One of the central premises of Cultural Marxism is the division of society into classes of oppressors and oppressed (be it whites versus non-whites, poor versus rich, etc.) and thereby fomenting tensions between these segments, which the Left then leverages to push the radical changes they desire.
The feminist movement is one of the most prominent varieties of Cultural Marxism; it destroys the interdependent and complementary partnership that naturally exists between men and women, replacing it with an enmity — positing that women are victims who must be delivered from the evils of patriarchy. Feminists’ solution to this problem of their own creation, of course, is socialism.
The excesses of feminism have prompted a backlash over the years and, at least on the political right, there is widespread acknowledgement that the fundamental principles on which feminism is based are false, and that feminism itself is little more than a Marxist tool.
However, the Deep State forces behind socialism have fine-tuned the art of social engineering after centuries of practice. One thing they have clearly discovered by this point is that backlash against their agenda is inescapable; thus, an astute way to counteract the inevitable resistance is to hijack the opposition movement.
This can be seen on a broad scale in the way in which globalist financiers often fund both sides of the political spectrum, giving money to both Republican and Democrat politicians and to liberal and conservative causes. Much of the mainstream “conservative” media landscape, such as Fox News, is nothing more than controlled opposition — gatekeepers who give some red meat to the conservative base while simultaneously suppressing the voices and ideas that would lead to real change.
Not surprisingly, such well-funded, ostensibly conservative organizations have been the first to join hands with the Left in condemning The John Birch Society and similarly legitimate pro-constitutionalist activists over the years.
This hijacking of the right-wing zeitgeist takes place on a smaller scale for particular issues, and it is now the case on the matter of male-female relations. There is a segment of the political right (not a majority, yet large enough to be significant) that, rather than returning to a traditional and balanced approach after rejecting feminism, actually adopts the talking points and philosophical premises of feminism — but merely switches the sexes.
In other words, this movement regards men as victims who must liberate themselves from the female-driven oppression of society. And the means to that liberation parallel the same methods and demands that feminism makes on behalf of women.
For example, some in this movement argue that men should abstain from marriage because there is a danger of divorce, and modern divorce laws are unfair to men, putting them at danger of losing most of their money to an ex-wife.
While the specifics of divorce and alimony law are legitimate topics of discussion, the notion that men should not marry over the possibility of being divorced at some point is radical, nonsensical, and clearly analogous to the feminism concept of cautioning women against marriage because it will cause them to lose their freedom.
The goal, obviously, is to dissuade both men and women from getting married, having children, and building stable families. Strong, healthy families are the foundation of a prosperous society; eliminating the family as the most basic unit of society is pivotal for the Marxists. So while they previously had their feminist argument for convincing women against marriage, they now have their anti-marriage argument adapted to the sensibilities of gullible men.
For some in this movement, the solution is to use women only for promiscuous sex sans marriage and children. This is comparable to the aspect of feminism that calls on women to be promiscuous while using birth control and abortion to avoid the responsibilities of motherhood.
Some take this line of thought even further and make the mind-boggling statement that having romantic relationships with women at all is somehow “gay.”
The conclusion, for them, is to withdraw into asexuality and “incel” culture, a modern term that means “involuntarily celibate” The incel community was originally a coming-together of men who were angry at their inability to form romantic relationships with women. Over time, it has become a badge of honor — incels are proud of not having relationships with women and become livid when one of their own breaks out of inceldom and actually becomes involved with a woman.
Again, all of this has its precedent in feminism; for decades, feminism has been known for preaching about how all men are “evil” and that women are better off avoiding relationships with the opposite sex; this is tied to the promotion of lesbianism, as, per feminist doctrine, it is better — even more “moral” — for women to engage in sexual relations with one another than to support the patriarchy via relationships with men.
In the same subtle way, this pernicious movement, be it called inceldom, Men Going Their Own Way, or any other epithet (a specific name is tricky, as their are various groups with separate-yet-overlapping philosophies that make up this anti-female movement of men), eventually leads men to homosexuality. Men become so brainwashed with “women are evil” propaganda that they are led right into sodomy as the logical conclusion.
Feminism should rightfully be rejected. But it is of little service — and of great harm — to reject feminism only to fall into another form of Cultural Marxism simply because it happens to be tailored to men.
