This essay is an excerpt from Jack Murphy’s book “Democrat to Deplorable: Why Nine Million Obama Voters Ditched the Democrats and Embraced Donald Trump.”
Hillary Clinton’s vagina was the centerpiece of her 2016 presidential campaign. When she chose “I’m with HER” as her rallying cry, Clinton left little doubt about her most distinguished Presidential qualification. Because she promised four more years of the Obama administration, she set herself apart through constant reference to her genitals, gender, and sexual identity. Through careful consideration and deliberate action, Hillary became the Queen of Feminism. Her march to the White House was to be feminism’s capstone accomplishment. At long last, a woman would break through the glass ceiling and become the most powerful person in the world.
A vote for Clinton was a vote for feminism’s final victory over oppressive male power. A vote against her was a plea to remain in the patriarchy. She narrowed the world into a ‘with us or against us’ mindset. Good people over here with the Queen of Feminism, and the bad people over there with the darkness of male domination. Good vs. Evil. Light vs. Dark. Right vs. Wrong. It was a simple binary decision. A purposeful dichotomy, one which cleaved the nation into good girls and bad guys. In doing so, Clinton doubled down on the gender issue and became a feminist scion. She owned it. This was her moment. This was their moment.
Presumably, Clinton thought this was a smart electoral strategy. Her campaign must have believed they would find enough solidarity with other feminists to win the primary and eventually the general election. Surely they did poll testing, surveys, and market analysis which told them a feminist campaign, complete with a gender-related slogan and constant references to becoming the first woman President would be a winner. When Clinton tied herself to the feminist movement, she must have believed its historic momentum would help carry her over the finish line.
But what Clinton and her team were unable to see was that today’s feminism has mutated into something incomprehensible. It’s now devolved away from its earlier noble efforts and into something pernicious, chaotic, and divisive. Clinton’s old age and isolation from the real America may explain this blind spot. The feminism of Clinton’s youth was more about civil rights and women in the workplace, rather than the assault on reason and science it’s become today.
Ironically, had Clinton run on a feminist campaign in the ‘90s or ‘00s, contemporary events may have helped her rather than hurt her as they did in 2016. Back then feminism was about getting equal rights and reasonable protections for women, something we all agree was a good thing. But today’s feminism is a twisted cancer and people who support women’s rights can find themselves at odds with current feminist practices. People like me. In the 1990s, the ugly side of feminist overreach had not yet revealed itself to the country, whereas in 2016, large swaths of the US were feeling the dissonance of new feminist thinking. Clinton, being a decade or two late, failed to see how adopting a feminist brand brought a cadre of downsides that were not due to “misogyny” as she would later claim, but instead owed to her assumption of a toxic ideology that alienates more than it liberates.
While Clinton and her team missed this crucial point, Democrat to Deplorable voters did not. To us, feminism and gender politics are not rallying cries but rather ominous signs of subversion and division. Another step towards a feminist utopia would be one more towards undermining our society and culture at large, something the feminists desire and Deplorables fear. Make America Great Again became the counterbalance to I’m with HER, and the dividing lines were set: Trump’s red MAGA hats on one side and Clinton’s pink vagina hats on the other. Anti-feminists vs. Feminists. Order vs. Chaos. Reality vs. Fantasy.
62% of Democrat to Deplorable voters strongly agree or agree with: “Fighting back against feminism motivated me to vote in the election.”
Only 16% disagree/strongly disagree.
In today’s polarized climate, our degraded discourse often forces people into all or nothing positions. Either you believe in man-made climate change and we must do everything we can to stop it, or you’re a climate denier. Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter. Unfettered immigration or you’re a xenophobe. There’s little room for ideas like, maybe we do have an impact on the climate, but are you sure the predictive models are correct? Or, yes it’s a tragedy when a police officer shoots a black man, but why do black men kill each other at a much higher rate and why aren’t we talking about that too? Or surely infinite immigration is bad, so what exactly should the quota be?
There is a severe shortage of thinkers who can carry in their head competing thoughts or ideas which appear to be contradictory, even if careful consideration reveals them to be logically consistent. Physicist Eric Weinstein calls these “long-short positions,” alluding to investment strategies with multiple parts which when considered individually appear to be going in different directions, but in fact, are operating on the same thesis. When people engage in long-short thinking, zealots react with rage and try to box you into one position or the other. It’s as if they can’t handle the issue’s complexity and instead respond with emotional outbursts.
And when it comes to feminism and women, it’s precisely the same. Either you believe in feminism and all its goals, or you’re a misogynistic woman hater. Nuance is a lost art today, so what I’m about to say might be hard for some people to understand: you can be anti-feminist yet pro-woman.
I have some incredible women in my life. My sister was a firefighter, a police officer, and served in Iraq. My mother changed careers in middle age to become a Doctor and run a prestigious emergency medicine department. I’m immensely proud of them both. They exercised choice and independence earned for them by the original feminist movement, and for that I’m grateful. Once upon a time, women couldn’t vote, couldn’t get credit cards, bank loans, or have an independent life separate from a husband. But all that has changed. The original feminist wars were righteous and necessary. America is the land of the free after all, and women deserve as much as freedom as anyone else.
But what’s happening today isn’t your grandmother’s feminism. It’s no longer about equality under the law or equal opportunity at work, school, or life. No, feminism today has evolved beyond a civil rights movement and into a new religion, a religion that requires an abandonment of science, a rejection of objectivity, and a denial of observable reality. Feminism isn’t about changing the laws anymore; it’s about changing the very nature of our existence.
But before we get into how feminism distorts reality and wishes to destroy the essence of our society, I want to make one distinction. There are many branches of feminism’s family tree and not all of them are insane. I identify as an equity feminist, which means I believe that women should have all the same protections and rights under the law as anyone else, they should have equal opportunities as the rest of us, and the freedom to make the choices they wish – even if those decisions make other women mad. Equity feminism also means that I am open to the evolving research and science regarding men and women and I’ll follow the data wherever it goes. Steven Pinker, the Harvard University evolutionary psychologist and best-selling author, defines equity feminism as “a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology.”[i] Other leading equity feminists are Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers. They each share common beliefs: Women should have the same rights and protections as men. But they also acknowledge that men and women are different, with different preferences and desires, and those preferences will lead to different outcomes. To me this all seems perfectly sane, but to many others, like gender feminists, what Paglia, Sommers, and Pinker believe is blasphemy. So when I’m critical of feminism in this book, it is not directed towards the equity feminists, but rather the gender feminists, Marxist feminists, intersectional feminists and so on.
Women’s standing in society has quietly overtaken men’s. Feminism will have you believe women are oppressed and maligned, tortured by male power, and forced into submission to the patriarchy. If you merely listen to the headlines and feminist advocates, you may still believe women are at a disadvantage relative to men today.
But the state of women in 2017 hardly reflects an oppressed class of people. If women were oppressed by a dominating male patriarchy, then women would earn less money, be less educated, be unhealthier, less wealthy, and ultimately die faster and more frequently than men, right? Oppression is serious business, and what is the point of oppressing a class of people if you can’t ‘keep them down?’
But a look at the data shows women are outpacing men across some vital statistics. Young women fare far better than their young male counterparts in grade school.[ii] This leads to higher high school graduation rates for women than men.[iii] More women get into college, and more women earn degrees.[iv] Then, women out-earn their male counterparts in professional jobs in 147 of the top 150 cities in the United States.[v] More women advance to managerial roles than men do.[vi] And ultimately they end up controlling more wealth.[vii] Along the way women are less likely to die at work, less likely to suffer from alcohol and drug abuse, and predictably, live longer lives than men.[viii][ix][x] So not only are women getting better educations, making more money, holding more managerial positions, and controlling more wealth, but they also live longer healthier lives at the same time. But you never hear about this from feminists or the media and government they control, do you?
Today, the truth is, women learn more, earn more, have better health and control more wealth than men. It hardly seems possible given the constant rhetoric about male oppression, rape culture, the wage gap, and all the terrible things women were protesting in January 2017 during the Women’s March on DC. With pink pussy hats on their heads, women descended into Washington to protest the wretched state of affairs for American females. Maybe they are willfully ignorant or brainwashed themselves, but the reality is women today are freer, healthier, wealthier, better educated, and more secure than ever before.
If there is systemic oppression in our society, wouldn’t the stats bear it out? How does the patriarchy benefit men when women seem to be winning in every meaningful category? It’s almost as if the constant harping on the wage gap and male oppression is meant to cover up the real truth: men are falling behind in every measurable way. It seems feminists are not only winning their war against men, but they are also winning the information war as well. If the truth were well known, feminists would lose their standing and their entire industry would fall apart. In its place would appear a national effort to save our men from declining education, declining wage performance, depression, and suicide. These are the real data points for oppression. As you examine the facts, the idea our society colludes to marginalize females in favor of men evaporates under the heat of inspection. The patriarchy is the foundational myth of feminism, without it, feminism dies and the ideology which underpins the national narrative crumbles.
Democrat to Deplorable voters understand this. They see it with their own two eyes; they live it every day. Feminists escape reality by being willingly blind, whereas the anti-feminist yet pro-female Democrat to Deplorable voters remain grounded. So when Hillary Clinton takes on the mantle of feminism and proclaims her march to the Presidency is the final victory of feminism over the patriarchy, those who value reality over illusions, order over chaos, and truth over fiction are going to rebel. Donald Trump was our last ditch effort to save reality from a lie.
In October 2017, the highly respected global news magazine, The Economist, printed an article titled, “Why do women still earn a lot less than men?” Given that the wage gap issue remains one of the preferred tools of division by the feminist left, it was easy to assume the article would be filled with erroneous data pushing the myth that men and women get paid differently for the same jobs. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised when I read this striking confession, “According to data from 25 countries, gathered by Korn Ferry, a consultancy, women earn 98% of the wages of men who are in the same roles at the same employers.”
While I knew the wage gap was fiction, I wasn’t expecting the Economist to admit it. The wage gap myth is a prominent tool of disinformation promulgated by the left, including Obama, Clinton, and every single disingenuous politician looking to score points with feminists and their supporters. The baseline assumption of the wage gap idea is that somewhere in corporate America, a human resources staffer is making an explicit decision, “This woman is just as qualified as the man, but around here, we don’t pay women as much as men, so she’s only going to get 77% of what we pay the guys.” That single instance of misogyny is then replayed millions of times across each industry and the entire nation, until the cumulative effect is that women are paid 3/4 of what men are.
What a haunting specter this is, a coordinated effort among hiring managers to pay women lower wages and force them into poorer economic conditions solely for the sake of oppressing females. This horror terrifies women and their supporters, unites them in the face of male oppression, and justifies the ongoing evolution of feminist theory. If our culture won’t pay women the same as men, if it actively works to oppress women in 2018, then the war’s conclusion is beyond the horizon and today’s battles are as important as ever. The wage gap is a rallying cry for the restless feminist army. It is the banner they fly as they engage in day-to-day degradation of the male patriarchy.
What is the patriarchy? To feminists, every society has been male-dominated, every male-dominated society has oppressed women, and the society we live in today continues to dominate and oppress women, as evidenced by the wage gap, unfair hiring practices, and rape culture. Men control every aspect of society starting with the government, business, social institutions, local politics, and even the family. Male power is reinforced through law, social structures, mores, norms, philosophy, literature, and even science. A reliance on objectivity and rationality is preferred by male thinkers, and therefore sexist. Men control everything and in doing so, control women. Or so the theory goes.
As I read more of the Economist article, I began to realize this wasn’t the ‘end of the wage gap’ story I was hoping it to be. Instead of accepting their first data point as the conclusion, that 98% of women earn the same as men for the same job, the writer segued into complaining that too many women are concentrated in jobs that pay less than men. The issue is no longer that men get paid more for the same work, but now it’s that men take jobs which pay more than women do. The Economist explains how women tend to congregate in industries such as education, healthcare, and secretarial work which pay less than male-dominated industries like technology and finance. It also explains how 45-75% of women elect to work fewer hours when they have children, preferring to be at home with the babies rather than hustling in the workplace. And far fewer men report being stay at home dads or elementary school teachers than women do.
Rather than conclude their argument by explaining how men and women are different, with different biological realities, different expectations for themselves, different dispositions, and different risk appetites – the Economist article wraps up with a pithy summary which encapsulates all that is wrong the feminist movement today, “Gender equality will remain elusive until boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses and full-time parents.”
Read that again. Equality will be impossible until “boys are as excited as girls about becoming teachers, nurses, and full-time parents.” Equality cannot exist while boys and girls are excited and motivated by different things. Therefore, equality demands boys and girls desire precisely the same things, in all circumstances, from now and forever. Simply put, feminism will not rest until boys become girls. This is the real goal of feminists today. It’s not to gain women civil rights, they’ve already done that. It’s not to get women independence, as this too is already complete. And it’s not even to crush the wage gap, because as admitted above, the wage gap has already been demolished. The final goal of feminism is to eradicate masculinity, male interests, male spaces, and ultimately, erase maleness entirely from our society. How else can feminists claim victory over the patriarchy if not by destroying the very thing which creates it?
Feminism is a total war ideology. It is insufficient to simply fight a legal battle, or push for moderate changes in the media or pop culture. On the contrary, feminism requires holistic top-to-bottom assaults on every single aspect of our ‘male-dominated patriarchal, oppressive’ society. It’s quite impressive actually. Maybe they are more like men than we thought. They attack masculinity by labeling it toxic, they eradicate male-only spaces by infiltrating the Boy Scouts, they demonize young men by creating rape culture. And whether by ill intent or happenstance, male biology is even under siege, where the very essences of maleness, testosterone levels, and sperm counts, are at generational lows.[xi][xii] The war is comprehensive and continues unabated.
Feminists elect to be blind when it comes to differences between men and women despite data, science, and plain old common sense. When you observe a man and woman together, the differences between them are apparent. Men are generally taller, stronger, and can impregnate a woman. Women are smaller, weaker, and can grow babies inside them. It seems reasonable to assume natural differences in desires and attitudes would arise from such physical differences. Our bodies and minds are inextricably linked, and we’ve evolved to maximize our unique capabilities. A division of labor allows for specialization and growth. Surely, a different mindset is required to nurse a newborn baby, compared to say, protecting the nursing mother.
Our hormones drive these physical differences and they also influence our thoughts and feelings. Any woman who has experienced a menstrual cycle can attest, the effect hormones have on their brains can be overwhelming. Same goes for young men living through peak testosterone production. It’s almost as if the body takes over decision making for the time, driving them to seek out sexual partners and release. These hormones don’t just change our bodies, they drive observable differences in male and female behavior across countries and cultures, spanning different eras and epochs, and finding roots in our archetypal stories and shared mythologies. Simply put, understanding men and women are different is foundational to humanity. Without our dimorphism, without our physiological differences, without the clear distinctions between men and women, there would be no people. To some readers this will sound perfectly obvious, yet to others, it will seem like unfettered misogyny.
When transgenders transition from female to male, the first thing they do is take male hormones. These hormones drive physical changes like a deeper voice and more facial hair. The transgender desires congruence between their gender identity and their physical body. So they change their body through hormones, but these hormones also affect the brain. Higher levels of testosterone change the way humans think, act, and feel. There is little dispute that more testosterone leads to higher levels of aggression, risk-taking, and sexual appetite. Any man who has supplemented his own testosterone production with exogenous injections will tell you the same thing. Higher testosterone changes behavior into actions we primarily associate with being male. Men with low testosterone who elect for testosterone replacement therapy are seeking its transformative effect on mood and behavior as well as on the body. Injecting yourself with testosterone is like injecting yourself with masculinity. Trans people experience the same changes upon beginning therapy. Hormone supplementation is a foundation of sexual transition. It’s almost as if science has determined “maleness” can be created through drugs that mimic substances found naturally… in men.
If feminists and transgender advocates support sexual transition through hormones, you would think they could see the biological determinism of gender. Men produce far more testosterone than women naturally, trans women seek out testosterone to become men, and this testosterone leads to changed behaviors. The vast majority of the world’s testosterone comes from the male testicles. The phrase “have enough balls” to do something probably comes from an acknowledgment long ago, that male behavior is driven by male biology.
But feminists today reject biological essentialism. They don’t believe men act like men because men are built like men. They believe men act like “men” because society tells them how to think, feel, and act. They believe gender expression is a social construct rather than a result of biology. They use this same argument to claim cultural expectations of females shape their gender identities as well. There is no consideration that a woman’s body, her hormones, or her role in reproduction could influence her gender identity. There is no mind-body connection for feminists. The more radical of them even claim men and women are biologically the same. It’s as if our hormones and biology have no meaning unless a woman wants to become a man. In that case, hormones are essential to sex and gender.
The preposterousness of the transgender issue made me ashamed to have called myself a Democrat. The plain hypocrisy of their arguments, their commitment to ignoring science and reason, and the willingness to impose these disturbing views on children revealed the moral bankruptcy of the left to me and millions of other people. Seemingly overnight, an entire network enabling sex transition appeared in the United States, complete with a public relations strategy and a National Geographic cover story normalizing transgenderism and gender reassignment. Children are now offered hormone blockers pre-puberty to prevent sexual maturation. Parents are taught to coach children into gender dysphoria rather than therapy. As a result, transgenderism is now considered socially contagious as peer pressure and societal conditions urge children to adopt a transgender mind frame. What once evolved over an extended period now arrives as “rapid onset.”[xiii] And the newly created transgender industry is waiting, ready to castrate and mutilate sick, confused people. It is disgusting and shameful. Democrats and their feminist supporters sacrifice the health and well-being of children at the altar of politics.
Feminists push the transgender issue because it helps them chip away at biological essentialism. Anything that looks like a nonconforming expression of gender allows feminists to argue that women are equal to men in every capacity. In their quest for equality between men and women, feminists are willing to destroy both sexes along the way. Issues which accelerate the obliteration of traditional gender roles are natural allies to feminists and the Democrats. They co-opted the transgender issue and exploded it into a national matter, despite only a negligible portion of the population experiencing gender dysphoria. Beyond logic, science, and reality, what feminists and trans advocates failed to take into account was that the trans issue eviscerates their own positions.
In the rush to promote anything that seems to aid in the erasure of typical gender expression, they ignored the most critical element of the matter: it is impossible to be born the wrong social construct. This bears repeating: If gender is a social construct, you cannot be born the wrong gender. Feminist theorists must choose: either gender is a social construct, and therefore transgenders are a logical impossibility, or transgenders are real, and therefore gender is something you’re born with. Feminists don’t care for logic or science. Apparently, they only care about their agenda: destroy men and everything related to them, including ideas of masculinity.
I have deep empathy for people who suffer gender dysphoria. They deserve our love, care, and kindness. They especially deserve mental health services which aid them to a peaceful resolution of the disturbance in their mind. What they don’t deserve is a fast-track to body mutilation. Most cases of gender dysphoria in young people fade away with time as people work through their issues and into a stable understanding of who they are. And in any case, an adult human can choose to do whatever they like to their bodies, dress however they want, and behave in whatever way makes them comfortable. My outrage is reserved for when transgender politics gets applied to children.
I had a friend who expressed gender dysphoria as a child. She dressed like a boy, acted like a boy, even took on a typical male name. She played tackle football in the mud while other girls wore dresses and went to ballet. We had a name for that back then, she was a ‘tomboy.’ But, over time, she realized she didn’t want to be a man. She didn’t want to live with a man’s name, dress like a man, or even act like one. When she matured, she realized she was indeed a woman and was happy to live that way. Had she expressed gender confusion in 2017, she may very well have been herded into a reassignment center, given hormone blockers to prevent full sexual maturation and possibly been mutilated through surgery. What a tragedy that would have been. Confused tomboys and fairies today aren’t so lucky. Instead of given time to develop their own identity, they are rushed into rash decisions and physical harm. Transgenders and feminists prioritize their agenda over the well-being of kids. Children are now collateral damage in the culture wars, which reveals a particular madness surrounding us.
When rational people witness irrationality, they find it disturbing. A glimpse into a chaotic world isolated from reason and science brings a visceral aversion. Watching other humans flail around in the darkness of unhinged thinking makes those of us who value order and reality feel unsettled. Today, we are watching a delusion acted out upon society and our fellow humans. When we encounter a single instance of insanity, it is easy to write off and look the other way, but when the lunacy descends upon half the country, infiltrates our institutions, and takes over our universities, we sane people are deeply troubled. We are so deeply troubled that we are willing to take risks to end the insanity. And in 2016, the risk we took was electing Donald Trump as president over Hillary Clinton, the Queen Feminist herself.
For nine million Democrat to Deplorable voters, Donald Trump was a beacon of hope amidst a frightening sea of chaos. Had Hillary Clinton become President, the feminist armies would have marched unmolested across our country, accelerating the loss of science, reason, and reality. More sacrifices would have been made to the equality gods. More children would have been mutilated. Our world would have dipped one layer deeper into the black abyss of unreason and horror. A Clinton victory would have lifted feminist theory to the highest office and used that power to spread its lies and terror into every aspect of American life. Democrats who voted for Obama, people like me, people who respect gay rights, civil rights, and equality of opportunity for all people, saw what Clinton would enable and we had to do something. Nine million of us broke ways with our old party, the party we proudly supported, to save the country from sanctioned insanity. Donald Trump and his uber-masculine persona, model wife, and swashbuckling business approach, represented the necessary counterweight to lead the country back from the edge of chaos and into the realm of order. In 2016, a vote for Donald Trump was a plea for a return to reality, a re-embrace of reason, and a prayer that it wasn’t too late.
Since the ‘90s, feminism has commingled with other ideologies on the way to its current perversion. Feminism metastasized into intersectionality, which in turn gave birth to social justice and its warriors. These social justice warriors spread into society with their marching orders: patriarchy is bad, masculinity is toxic, objective reality is a myth, lived experience is the only truth, science is white supremacy, biology isn’t real, men and women are the same, and anyone you disagree with should be shouted down, shamed, shunned and silenced. There is no questioning the foundational myths of the social justice warrior. If you merely wish to discuss the assumptions or the data, you’re a wretched misogynist and anti-diversity. If you doubt their conclusions, you’re part of the patriarchy. And if you refuse to kowtow to their demands, they unleash the mob on you.
Our current condition is a result of a fusion between social justice warriors, feminism, and post-modernism. Post-modern philosophy believes there is no objective reality and our individual realities are mediated by language. This means they believe each person has a unique reality, one that can be controlled and manipulated by the words they use. They think language creates reality, rather than reveals a reality which exists independently of human observation. Social justice warriors wish to alter reality and therefore want to use the power of law to govern what we say. In California, it is now illegal to use the ‘wrong’ pronoun in certain situations.[xiv] In Canada, politicians have criminalized wrong speak as well.[xv] It is now literally illegal to speak the wrong words. That these laws arise around transgender or non-binary gender identities is no accident. The post-modern left wishes to obliterate the idea that men and women are different, and they attack all elements of communicating about gender as a way to achieve their goal.
Feminists and post-modernists have also now fused with the Marxists. Marxists see the world in terms of power struggles between capitalists and workers. When real-world experiments failed, and Marxism had no economic arguments left to make, Marxist theory then slithered into feminist theory, where it has been appropriated with enthusiasm. The feminist version of Marxism believes the patriarchy defines our culture, that men oppress women, and the only way to remedy this is to annihilate the patriarchy and the men who comprise it. Male power is now considered the bourgeoisie, while females are the proletariats. Consistent with Marx’s revolutionary ideas, the true liberation of women can only come at the defeat of the male-dominated patriarchy, or so the theory goes.
We should wonder what might happen if the feminist, Marxist, post-modernist axis of evil were to achieve victory. Marx called for revolution, stealing the bourgeoisie’s property, and stripping them of their rights. He believed the source of their power was property rights, rights which had to be abolished to bring freedom to the working class. In today’s world, men are the bourgeoisie and their political and economic power comes from their inherent masculine power. Therefore, the only way to ‘free’ women from the patriarchy is to destroy masculinity. Once maleness is brought to its knees and denuded of its power, the proletariat feminist will consolidate their new authority and use it to create a utopia. When feminists and social justice warriors talk of smashing the patriarchy, this is what they mean: the end of male power and the rise of female authority. Have you ever seen the t-shirt favored by feminists that says, “The Future is Female”?
Hillary Clinton was the leader of this revolutionary alliance of feminism, intersectionality, post-modernism, and Marxism. The “I’m with HER” slogan made her campaign all about her vagina and gender expression as a woman. She rallied this new cult by using the language of feminism and intersectionality on the campaign trail and by validating their grand myths of the wage gap and rape culture. Did Hillary understand how this mishmash of ideologies aims to destroy the foundations of Western Civilization? Did she realize promoting feminist ideology meant advancing the decline of the West? We can only speculate about her knowledge of the issues, but smashing the patriarchy, controlling language, abandoning science, and forgetting about rationality will indeed lead to an erosion of western values.
Perhaps the scariest element of the Marxist/feminist/post-modern alliance is the erasure of the individual. To intersectionalists and their allies, the individual is subsumed by the group identity. Your unique characteristics, interests, desires, intellectual capability, physical capability, or biology are all less important than your group membership. Race, gender, ethnicity, age group, sexual identity – these are the defining human traits today. Enlightenment ideals of reason, rationality, and the primacy of the individual are now less important than the color of your skin. In a world defined by power dynamics between the oppressor and the oppressed, who you are as a unique individual is far less important than where you lie on the power spectrum. Marxists believe culture and all its ideas are a result of economic conditions, intersectionalists believe group identity is paramount, and both views discard the individual as irrelevant.
This tension between the cult left and Western Civilization is unresolvable. The cult left believes Western Civilization is a male-dominated patriarchy which oppresses women and minorities. And that patriarchy is created by, defended by, and supported by straight white guys. The only way to free the oppressed people is to destroy the source of Western Civilization and its defenders: white dudes. This conflict is built into the core of the intersectional ideology. Without oppressors, there is no oppression. For intersectionality to exist, it must not only identify additional sufferers but also maintain and preserve the notion of oppression. Intersectionality fused with Marxism and post-modernism is by definition a lethal threat to Western Civilization.
All of which makes it odd Hillary Clinton decided to be Queen Feminist and court the cult left in her campaign. The United States is the pinnacle of Western Civilization. At this point in history, our culture has won the Darwinian wars of natural selection and risen to the top. An informed, rational thinker cannot comprehend those who support ideologies antagonistic to the ideals of the West. Why bother running for President of the United States if part of your voting base wishes to destroy it? Hillary didn’t just dog whistle to the cult left, she adopted their language, their posture, and promised her victory would be theirs. It’s almost as if a vote for Hillary was a vote to end culture as we know it.
Our collective understanding of feminism is backward-looking, focused on the righteous achievements in civil rights, believing feminism is about suffrage and independence, rather than the annihilation of civilization.
But for those of us who see the trajectory of these ideologies, blissful ignorance is not an option. War footing is the only reasonable posture. To attack is the only winning strategy. Passive observation is surrender, and surrender leads to the end of the West. This war will define our future, write the unwritten history of America, and in turn, decide the fate of our great civilization.
[i] Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Penguin Books, 2016).
[ii] “World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance,” The Economist, accessed May 01, 2018, http://www.economist.com/news/international/21645759-boys-are-being-outclassed-girls-both-school-and-university-and-gap
[iii] Erika Christakis, “Do Teachers Really Discriminate Against Boys?” Time, February 06, 2013, accessed October 01, 2017, http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/
[iv] “The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions (National Center for Education Statistics),” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education, accessed May 01, 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72
[v] Belinda Luscombe, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top,” Time, September 01, 2010, accessed May 01, 2018, http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
[vi] Rob Wile, “Women Now Hold a Majority of All Management and Professional Positions in the U.S.,” Splinter, April 07, 2015, accessed May 01, 2018, https://splinternews.com/women-now-hold-a-majority-of-all-management-and-profess-1793846899
[vii] “BMO Report: Despite Controlling $14 Trillion in Wealth, American Women Still Have Challenges to Overcome,” Marketwire, accessed May 01, 2018, http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/bmo-report-despite-controlling-14-trillion-wealth-american-women-still-have-challenges-tsx-bmo-2006436.htm
[viii] “Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) – Current and Revised Data,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 20, 2018, accessed April 01, 2018, https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#2011
[ix] Jill B. Becker and Ming Hu, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, January 2008, accessed May 01, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235192/
[x] “QuickStats: Life Expectancy at Birth, by Sex and Race/Ethnicity – United States, 2011,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 05, 2014, accessed May 01, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a8.htm
[xi] Human Reproduction Update, Volume 23, Issue 6, 1 November 2017, Pages 646–659, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx022
[xii] Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, January 2007.
[xiii] “Misunderstanding a New Kind of Gender Dysphoria,” Quillette, October 11, 2017, accessed May 01, 2018, http://quillette.com/2017/10/06/misunderstanding-new-kind-gender-dysphoria/
[xiv] California Senate Bill SB 219, Wiener. Long-term care facilities: rights of residents.
[xv] Canadian Bill C-16: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
This essay is an excerpt from Jack Murphy’s book “Democrat to Deplorable: Why Nine Million Obama Voters Ditched the Democrats and Embraced Donald Trump.”