Friday, July 06, 2018


Over at The Federalist, Paul Rowan Brian obviously has delved deep in Stephen Baskerville's new book, The New Politics of Sex.

"...Baskerville pins the blame for society’s woes on sexual radicals who are agitating directly and indirectly for the destruction of the family, and men in particular. This is a keystone book, especially in the Age of the Incel, although it’s worth noting that those who read it may go from being an incel (involuntarily celibate) to a volcel (voluntarily celibate).

Baskerville’s thesis is that the effects of the sexual revolution have led the West to the brink of social and economic ruin. Think of the inverse of “The Handmaid’s Tale”: no patriarchal dystopia but instead a bloated welfare state run into the ground by shrieking feminists and perpetually aggrieved outrage merchants justifying their own power by worsening the very problems they claim to be solving. Baskerville identifies ongoing efforts by radical feminists and homosexual activists to demonize and dismantle the two-parent heterosexual family and shows how these movements are deeply intertwined with a dangerous growth in state power and bureaucratic intrusion.

“Feminists and more recently homosexual political activists have now positioned themselves at the vanguard of left-wing politics, shifting the political discourse from the economic and racial to the social and increasingly the sexual,” Baskerville writes, adding that these groups are pursuing a “social and sexual confrontation with the private family, marriage, masculinity, and religion.”

The Honey Trap

The go-to tactic to take down families and men is basically a sort of politically correct honey trap.

“The power to define crime and sin is the claim to rule, and desecrating and discarding the old taboos is merely the prelude to issuing new ones,” Baskerville observes. First the sexually liberated promote “unimpeded freedom—especially sexual freedom—and then criminalize those—usually the men—who engage in it.”

Although he briefly acknowledges that young men shouldn’t give into the temptation to “hook up” and use women merely for pleasure in the first place, Baskerville contends that focusing on men’s partial culpability in the outer cycle of immorality ignores the more vital issue of how the trap has been set up and its purpose.

“As always, the most effective weapon for destroying men is sex, and the battle reduces to who controls the terms of sexuality,” Baskerville notes, slamming “Maoist” sexual radicals on college campuses and lily-livered academics who pay homage to feminism and outlandish gender ideologies before offering even the mildest critique of them. It’s all a recipe for doom.

“Sexual liberation cannot possibly result in any outcome other than the arbitrary and blanket criminalization of heterosexual men and from there to the collapse of the rule of law altogether,” Baskerville writes.

Interestingly, The New Politics of Sex also observes that militant communism and sexual radicalism share deep patterns of reasoning, notably viewing even reproduction itself as oppression. Friedrich Engels, for example, wrote that “the first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” Such twisted logic transitions seamlessly into radical feminism, where the oppressor is not the entrepreneurial class but the family itself. “A mother may love her son dearly, but he is nevertheless a member of a class that has controlled and oppressed her,” writes feminist lunatic Anne Schaef. “As a result, she cannot help but feel rage and hostility toward him.”

Baskerville quotes Harvard literature professor Ruth Wisse, who observes that feminism is a “neo-Marxist movement” that’s “done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible.” The New Politics of Sex takes pains to emphasize that it’s not just another book decrying moral rot but instead a wake-up call to the Right to realize all the governmental and judicial power it is ceding unnecessarily to the Left.

“Sexual ideology is more than libertinism. The inseparable corollary is authoritarian—what one scholar calls ‘punitive feminism,’” Baskerville writes, adding that offending someone is now a crime requiring “official campaigns to ‘re-educate.’”

Complacent Conservatives

Baskerville singles out the growth and expansion of divorce legislation passed in the 1970s as worthy of particular condemnation. According to Baskerville, “some 80 percent of divorces are unilateral.” No-fault divorce can speedily remove a father of his possessions, children, and wife—and overturns sacred marriage covenants without a second glance. Baskerville slams the church for not fighting hard enough against no-fault divorce, noting that “in the most critical contest between church and state begun four decades ago with no-fault divorce in the United States, the churches surrendered without a fight.”

Christians who feel hounded by hostile government policies on everything from gay marriage to abortion would do well to consider how much of the flak they’re now getting derives its toxicity and puissance from the emotionalized reasoning initially employed in expansions of divorce law from the “nebulousness of the transgression” to “the central role of the accuser’s subjective ‘feelings,’ and the presumption of guilt against the accused.”

In The New Politics of Sex, Baskerville presents a nightmare future of entitled alternative families and sexual libertines wresting control of the vast welfare state apparatus for their various short-sighted, hedonistic, and harmful agendas.

“The radicals demand not only ‘freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression,’ which of course was granted long ago. The state (meaning the rest of the population) must also support these ‘households’: ‘access for all to vital government support programs, including but not limited to: affordable and adequate health care, affordable housing, a secure and enhanced Social Security system,” Baskerville writes. “Because taxation is collected through the penal system and ultimately at gunpoint, this effectively enslaves the sexually restrained to the sexually liberated.”

Baskerville hits hard at conservatives in this book, too, saying they’re too timid and complacent. He cites F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power and critiques the conservative habit of denouncing misbehavior from the Left with the language and reasoning of the Left. For example, Baskerville argues that conservatives should have denounced Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife, but instead aped progressive rhetoric.

“One need only observe the zeal with which conservative political operatives abandon traditional stigmas against quaint, old-fashioned concepts like adultery or fornication and adopt sexualized agitprop jargon, whose full implications they do not and cannot comprehend, when they opportunistically accuse President Bill Clinton of ‘sexual harassment’ or Muslims of ‘homophobia,’” Baskerville writes.

Big Business Socialism

Baskerville says conservatives who complain about cultural decay are missing what’s happening right around them as their governments and institutions from the state level to the United Nations are taken over by radical feminists and sexual activists: “Conservatives see only the libertinism and individual license. Their failure to understand the collective lust for power leaves them impotent—lamenting and bemoaning the hedonistic debauchery but helpless to check the militants’ consolidation of government power.”

Feminists and other gender and sexual radicals worsen the problems they purport to solve, he says. “This trait feminism shares with other radical ideologies but carries much further: the capacity to expand its power exponentially by creating the very problems about which it complains,” he writes, adding that “in every case the alleged hardship exists, if it exists at all, only because women and children have first been separated from, and set in opposition to, the families and men that traditionally protected and provided for them—as demanded by sexual radicals themselves.”

This is where the welfare state comes in, when the man leaves, as Baskerville continues to sketch out his horrifying blueprint of a society built on reckless sexual license and feminist extremism.

“Originally justified to provide for the families of men who had been laid off during economic downturns or eliminated by war, the welfare state quickly became a subsidy on single-mother homes and fatherless children,” Baskerville writes. “In good bureaucratic fashion, that is, it immediately set in to vastly expand and effectively to create precisely the problem of poverty it claimed to be alleviating.”

The welfare state, expanded continuously for the supposed well-being of single mothers and their kids, is a way for government to intrude into the last remaining place it was formerly barred from: parenthood...."

Initially I wasn't sure I'd follow either Brian or Baskerville all along in their thesis, because so many bigshots and champions of Big Government do not exactly project themselves deviant sexual prowess (I'm thinking here about the likes of HRC or Jeremy Corbyn - outwardly they almost look asexual). But after a while I started to agree - more or less. Their personal shenanigans - or the seemingly nonexistence thereof - are irrelevant. It's their destructive encouragement to others that matters - like promoting the idea that a woman can do as she sees fit and eschew the oh so protective (and thus denigrating, at least for them scoundrels) role of a straight, true, caring male in a traditional relationship. After all, who needs males like that? When The State will take care for wretched damsels getting themselves in a mess, thru the promiscuous lifestyles championed by the political talking heads of that very same state?

Of course, history is replete with gazillions of examples of grossly deviant sexual behaviour of the minions and propagandists of said Merkels and Clintons. John Maynard Keynes, who went to the Bloomsbury's country retreat in the South Downs to screw Duncan Grant and others comes to mind, but also, for instance, in my neck of the woods Mieke Vogels of the Flemish Greens, who as Flemish Welfare Minister in 2001 launched an explicit campaign to let Flemish youngsters indulge in sex à volonté with no matter who or what. Below you see her photos plus the front of one of the accompanying brochures, enthusiastically promoting gay sex. The caption reads: "Say something, dick. Open your mouth before you have sex".

Of course, that was 2001. Advertising for sexual deviancy has gotten a tad more realistic in the years since. But to get to the point, no one in his or her right mind would ever say Mieke Vogels was a libertarian. She, too, was and is, apart from being a mouthpiece for screwing your way through life, also a Grand Champion for an ever more powerful state.


No comments: