people pay for streaming by the month and they're not watching the woke stuff on streaming at home, either. People are not watching content they've already paid for.
Also, if the woke, social justice, feminist, socialist ideology really was a natural development, would government need to enact such harsh penalties to try to keep us in line? We would just act and speak in woke ways as naturally as we breathe. But even committed wokeys can't keep pronouns straight for more than 2-3 sentences.
I'm so glad you mentioned "Turnabout Intruder." I re-watched that episode recently. Did you know Shatner won an Emmy for that performance? He and the actress playing Janice Lester did really good work portraying how an effort of will cannot keep clues of the individual's real sex suppressed.
There's so much in Star Trek TOS about the physical elements of human nature. The distinct nature of men and women, our need for each other, our mortality -- are all lost in later Star Trek, and other more recent sci fi. I think that's why there's so many dreadful Woke Trek projects. They flood the market with Woke Trek so the gems in the oldest episodes are buried and forgotten. Same with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, James Bond, and superheroes (even the female superheroes have been woke-i-fied, made into lesbians, race swapped, etc.). People aren't buying what the wokeys are selling.
I think there is definite malaise among the general population that civilization is crumbling around us because things are being run by incompetent people who have been hired using feminist and social justice criteria. Your children will not have a better life than you because of wealth transfer overseas with the intention of equalizing the standard of living between Canada and the rest of the world. Most people have been brainwashed by large corporations into thinking this is good. This wealth transfer helps big companies like Apple get into markets in Asia and makes them more profitable at the expense of the common man.
Our leaders are not interested in making the country better, they are interested in perpetuating the rule of a permanent ruling class and feminism is just one of many tricks they use to keep the population submissive. As Tucker Carlson pointed out, most politicians don't follow through on their election promises and toe the globalist SJ/Feminist line once they get into power because they get targeted and blackmailed by the deep state. Look how Rob Ford turned into Trudeau's yes man. Even Pierre Poilievre seems to have lost a lot of his fire since becoming party leader.
It will be interesting to see if Ron DeSantis in his new war on woke will drive the women's studies departments and the SJ out of the universities in Florida. He paraphrased the most famous speech of one of the 20th centuries greatest statesmen. If there isn't some serious changes in the culture at the universities in Florida he will be remembered as making a buffoonish satire of Churchill.
The US faces a similar problem to Thatcher and the coal miners. The coal miners union had been infiltrated by a hostile foreign power who's sole goal was to destroy the UK and turn Great Britten into a 3rd world country. Thatcher had a no choice but to use draconian measure to destroy the unions and break the coal miners. If the UK had not had a statesmen of her calibre, the UK would have ended up being like Czechoslovakia, Romania, or Ethiopia.
The US now faces the same threat. The universities have been infiltrated by a hostile power that's sole goal is the turn the US into a 3rd world country. However it is doubtful that their education system is now capable of producing a statemen of Churchill or Thatcher's abilities to save them.
Further recent evidence of a permeant ruling class is the U of T and their 'let them eat cake' attitude. Most people can no longer afford to buy fish or fresh vegetables because of inflation and the department of economics at the U of T has a a job posting for an economics professor and the position is only open to black applicants-- a total blind and fanatical adherence to ideology and total disregard for the plight of the common man given the state of the economy for U of T Economics department to be expanding their feminist/SJ league. This is like a NBA basket ball team putting a special Olympics athlete on the court in every quarter and wondering why they lose every game.
It's no use. The police and Judges will find something to blame the man and deflect the attention from the feminist being sued.
I don't think anyone, even the feminists, would disagree that the judicial branch of government has been completely corrupted by feminism. The corruption keeps one side in power so they promote and encourage the corruption. The consequence, however, is that it is creating an Normans versus the Saxons situation that gave rise to the Robin Hood legend.
The Ghomeshi trial demonstrated just how flagrant the corruption is. There hasn't been a more clear cut case of perjury in the entire history of the Canadian justice system yet not a single criminal charge was laid against the crown's witnesses. The judicial branch of government is brazen and does not even attempt to maintain the guise of justice. They are in the business of enforcing feminist ideology and they don't care who knows it.
https://ibb.co/b5jzyMB
I often wondered that myself. It is almost like there is total blindness to the issue. A big part of the problem is that we have gradually and insidiously been conditioned over the preceding decades.
The double standards.
I think that the blindness to double standards is at least in part due to human nature. For one thing, it's the nature of men to protect, help and cherish women, and the nature of women to be more fearful about potential danger than men are. Since women care for children, men would have a tendency to take seriously any fears or complaints from women.
With male and female nature as a foundation, feminism has been able to twist many institutions in our societies in the directions they prefer. Sadly, if they get full hegemony, our societies will rapidly become less comfortable for women than they were in the demonized 1950s (and before).
Were they really demonised?
If you watch one of Janice's videos she talks about the literature written by men their stories were about heartbreak or how much they loved, desired or missed the woman in their lives.
How can a gender that is as you claim was "demonised"? in the 19th century, for example, be not held to the same criminal standard as men?
We only need to look at the White feather brigade to see which gender truly demonised the other.
Except women were not demonised in the 1950s and prior - just another feminist lie. According to the study 'The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness', women had greater level of happiness before the 1960s than today.
The claim was not that women were demonized in the '50s; it's that the '50s themselves have been demonized (by feminists).
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my comment. I meant that current feminists demonize the 1950s. In recent years, they've begun to demonize women who would prefer what they'd categorize as a 1950s lifestyle, caring for husband and children.
Feminists demonized traditional women going all the way back to the suffrage movement, when the vast majority of women opposed women's suffrage. Men were happy to give women the vote if they wanted it, but most didn't want it and certainly didn't want feminists to have it.
Interestingly, the early feminists were not from the working class who made up the majority of society. But women of perhaps unearned privilege.
Most women were not working at that time either.
Hmm. I'm not sure of the time frame here, but if "early feminists" places the matter in the mid-19th century, then yes, most women worked. The huge majority of people lived on farms and farm women worked - hard. And those in the cities were largely working class women who very definitely had to work for a living.
They worked alongside their husbands in family farms and other enterprises. They didn't compete with men for power in corporate and government institutions.
Well I shall have to agree with Solanas that men are virtually on par with dogs. Dogs are, after all, a man's best friend. Plus they are more highly evolved and have a superior consciousness than any feminist I know of.
Well stated. Excellent arguments. I hope they are heard.
Fantastic work.
I just got your book, "Sons of Feminism: Men Have Their Say", today, too.
Thank you for doing all of this work.
For preparing us with the logical arguments, the words, the research to defend ourselves against this hateful force.
Growing up under this influence, I still witness glimmers of its effects on my behavior, reactions and mood - which can leave me feing a bit depressed and/or frustrated - even helpless.
However, your work brightens my day.
Happy New Years to you, Janice Fiamengo.
May the Wind Be at Your Back.
P.S. to anyone feeling burnt out, dissociative, unable to be present or to get into flow state or stuck in life - I've started to utilize somatic modalities of psychotherapy such as somatic experiencing, and have found it to be profoundly effective. Before that I did a year of regular talk therapy with internal family systems work, which was okay - but the somatic work has been way more impactful to me. Irene Lyon of irenelyon.com has been my teacher. She's fair and respectable. Somatic modalities teach trauma physiology, trauma as trapped survival stress and how to systematically release this stress via specific mindfulness exercises - asa result the nervous system can enter a truly deep parasympathetic low tone healing state. Based on the work of Dr. Peter Levine, Kathy Kain, Dr. Bessel Van Der Kolk, etc.
Apologies if this comes off as solicitous. I have no financial relationship with her. This Somatic Experiencing and other somatic modalities she teaches has helped me grow more resilient in a way that traditional talk therapy never even touched upon. If this resonates with anyone reading this - consider it's exploration.
That's the mistake of libertarians. Support the right of feminists to spew hate against boys and men, yet the feminists send police on men who merely criticize feminism. It's a losing proposition. The only way out of this feminist rot is an economic collapse or nuclear war.
I often think that too; also fear that either one of those will hasten the progression towards totalitarianism.
I hope his lawyers have seen this.
Janice in one of your YouTube videos you spoke about in the 19th Century women got away with murder.
Another issue is discrimination in the courts of law and sentencing where research shows that women generally receive much lighter sentences than men when convicted of similar crimes.
Joseph Neuberger and Diane Davidson also discuss how some women are not held responsible for the consequences of their behaviour.
Yes. The foundational text examining the gender gap in the modern criminal justice system (in the United States) is Sonja Starr's 'Gender gaps in criminal sentencing.'
Feminists actually have the gall to claim that women receive harsher sentences for the same crimes as men (Mona Eltahawy makes this argument in her book), but Starr did the definitive study in 2013. I'm sure it's even worse now.
There are moves all the time to prevent women from going to jail at all, even for murder. Julie Bindel and her lesbian partner Harriet Wistrich (or perhaps mainly Wistrich) run an organization in England that strives to free female murderers. Usually, I believe, the claim is that the woman was an abuse victim. Men, of course, no matter how abused, are never justified in murdering women.
The claim that women receive harsher sentences is highly emotive, this is then used to manipulate. There also has been a move to close female prisons.
One thing I have noticed is how quickly the emotion around an event escalates and is highly exaggerated. Case in point, Rowan Baxter set fire to his wife and children, now in the media advocates are claiming that men who are being accused of Domestic Violence are using the threat of burning the victim alive.
Yet at the same time, the advocates ignore situations where mothers have set fire to their own children.
Speech is a behaviour. Everyone is capable of lying. Everyone is capable of error. The only effective remedy to bad speech is better speech.
Hate is an attitude. Everyone is capable of changing their minds. Even the world's best- paid psycho- babbler cannot perform Star Trek's Mind - Meld. No attribution of an attitude to another person can remotely be considered safe and definitive.
Hate speech is a lunatic concept.
How this eventually resolves itself:
First of all, we have already reached peak higher education. Many institutions are closing their doors, affecting the female-majority student body to a greater extent than the remaining men. Most of the latter have gotten wise to the scam, and have bolted from college enrollment. Why spend $200K for a degree you might not even get to finish if you are expelled from school after “traumatizing” some co-ed by asking her for a date? Despite the faux complaints of women regarding the lack of men on campus, most feminists regard this as a feature, not a bug, as it clears the pipeline to positions of power and influence from male competition.
Second, the market for jobs requiring a degree is hardly growing. Cf. this piece, written in 2013:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18901
I would find it hard to believe that the massive layoffs at Facebook and Twitter are limited to straight white males only. What are those girls affect going to do now? There simply aren’t a whole lot of jobs with six-figure salaries in corporate America for “critical queer studies” majors as “coordinators of diversity, equity, and sustainability”, or such other nonsense.
Third, male withdrawal from society is one thing as long as they’re left alone. When pursuit of female companionship is criminalized, more of them might react violently. Cf. Eliot Rodger, George Sodini, Marc Lepine, et al.
Fourth, the feminist state still requires male muscle to enforce its policy preferences, and men are withdrawing from this as well, as evidenced by shortfalls in military and law enforcement recruiting. Why should one put his life on the line as a soldier or a local cop when all the chiefs of police/sheriffs are female (many of them lesbians)?
Fifth, the perfection of reasonably priced sexbots in the next ten years will provide previously desperate men with an alternative. While such men would obviously prefer the real thing, substitutes will be a welcome relief, and that is why feminists react so viscerally to their adoption, because they want to demonstrate their sexual power by keeping as many men frustrated as possible. That is why you have the likes of Kathleen Richardson:
https://campaignagainstsexrobots.wordpress.com/
Sixth, expect more men to game the system by claiming membership in two newly privileged classes: gays and trannies. More Tootsies, more Chucks and Larrys.
Finally, in the long run, the barren feminist state will die off as it doesn’t reproduce, while more patriarchal societies—Muslims, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, survive and thrive. And note that the women in those communities are not precluded from pursuing professional careers. Those societies simply require family and children first.
Until all of this happens, one can only wonder how many lives (men, women, and children) have to be shattered in the process?
Thanks for writing this!