Donald Trump • Economy • feminists • Post • Republicans

Lara Trump Tries to Fix Her Party’s Woman Problem

Last week, one month before she was set to give birth to her second child, Lara Trump came to King of Prussia, Pennsylvania to kick off the 2020 Women for Trump coalition, planting a flag, or at least an olive branch, in some of the least Trump-friendly terrain in the Keystone State: suburban Philadelphia.

Poised, witty and sharply on message, President Trump’s daughter-in-law is a natural in a position she says is far removed from her modest upbringing. “I grew up in a middle-class family in North Carolina, and I couldn’t have ever imagined that I would be a part of anything like this,” she told me.

Her job is both simple and complicated: keeping the old female voters and persuading the new ones for her father-in-law, who, to be frank, has a woman problem. The foundation of his base has been and continues to be men, explained Jeff Brauer, a political science professor at Keystone College. “Particularly married men, who voted for Trump nearly 20 points higher than Clinton in 2016,” he said. “To be accurate though, it is not just a Trump problem. Single women, who make up almost half of the women in the country, tend to be strongly Democratic. In 2016, Clinton won unmarried women by almost 30 points.”

Single men also went to Hillary Clinton but by a tiny two-point margin.

“So the real key is married women. They will decide the next presidency,” said Brauer.

Lara Trump says her biggest challenge isn’t retaining the women who voted for her father-in-law in 2016; instead, it’s winning the votes of women who didn’t vote for him but now find they like his policies while disliking his comportment.

“I think there are a lot of people, men and women alike, who feel that way out there,” she said. “The reality is that you don’t have to love everything about this president, but you sure can love the direction that he’s taking this country.” She rattled off his policies, from tax cuts to national security. She landed on the age-old question “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

“You might not love everything he tweets, but you never have to wonder what this president is thinking. He’s very transparent,” she said, days after critics and supporters alike cringed at a tweet he lobbed at the “squad” of new Democratic congresswomen.

“I think because he is unconventional, he’s been incredibly effective,” she said. “You don’t have to follow all of the old rules in Washington, D.C. He’s beholden only to the American people, not to lobbyists, not to special interest groups.”

The campaign’s decision to kick off Women for Trump in Montgomery County, a suburban Philly county that supported Clinton in 2016, was no accident. It plans to make inroads with married suburban women, because it has to win reelection in 2020.

For two decades, married women have gravitated toward Republican presidential candidates.

In fact, Republican candidates have won the married women vote since 1996, said Brauer: “In 2012, Romney beat Obama with this demographic 53 percent to 46 percent. However, this trend changed in 2016. Clinton was able to edge out Trump with married women 49 percent to 47 percent—still a decent showing for Trump running against the first woman major candidate.”

Brauer said evidence of Trump’s suburban-women voter problem emerged in the results of last year’s midterm elections and in part comes from his uncensored use of Twitter. “Some of this erosion is due to his brash comments about and to prominent women and racial minorities, and some is due to his policy stances, such as his efforts to repeal health care reforms and the treatment of migrant families on the border,” he said.

Given all that, it is a smart and critical initiative for the Trump team to begin specifically courting women’s votes, especially in places like suburban Philadelphia. And Lara Trump’s visit was the beginning of the initiative, said Brauer.

“These suburbs have a strong demographic of married women who tend to vote Republican but are willing to vote Democratic for the right candidates. So their votes must be earned,” said Brauer.

The strongest message for married women is probably an economic one: This demographic knows firsthand the struggles of maintaining a career and raising a family, especially to give their children more opportunities than they had.

“The message should be all about the booming economy, especially low unemployment/high job opportunities, increasing wages/salaries, tax cuts and the ability to retire with the growth of 401(k)s,” said Brauer. “They need to be convinced their families and children will have a better economic life with a second Trump term.”

If the Trump team can successfully make that argument, then perhaps these women will overlook the president’s foibles and their disparities with him, said Brauer. “It is an effort worth undertaking.”


Photo credit: John Lamparski/Getty Images

Donald Trump • feminists • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • Technology • The Left

Boycott Culture Is All the Left Has Left

The boycott was once preserved for the most diabolical of political regimes. In decades of old, activists with an actual enemy to slay used the boycott to hasten the demise of the inhumane apartheid regime of South Africa.

Remarkably, those activists made history without Twitter or a single self-titillating hashtag.

This week, in clownish post-serious once-Great Britain, a family-owned sausage company flickered under the impotent flame of Twitter’s brightest sparks.

Boris Johnson’s folksy campaign visit to Heck Foods involved the likely next prime minister making and packing sausages. The point perhaps being to show that the man charged with finally dragging us from the European Union is listening to the people such a momentous decision most greatly would affect.

Of course, the sight of Boris performing probably the most innocuous of exercises shook the patrons of Twitter into a wholly predictable fit of fashionable rage.

One devotee of that digital asylum claimed they’d never eat Heck sausages again, and “hoped” (ever the emotion) that all “fair-minded” people would follow suit.

Radical conformists parroted the silly sentiment. All, unsurprisingly, having adorned their Twitter bios with demented and bunny-boiled declarations of love for the European Union that Boris is determined to leave.

To think that a cylinder of minced meat encased in a collagen skin so disturbs those convinced of their intellectual superiority, is more delicious a thought than the humble sausage itself. And from people who’ve probably never bought a Heck sausage.

For three years now, we who voted to leave the European Union have been branded with the “thick” stick. Our betters, you see, are still fighting the war of 2016. Like those Japanese soldiers, shambling around the jungle, decades after the war’s end.

They implore, with adolescent emotion, of a Britain only they recognize. And one they need to exist.

The Brexit vote, according to those on Twitter, unleashed the darkest forces, and mainstreamed fascism. White supremacy reigns. Or something.

Which is strange take. A report this week found that Chinese and Indian workers earn far more than native white Britons. A notion perhaps absurd in an apparently racist wonderland. Maybe, their famed industry, and ascetic commitment to education is the difference.

Couple that with the fact that white working-class British boys attain by some margin the lowest education of all groups. Or, in America, that Nigerian-Americans are quietly becoming the most successful ethnic group.

But facts matter little to the modern progressive. Another who prefers a terrorized reality is Megan Rapinoe. The women’s soccer world cup winner this week repeated her refusal to visit the White House. That was despite no invite being on the table.

Rapinoe sounded like the jilted lover propping up the end of the bar. In his poisoned state, he talks of nothing but his former love, capping that drowsy lament with: but, I don’t care about her, anyway.

Winning the highest prize in her sport was not sufficient for Rapinoe.

In a statement striking only for its dull suffocation of original thought, Rapinoe, herself involved in a same-sex relationship, seared the first president openly to be accepting of same-sex marriage.

“Your message is excluding people,” Rapinoe said. “You’re excluding me, you’re excluding people that look like me, you’re excluding people of color, you’re excluding Americans that maybe support you.”

The monologue is typical of the attention-saturated progressive. Doubtless, its author is unduly convinced of its copy-and-paste profundity—a sad phenomenon latent in those “educated” with fifth-place medals for their unbending brilliance.

That brilliance convinced both Remainers and the anti-Trump “Resistance” of the coming post-democratic hellscapes that will abound if the oiks voted against their interests.

Inconveniently, Britain lacks the plagues of locusts. And President Trump seems content with putting Americans to work, and smoothing the excesses of the GOP’s Gordon Gekko wing.

Perhaps, this pathological adolescence serves a purpose. Progressives, after all, cannot afford progress. They love Trump’s “hate.” Oppression is a luxury item among history’s most privileged.

It’s just like The Handmaid’s Tale . . . or something. When, in reality, Trump’s America is as tolerant and open as the America before it.

And that is a notion which progressives cannot abide. Without confected enemies, their schtick renders itself meaningless. Both race and gender relations have irreversibly advanced since the 1960s. The only people who don’t want us to know that tend to call themselves progressive.

Boycott culture and grievance-farming is all they have left. A means to enforce the authoritarian whims of the Woke upon those peccable souls who refuse its election.

Indeed, there is one boycott worthy of a mention and, if adhered to would permanently enrich the human condition—the boycott of Twitter.

Imagine, if you will, a world in which sausages are free to adorn the necks of whomever they choose, regardless of that person’s political views. A world in which all sausages could freely associate with whomever they liked. And be eaten by whomever they liked. Without the threat of boycott by the spoilers of all that is meaty and pure—those “progressives” on Twitter.

Photo Credit: Darren Staples/AFP/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • feminists • Post • Progressivism • The Culture • The Left

Stop Putting Your Daughters on Birth Control

Earlier in the summer, I was vacationing at the beach with a dear family friend. As we lounged in the sunroom listening to waves break in the distance one early afternoon, she brought up her 16-year-old daughter, Sally. A few weeks’ prior, Sally and her boyfriend of three years (we’ll call him Mike) had broken up. Mike had just spent his first year away at college. Sally generally tells her mother (who is a bit of a gossip) very little, but her mother had gathered through Sally’s sisters that Mike had been unfaithful.

Sally’s mom expressed the situation to me as a “shame,” because a few weeks before the breakup, Sally had requested the birth-control pills that her mother had long touted as a possibility for each of her daughters. Now, between sips of pinot grigio, she hoped aloud that her daughter wouldn’t “go crazy” and sleep with too many people to make Mike jealous.

Since the breakup, Sally has begun making darker and more suggestive choices in fashion, makeup, and social media posting. She’s always been sassy, but her attitude has become detached and bitter with an air of rebellion. Even a casual observer would be able to detect a thinly veiled resentment toward her parents.

“It’ll probably just pass,” her mother says. “Same thing happened to me in high school.”

Growing up in the Deep South, most of my good friends (whose parents were Christians, Republicans, and leaders in the community) began taking “the pill” at 14 years old, no questions asked. Chelsea got a pimple? The pill will fix it. Tori has bad cramps? Take the pill. Julia can’t regulate her mood or appetite? Sounds like a job for the pill. Never mind that the pill can make you break out, worsen bodily pain and mood swings, and make you gain weight—and often did all of those things at once.

At some point, the pill became a rite of passage, an irrational tradition to which all upstanding WASPs adhered and one they perpetuated whether because of inertia or fear. The explanation was rarely that the pubescent girl was actually having sex—in fact, most didn’t start with that until years after beginning the pill. But the understanding was that eventually she would. And this little magic trick not only would insulate her from the adult consequences of her adult decisions, but, perhaps primarily, insulate her Baby Boomer parents from the social shaming a teen pregnancy would generate in their circles.

You know you’re a woman in American society when you are handed a tastefully designed compact dispenser of little white and blue pills that, as a panacea for all of your ailments, nullifies your natural function as a woman. You know you’re a woman in American society when people stop treating you like a girl and start treating you like a man. I don’t recall any such rite of passage for the boys in my life.

The issue of birth control cuts to the core of the diabolical disorientation of the family in the Western world. When your daughter, sister, wife, or girlfriend swallows that pill, not only does she ingest all the artificial hormones that increasingly are linked to breast cancer and strokes later in life, she ingests our society’s judgment of her worth. Whether she takes it with explicitly naughty plans like those of Sally, or for the diversionary purposes of my teenage peers a decade ago, she always absorbs all of the presuppositions that the pill represents. As the soul is more sensitive than the body, these presuppositions are what cause the most damage.

They deserve a good dismantling.

That Fertility Is an Illness
With the exception of the new transsexual mutilation procedures, fertility and pregnancy might be the only natural, healthy functions of the human body that are treated as illnesses by the medical community at large. If we were to compare the state of fertility to any other healthy capacity of the human body, and then consider how a doctor might cancel that healthy capacity according to patient preference, we begin to see what is certainly a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

Imagine treating someone’s ability to run by cutting off their legs or giving them an immobility pill for the years during which they are at their physical peak. Imagine then still calling oneself a “healer” in light of this.

The original Hippocratic Oath reads:

. . . I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein . . .

Even if we, like the American Medical Association, dispense with the crystal clear pro-life promise at its core, the Hippocratic Oath’s primary “do no harm” principle stands firmly in opposition to the mass dispensation of birth control to women and girls.

Birth control is inherently harmful in that it disrupts something that is good and performing according to its nature: fertility in women. There are, of course, the long-term harmful and well-documented secondary health effects that come after years of taking the pill. But fundamentally, the pill cancels the primary, unique, and healthy function of the female body. By taking what is objectively good and terminating it, even temporarily, the pill is injurious and ultimately unjust by its very nature. For women, for whom fertility is the harbinger of their greatest power (child formation), a cancellation of fertility attacks their very essence and being. In essence, it changes a woman.

The pill is an affront to creation and an attack on the divine feminine. The materialists among us, having a retarded, antispiritual view of the human person, might accept that without any qualms. But the rest of us must not abide.

That Sex Is Merely a Matter of Science (and Science Rules)
The idea that fertility should be medicated comes from a more fundamental assumption that sex itself is a matter exclusively of science, and that a scientific view of the world, demystified of any objective, transcendent meaning, is the only valid worldview. By this way of thinking, the meaningful consequences of sex are limited to that which is measurable: the reproductive result.

When we regard it merely as a scientific matter, we anesthetize sex, scraping it clean of any emotional or spiritual bearing. The meaningful contributions of each participant in the act are limited to their sperm and egg cells. It becomes no different from any other animal act.

Science by its nature and by the scientific method atomizes the focus of its study. In order to understand things through science, we must break them apart and see them as sums of their parts—no more, no less. But when we start to view human beings this way, we lose sight of their essence. We lose sight of the whole,which is greater than the sum of its parts.

As such, a human being becomes as infinitely atomizable, malleable, and fungible as any one of his components. Of course, this is also the stance that the surgeons mutilating the genitals of people with gender dysphoria assume. A medical practice which views the human being as a whole person, one which would take the Hippocratic oath seriously, would not engage in such exploitation.

But this scientific worldview is mostly just a political cudgel—the same variety that the environmentalists take up for the sake of their cause. People do not actually live according to this trope that they spout. Most people act as if they believe that the human being is more than random bits and pieces thrown together. Most implicitly reject the scientific materialist worldview in their personal lives and would not deny that sexual contact is meaningful in a metaphysical way. But because we prefer to be free from judgment about that meaning, we prefer to pretend that there really is none. So at the regime level, this assumption becomes an organizing principle, and then it doesn’t matter how people approach the act individually. The new nihilism asserts itself and moves to infect who and whatever it can.

That Young People Are Incapable of Virtue
Boomers assume that because they were unable or unwilling to control their own urges and achieve for the sake of virtue, it is therefore beyond their children and grandchildren. This is projection from the generation that, in their teens, squandered the stable social systems into which they were born. These greedy self-adulators who robbed future generations of social capital and real capital by their risky behaviors and insatiable desire to be cool, cannot conceptualize that young people could be anything greater than the degenerate pleasure-seekers they once were and still aspire to be.

So rather than instructing Sally that her virginity was something to be cherished and reserved for the bonds of marriage, my friend, whom I love, operated on the assumption that virginity was something to be lost, helplessly, like a feather in the wind. When she handed her daughter the little brown bag of Lo Loestrin Fe, she handed her the keys to a door she never should have opened. But the priority for Sally’s mom wasn’t that Sally not go through that door; it was that Sally avoid the potentially embarrassing consequences of going through that door.

Ultimately, Sally can’t avoid the fact that she lost something important to her. But because her parents passively avoided a deep and difficult conversation about chastity, instead opting for a shallow and dishonest conversation about how to cheat fate, she does not have the language to understand where she went wrong. She lacks the wisdom to understand her pain. And this kind of pain, the pain of loss, makes women act out in ways that suggest they are searching for something to fill a void. Temporary comforts. Sally’s mother is right to worry.

The reason kids aren’t virtuous isn’t because they aren’t capable of virtue. It’s because they aren’t taught to be virtuous and aren’t expected to be—because the boomers assume they aren’t capable and resent it when they are.

Giving your daughter birth control because you believe she has no command over her behavior robs her of the opportunity to be strong. To annihilate the visible consequences of vice is to excuse vice, which is to arrest the spiritual development of young people. To arrest their development is to prevent them from knowing themselves, and to spark a vicious cycle of decadence and ignorance that may damage them for life.

That Babies, If Unwanted, Can and Should Be Avoided
This final presupposition, that unwanted babies should be avoided, is the most obvious conduit to abortion of them all. This belief system is encapsulated well by Abby Johnson’s term: “contraceptive mindset,” the precursor and a necessary companion to an infanticidal regime.

If one’s operating principle is that babies should be avoided when they are unwanted, then it’s not a far leap between preventing pregnancy and terminating pregnancy. The pill annihilates potential life. Abortion annihilates manifest life. So long as life is regarded as fundamentally optional in this way, abortion is never a bridge too far. There are no brakes.

And you’ll notice, abortion advocates talk about fetuses as if they were potential lives, not existing ones. They cover themselves with the language of contraception because it appeals to more people. It is a slippery slope. Deviants love to keep that slope lubricated.

“As long as you’re not killing anyone, be as sterile as you desire,” is not a sufficient political comeback to the abortion proposition. Abortion activists know this; they rely on the otherwise anti-abortion majority to remain bogged down by this contraceptive mentality, because that mentality forces them to compromise.

But this issue is one in which compromise is neither desirable nor possible. Moreover, to accept the terms of the contraceptive mentality is to concede that children are a net negative commodity. Birth control is an implicit attack on the beauty of life itself. By accepting the contraceptive mindset, one accepts the notion that reproduction is something less than a gift and a blessing. The acceptance of abortion logically follows.

Just Stop
Beyond the pill’s health effects (which are numerous) and its demographic results (which doom us), parents must begin to consider the demoralizing effects of internalizing the rejection of natural law. For many women, the pill is the gateway drug to Prozac. Many will cite a chemical imbalance as the sole reason for any mental health issue, but I suspect that the behaviors borne of trying to function in a consequence-free world have more to do with it.

Moms and Dads: You may avoid the economic and social inconvenience of an unexpected grandchild for those four short years of high school by succumbing to the siren song of the pill, but the doors you open for your daughter by doing so are far from morally neutral. They lead to paths well worn by the damned. Someone always pays the piper in the end.

The best you’ll get for your complacency is spiritual malaise. The worst you’ll get is a dead kid. If you love your daughter, stop giving her birth control.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: iStock/Getty Images

Books & Culture • feminists • Hollywood • Identity Politics • Post • The Culture

Scarlett Laughs

Strong, female characters are all the rage in Hollywood these days. In “The Force Awakens,” J.J. Abrams merely remade the 1977 “Star Wars” with a skinny girl playing Luke Skywalker. Of course, if you dare to dislike this new genre of movies you are sexist, because strong, female characters! There’s even a study “proving” those who dislike the trainwreck that is “The Last Jedi” are sexist.

Hollywood execs are patting themselves on the back for inventing the “strong, female, character.” Somewhere Chaucer and Shakespeare smolder, wondering when they can expect their royalty checks. Indeed, so is God. The strong, female character is as old as Deborah in the Book of Judges.

The great irony is that strong, female characters were once a matter of course in Hollywood. Then in the late 1960s and early ’70s Hollywood itself destroyed her. As feminists marched and politicians bent to their demands, Hollywood began to treat female characters as extras in some imagined feminist dystopia.

It was Hollywood that turned women into pathetic stereotypes. Women were the gun molls in “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” They were enablers and victims in “The Godfather” movies. I can not think of a single strong or even memorable woman in any Scorsese or Coppola movie.

The great auteurs of the 1970s used women as props, either victims or vixens. The ’70s women were plot devices, not fully developed characters. I grew up in the ’70s, with only two kinds of Hollywood women. They were either murder victims or prostitutes; unless they were prostitutes getting murdered. With the exception of a certain princess from Alderaan, as a teenager, I never saw a strong woman on the big screen.

In contrast, when I’d watch movies on the old movie channel, there were reporters, businesswomen, army nurses, even scientists. I was told again and again, that women of the 1930s were oppressed and women of the 1970s were liberated. But the old movie channel told a very different story.

Those women from black white movies were tough in a realistic way. They were not like today’s ridiculous female heroines—chicks who are all of 95 pounds and beating up men three times their size. The women in the movies of the 1930s and ’40s were resilient, resourceful, and intelligent. In other words, they were tough in a feminine way. They were not just carbon copies of male heroes.

Let’s compare a 1930s and 1970s woman in virtually the same role, con woman. Ellen Brennan is a very good actress, but in “The Sting” she might as well be played by a sock puppet. Ray Walston (TV’s “My Favorite Martian”) has more memorable lines and scenes than the movie’s only woman. Brennan steals a wallet, that’s it. Meanwhile in the oppressive ’30s, we have Barbara Stanwyck in “The Lady Eve.” She owns Henry Fonda from the moment she lays eyes on him. Stanwyck manipulates Fonda, leading him on a merry chase, until the movie’s final moment when she pulls him into her bedroom. Yep, the oppressed and repressed 1930s woman pulls man into her bedroom. Oops, sorry. Spoiler alert.

Then the 1940s arrive and Hollywood had a whole new group of strong female characters. The teeny tiny Rey and teeny tiny Batwoman, beating up men thrice their size is not empowering; it’s laughable. But the vigor and courage of the army nurses in “So Proudly We Hailed” and “They Were Expendable” are towers of quite believable strength.

Howard Hawks and John Ford liked their characters tough and larger than life. In contrast with most of the ’70s directors they knew that weak women didn’t make men look stronger. A strong Humphrey Bogart needed a strong Lauren Bacall. In “To Have and Have Not,” Lauren Bacall was only 19. But Bacall’s character is more of a grown woman than the childish “Captain Marvel,” supposedly an Air Force veteran.

Then there is John Wayne alongside Maureen O’Hara in “The Quiet Man,” Ford’s magnificent love story. John Wayne the great and powerful, will no longer fight. He killed someone in the boxing ring, and is haunted by that still. Yet, Wayne the ultimate tough guy, cannot help but fight with and love O’Hara’s equally tough character, Mary Kate. Mary-Kate doesn’t cure him with enabling or meekness. Nope! She out stubborns him. Her desire for her dowry is greater than his trauma. There was a strong female character. Will there ever be another?

Finally there is the champ—one of the strongest women ever put on film. You aren’t allowed to say that of course, because she was on the side of those whose statues we must now tear down. But there never was, and probably never will be, as strong a woman in movies as Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara. Her entire life, quite literally, is burnt to ashes. But she rises and builds a great business. She has financial success; when everyone around her says it is unseemly for women to do anything but stay home. Scarlett has more right to the name Phoenix than any of the X-Men.

Scarlett O’Hara still stands atop the adjusted for inflation box office.

I think she always will. The entire Yankee army couldn’t take Scarlett down, and a horde of super and space heroes won’t be able to topple her, either.

Those were the strong, female characters, that inspired me in my youth. These women fought against villains and succeeded without fantasy super powers. They brought men like Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart and, yes, even the epitome of the male hero, John Wayne, to their knees.

The great auteurs of the ’70s threw women like that under the bus. They beat women and raped women and killed women and degraded women. Now Hollywood pats itself on the back for their ridiculous dress-up paper dolls and proclaim voila! As if it is the first time we’ve ever seen the “strong female character.”

Scarlett, Mary-Kate, Portia, the Wife of Bath, and Deborah laugh. You should, too.

Photo Credit: Mondadori Portfolio via Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Education • feminists • Post • The Left

The Real ‘Toxic Masculinity’

We’ve all been hearing plenty about “toxic masculinity” these days, and never from people who trouble to tell us what strong, virtuous, and noble masculinity might look like. That should not surprise us. If someone should use the phrase “toxic Judaism,” we would not expect from him a wistful description of gentle, intelligent rabbis studying for many years each phrase of the Scriptures and all the centuries of commentary thereupon, or a call for Jews to return to their heritage. We would expect rather a sense that all Judaism is more or less toxic, and the less of it a Jew might have, so much the better. In other words, we would expect sheer bigotry.

And yet I can see a paradoxical use for that phrase, “toxic masculinity.” Many drugs, we know, are medicinal in small doses but toxic in large doses. The reverse applies here. Masculinity is the drug that is dynamic, creative, and protective in large doses, but querulous, selfish, irresponsible, and dangerous in small doses. And we find it to be so in some rather strange places.

Let me explain. I recall many years ago a study which showed that prison inmates with lower levels of testosterone tended to get into fights more often; and feminists, not known for thinking past a single move on the chessboard, concluded that it therefore proved that testosterone had nothing to do with aggressiveness. Of course it proved no such thing. Every boy knows that the bully is never the strongest kid in the class. The bully is the one who feels his weakness or inadequacy and takes it out on boys who are smaller than he is. The more manly you are, the more you will command simply by your presence. No announcement is needed.

A man’s man does not raise his hand in anger against a woman. He despises men who do that: he considers them to be less than the mud on the sole of his shoe. Women, for their part, are attracted to strong and virile men for the protection they will afford them, because women are vulnerable—smaller and weaker than teenage boys, even when they are not bearing a child or taking care of an infant or of small children. To use the old poetic image, she is the fruitful and “marriageable vine” that clings to the tall and strong but otherwise barren elm.

We may find “toxic masculinity,” then, wherever there is toxic aggression but without manliness, without the sense that power is to be used sparingly and always for protection of the weaker, without the strict accountability that the man demands of himself, blaming himself first for things that go wrong, while giving credit to others when things go right. The more masculine you are, the more confident you are that you need not prove your manhood by swagger, by picking on the weak, by pumping yourself, and by stiffing those who have assisted you.

Which brings me again to the recent court decision against Oberlin College, awarding more than $40 million in damages (later reduced to $25 million) to a local business, Gibson’s Bakery, for defamation and tortious interference with business. As I have discussed them at length before, I won’t go into the details of the controversy here. I wish, instead, to note a troubling feature of the controversy.

The three principal actors on the side of Oberlin—the president, the chief legal counsel, and the person who was most of all to blame, the dean of students—were all women, “woke” women as one commentator called them. The plaintiffs were male. Several quite moving photographs of four generations of Gibson’s are to be found: great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and son.

Perform a thought experiment. Switch the sexes. Can anyone imagine, even in our addled time, that three men in charge of a massive institution would ever set that power in motion to destroy a business run by four generations of women? Everyone in the nation would rise in detestation of such a thing. But the point is rather that it would not happen. Imagine that a student had gotten caught trying to steal a bottle of wine from a bakery run by a woman, and that it was a woman who lay on the ground being pummeled when the police arrived. I find it hard to believe that a male dean of students would not have gone to visit the bakery in person to apologize, and to assure the woman that the school would do all in its power to see to it that such a thing would not happen again.

But there it was—“toxic masculinity,” that is, aggression without manliness, and it came from the women in charge of Oberlin.

I have seen the same phenomenon elsewhere in academe, aplenty, but not only there. It is endemic in bureaucracies, whether in politics, business, or the churches; wherever you find indirection, ambition without plain dealing, enclaves of those whose accomplishments are mainly to batten on the accomplishments of others, or to stifle them when they show the mediocre to great disadvantage. This sort of toxicity you will find among both sexes.

One more point. It is not just that the women of Oberlin did an egregiously bad thing to Gibson’s Bakery. It is that evidently it never occurred to them to do the right thing, which in this case would have been the manly thing. It never occurred to them to protect the bakery.

A good woman will fight for her man. But she will not fight for somebody else’s man. Why should she? Of what anthropological or biological benefit could that ever have been? I say it with some disappointment. Women, as a sex, do not protect men, as a sex. Men are on their own. If women, as a sex, wished to protect men, would they, for example, insist upon becoming Marines and fighting in combat, with at best the strength of healthy 15-year-old boys, putting their male comrades to needless risk? Would they tolerate schools which have for decades been failing boys so signally? In confrontations between men and women, would they not lean toward taking the man’s part?

You’re on your own, buddy. That goes for your sons, too.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Cultural Marxism • feminists • Post • the family • The Left

America Needs a True Family-First Movement

Last week, I wrote about the formulaic demise of Taylor Swift. Once a picture of feminine potential, she’s now little more than a piece of meat chewed up and spat out by the legal sex cartel that is show business. Her spark has been squashed, and she joins a legion of other blinking drones with vaginas, one among many damaged, washed up women who know only exploitation and resentment and replicate it unto oblivion.

Call it the wholesome-to-whore pipeline.

This particular, ritualistic desecration of feminine virtue in the public square is so repetitive and predictable, so real and so pernicious, it is a wonder that so-called conservative people don’t talk about it more seriously. And, no, it’s not simply that the Democrats want women to vote for their party.

Throughout history, women have been understood properly as potential targets and tools of subversion, precisely because of the softness of heart they generate in their men. It is literally the oldest story in the book: Satan went through Eve to Adam. And as a result, they lost Eden. Civilizational disintegration follows spiritual disorientation. Spiritual disorientation follows a rebellion against the natural order.

The subversion of the American woman has political consequences beyond those topics that fall under the umbrella of “women’s issues,” and this kind of political warfare certainly transcends the tired, false paradigm of Republican versus Democrat.

The global neoliberal cultural and financial regime relies on men being hopelessly driven by their appetites such that they remain isolated slaves to their debts and desires. Men consumed by their own pleasures are effeminate, self-obsessed, and neurotic—incapable of leading or defending the integrity of the family and the nation by extension. As such, women (gatekeepers and natural regulators of the highest of pleasures) are the ideal political target for those who seek to destroy a nation. Modern woman has been conditioned to be a weapon against herself, and by extension, against the men who love her.

As we careen toward a world of lonely lotus eaters, we can look to the subversion of women for answers to the questions: How did we get here? Where are we headed? And how do we reverse the tide?

Raising the Modern Woman
The indoctrination process begins early and starts by accessing a girl’s implicit desire to be doted upon. With their own mothers away in a wage cage, America’s daughters have for many years found role models in Hollywood’s mistresses. Over and over again, we watched our childhood idols lose their innocence and become the new queen of cool. Repetition leads internalization. Internalization leads to normalization.

Over time, immodesty and rebellion have become perfunctory rites of passage for the average American girl. The limelit girl-next-door paved a twisted path for the literal girl-next-door, and for most of us, the Miley Cyrus/Taylor Swift/Ariana Grande/Selena Gomez arc of destruction has become all too familiar.

And if you think that’s bad, you should see what your tween is following and posting on Snapchat. Seriously, have a look.

At the same time girls are groomed by the entertainment and fashion industries to view themselves as sex objects, they are indoctrinated to compete with boys—to outlearn and outearn their male counterparts. Growing up in modern America, we were saturated in several contradictory messages: that sex is no big deal, but that being sexy is ideal. Of course you should have all the sex you want, but the natural consequences of “unprotected” sex would, catastrophically, “ruin your life.” Babies get in the way of you beating the boys, they said. And besides, boys don’t even have the decency to stick around. Even if they did, look how stupid they are! You can’t rely on them. You can only dominate them.

The net result of this two-pronged approach is the masculinization of women. Women’s financial independence and liberation from sexual standard bearing are the twin sisters of female “empowerment,” and, ask any devout feminist, neither may thrive without their counterpart.

By demystifying virginity, we rob women of their unique role of sexual gatekeeping. By denigrating domesticity, we rob women of their unique role of childbearing and childrearing. When the sexual and labor markets are thus deregulated, we make ersatz men of women, and things fall apart.

So long as man can access sex virtually or in reality with little effort, and so long as the only person who relies on him is himself, he is trapped in an addictive cycle of pleasure-seeking. He is ruined. And hoes are mad.

Atomization and Demoralization
The masculinization of women serves an end that most Americans consider a self-evident good: independence! But as it pertains to love and romance, “independence” means only one thing: the mutual alienation of women and men. In other words, loneliness.

The most stable unit of organizing people is that which is most natural. Man and woman need each other. It is the perfect interdependence of the two that mutually grounds the bonded persons: woman becomes the reason for man’s striving while man becomes the source of woman’s security. The stability generated by a happy marriage creates the foundation upon which good children can be raised properly and humanity may thrive.

Alienation is demoralizing and, for everyone but the lonely, profitable. It doesn’t matter if they’re  frustrated by their inability to create and maintain romantic bonds or if they embrace the transient experiences available to them, the result is the same. Isolated individuals pay rents all their own, buy groceries all their own, and spend their disposable income on passive pleasures. Oriented toward momentary inclination rather than long-term goals—or better yet, eternity—the atomized and demoralized with their ever-aching longing make ideal consumers.

Institutionalizing Degeneracy
Over the past century, market forces working in tandem with the propaganda machine (but maintaining the illusion of independence from it) extracted the heart of the family from its hearth. The hollowness ensuing from motherless homes formed a vacuum not only in the soul of women, but in men and children, and in the spiritual center of society itself.

More recently, the most powerful cultural and financial elements in society have joined forces to fill that hole.

Over the past 10 years, we have seen the total fusion of this contra natura cultural agenda with corporate interests in what some have termed “woke capitalism.” The rotten fruit of women’s lib are too numerous to count, but chief among the putrid selection might be the advent of this new system. Is it any wonder that Generation X—the Baby Boomers’ kids, the first children of mothers and fathers to sacrifice their posterity on the altar of capital gains, the latchkey kids, the first generation to know en masse the ennui of a motherless home—inject a matronly moralism into their corporate policy?

They’re compensating.

Woke capitalism imposes a particular kind of gravity on the social order: Obey and consume, consume and obey. Just as the administrative state relies on absentee fathers in order to replace their function, woke capitalism relies on absentee mothers in order to replace their function. Daddy welfare will give you a check in exchange for your devotion. In exchange for your devotion, Mommy multinational corporation will tell you she loves you. Each entity is a pharmakon answer to brokenness in the family unit.

Revolt Against the Modern World
Men and women are each targeted by the subversive Left in ways unique to their condition. A valiant few on the mainstream Right have recently attempted to push back against the attack on traditional masculinity, but many more are mum about the attack on traditional femininity.

When women’s issues are brought up on mainstream conservative programming, it is usually related to the most recent grotesque and whorish display made a teen idol. The talking heads that respond to this type of thing are usually those women who have made Conservatism, Inc. their career. Their complaint is usually that media hypersexualization doesn’t empower women enough, or that it reduces the possibility of men treating them as equals. It’s the old anti-porn feminist’s take.

They aren’t wrong, but they’re missing the point. The approach that the establishment Right takes to feminism today is that the Left has simply taken liberation too far. But by implicitly accepting the baseline logical framework of the enemy, they have already lost the argument. More importantly, they have assumed a worldview that automatically leads to the very outcomes they seem to despise.

Women’s liberation in every iteration and at its core is an attack on the family. Accepting any element of the philosophy is a suicide mission. A cryptofeminist stance is not appropriate for a political party that pays any lip service to “family values.”

One foot in, one foot out is the stand of cuckolds who think women will like them better if they give them what they say they want. Or it’s the stand of mercenaries. So-called conservative men have sat by rather idly as, since the middle of the prior century, women were empowered by corporate America to chain themselves to a cubicle, take on more student loans than any other demographic, and nearly double the labor market, slicing real wages and making single-income households a near impossibility for working class people.

Corporate America, said to be represented by Republicans, supports modern woman’s right to choose infanticide, to send the daughter they decide not to murder to day care from six weeks to six years old, at which point she is enrolled in public school where Planned Parenthood can begin explaining to her the intricacies of anal sex and the importance of sterilizing oneself for the sake of career. It’s the beauty of the free market, said the Koch brothers. Hooray! Capitalism crushed the patriarchy, said the libertarians.

No more.

A family-first political movement must begin by rejecting the losing stances of its Republican predecessors. This means rejecting the sexual and economic sides of the feminist proposition. Of course, we should raise daughters who regard Cardi B as unworthy of imitation. This is obvious enough. But in addition, if we care more about our families than we do about disposable income, we should raise our daughters to prioritize family, not finances.

The nation needs virtuous wives and mothers, not wage slaves and managers. This probably means you rethink sending your daughters to college, where life is light on learning and heavy on hooking up. Or at least that you take more care in choosing one. She probably would be better served learning to read, write, and think on her own. This certainly means advising your daughters to avoid debt. Few things make women more unmarriageable than a lifetime of loan repayment.

This absolutely means that your wife (not a Guatemalan nanny, a state employee, or a TV) raises your kids. Her absence hurts your children over the long run, even if her paycheck feels good in the short term.

Above all, we must remind ourselves that degeneracy is not an inevitable way of life unless we are passive. We don’t have to be atomized or demoralized. Our daughters don’t have to be sterile. Our sons don’t have to be suicidal. We just need to recover our will to live.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: The Print Collector/Getty Images

Black Lives Matter • Center for American Greatness • Cultural Marxism • Democrats • Donald Trump • feminists • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • The Left

Crack-ups at the Crossroads of Intersectionality

Progressives do not see the United States as an exceptional uniter of factions and tribes into a cohesive whole—each citizen subordinating his tribal, ethnic, and religious affinities to a shared Americanism, emblemized by our national motto e pluribus unum. Instead, they prefer e uno plures: out of one nation arise many innately different and separate peoples.

Progressivism’s signature brand is now tribalism: all of us in different ways are victims of a white male Christian heterosexual patriarchy—or a current 20 percent hierarchy that past and present has supposedly oppressed anyone not like themselves. In contrast, our differences define who we are, and are not incidental to the content of our characters. The salad bowl, not the melting pot, is the new national creed. America is to be a conglomeration of competing tribal parties in the fashion of the Balkans, Rwanda, or contemporary Iraq.

How does the relative victimhood work politically? Progressive elites (oddly often white, but “woke,” males) serve as umpires who adjudicate familial spats and intersectional fractures. Like good cowboys, they ride herd, directing the squabbling and snorting flock in the right direction without losing too many strays on the way to the election booth.

Is Mayor Pete Buttigieg, recently confronted as an unwoke white guy by Black Lives Matter activists, a white male elite, or an oppressed gay male victim who feels the Christian faithful, like his former working associate Mike Pence, supposedly oppress him to the degree he cannot ever be slurred as an oppressor of others who are nonwhite, not affluent, and non-male? In this world of collective woke stereotypes, are inner-city blacks and Catholic Hispanics victims of white males like Buttigieg, or disproportionately insensitive victimizers of such gays as Buttigieg?

Class is a factor, too. Part of the reason Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) cannot speed through the Democratic intersection is that he talks and dresses like what he has always been—a rich kid of privilege, son of corporate elites, who glided through Stanford, was a Rhodes scholar, and has little idea of the experience of the black underclass that he now champions as an African-American activist. The middle-class Barack Obama faced the same problem but far more successfully camouflaged his prep school elitism by dropping the old preppie persona of Barry Obama, and reemerging as Barack Hussein Obama—authentic child of an African diplomat and well-acquainted with Islam as an expatriate youth in Indonesia. Booker, whose patois and schooling are akin to Obama’s, can hardly in the same fashion reinvent himself linguistically or ancestrally into the multifaceted Other.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), an elite offspring of an immigrant Jamaican Stanford academic and a surgeon from Madras, is now running not as a child of privilege, or the former paramour of political fixer and San Francisco pol Willie Brown, or the hard-nosed city prosecutor who hounded parents of truant kids, but as an intersectional child of the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent. And yet despite the authenticity of Harris, she, like Joe Biden, is reckless: she was a loud megaphone for reparations until her obviously embarrassed father, who is apparently proud of past parental efforts to ensure that Harris successfully assimilated and integrated into the dominant culture, reminded his daughter that their shared ancestry included Jamaican slave-owners: in effect, schooling Kamala that the Harrises would have to seek reparations for the descendent Harrises from the descendants of the Harrises.

Give Jussie Smollet credit, the son of a Polish-Jewish father and African-American mother. He took no chances when he set off intersectional megatonnage to ensure that he was a multifarious victim of white male, right-wing, MAGA-spouting, homophobic racist oppressors—and therefore deserved another season on “Empire”or else! That Smollet is still believed by millions is a testament to the insidious power of intersectionality.

After all, we are asked to believe that the actor at 2 a.m., in subzero temperatures, bumped into the lidless eyes of white Trumpist racist America. Indeed, we learned that he by chance encountered two patrolling MAGA-hatted, white burly males, who were curious watchers and fans of the black cult series, (“Aren’t you that f—-t ‘Empire’ n—-r?”) and on constant vigilance in the wee hours in African-American neighborhoods of progressive Chicago (“This is MAGA country!”), with lynch rope, bleach, and a barrage of obscenities for randomly targeted gay, black, left-wing, and famous victims—coincidentally just like Jussie Smollet.

And Smollet was no slouch. In he-man style, Smollet single-handedly beat back these white Trumpist demons, and he did so in apparent jiu-jitsu style while managing to keep his cell phone and Subway sandwich—and lynch rope around his neck. A sane person may conclude this is low farce—especially after two of his associates confessed that they were paid to play the role of MAGA thugs—but not so the industry of intersectionality. The hip woke magazine GQ immediately after the “assault” weighed in on Smollett’s “attack” in iconic fashion:

America’s choice to embrace the blind rage of late-stage whiteness in decline is an explicit longing for this kind of crime, a version of America in which those who do not assimilate to the satisfaction of their white, straight, and Christian betters are subject to the impunity of law enforcement, the scorn of the media and the fury of racist homophobes stalking the streets of your city, who want you to know that they could lynch you if they really wanted to, and maybe get away with it too.

So do not mock the tortuous labyrinth of mutually exclusive intersectionality. Treat it instead with fear as if one enters the crossroads with Dante’s warning at the gates of hell, Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate (“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”).

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) assumed that a white woman from Oklahoma, with a 1990s interest in house-flipping and voting Republican, does not end up at snooty Harvard Law School. So she successfully reinvented herself as the law school’s first woke Native American professor. While Warren was later goaded by Donald Trump into a disastrous decision to prove her Indian fantasies by taking a self-incriminating DNA test, she otherwise did not have to go to the trouble of Ward Churchill, who wore a get up of beads, buckskin and a headband, or Rachel Dolezal who wore blackface (and now, apparently, bixsexuality) to recalibrate as an edgy social justice warrior.

The self-appointed security hothead George Zimmerman never got the intersectional message. The half-Peruvian Zimmerman became infamous for his lethal encounter in 2012 with Trayvon Martin. In the subsequent lead up to the trial, where he was found not-guilty on grounds of self-defense, Zimmerman’s 911 calls were selectively edited and the police photos of his injuries were photoshopped to downplay their severity. But had the mix-up not been between an armed white man with the scary Germanic name Zimmerman and a victimized black teen, but instead one of an African-American and a Latino Jorge Mesa (Zimmerman ethnicizing his first name and adopting his matronymic), the story might not have been so easily caricatured as a morality tale.

Good-ole gaffe-prone Uncle Joe Biden, 76 and time-tested liberal, can’t make it through the roundabout of intersectionality without a major crack-up. He flipped upside down to assure primary progressive media and primary kingmakers that he was once wrong about cutting off Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings three decades ago, and that he was actually a cutting-edge feminist back when it counted, an abortion advocate, a once deluded but now woke supporter of reduced prison sentencing.

But even so, in our new age when touching the opposite sex is a window into a sick mind, how can Joe, a chronic shoulder squeezer and hair and ear breather of young girls and women, escape #MeToo only on the basis of his progressive fides? True, Joe tried to talk his way out of his prior race, class, and gender incorrectness, but his intersectional wreckage only got worse as he crowed about his prior coziness with segregationist Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge.

Did Joe not know that the one red line in Democratic politics is never to remind the nation that Democrats were the party of the Confederacy, Jim Crow, segregation, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act? Joe, in Neanderthal fashion, apparently thought that the fact that two old Southerners of the Senate once called him “son” instead of “boy” proved their mutual workmanlike Democratic admiration—a model for contemporary tolerance.

Others of his political affinities were not amused. As Politico put it, “New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, whose wife is African American, noted that one of the segregationists Biden invoked, James Eastland of Mississippi, would have outlawed his marriage. Sen. Cory Booker, who is black, took offense that Biden seemed to make light of Eastland calling him ‘son’ but not ‘boy.’”

This was not the first time that Biden had tried to prove his racial sensitivity fides. Do we not remember that he praised his one-time rival Barack Obama as the first “clean” and “bright” and “articulate” black presidential candidate (so much for Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton), and did so with such effect that Obama picked him as his vice president and would occasionally turn him loose on a predominantly black audiences to lecture them that Mitt Romney and his Wall Street white devils would “put you all back in chains.”

How does one adjudicate the legacy of feminist trailblazing athletes and the agenda of men born biologically male who transgender into females with the help of hormonal drug therapy, and thereby find advantage in their innately larger frames and muscularity to erase the landmark records of feminism? After all, day by day, sports records of a prior generation, at the local, state, and national level, are insidiously being erased by trans athletes. When sports icon and lesbian feminist Martina Navratilova objected to the innate advantages of former male, now female, athletes, she was ostracized as some sort of anti-progressive heretic.

Does ideology trump difference? Do white rich whiny pajama boys with impunity condemn black conservatives as traitors to the progressive cause? Did the woke left-wing Garrison Keillor still have to be sacrificed on the altar of alleged #MeTooism? Does race or ethnicity win, English or Spanish, the domestic or the foreign oppressed: do illegal aliens trump the concerns of non-Spanish speaking African-Americans worried over the driving down of wages by imported cheap labor? Is Hillary Clinton a rich, entitled insider who mastered leveraging and monetizing her political clout, or a feminist trailblazer who battled the sexist exploitation of alpha males—like her husband, empathetic, progressive and pro-abortion sexual harasser Bill Clinton?

The French Revolution devolved into an intersectional destruction derby of factions, each claiming the greater leftist frenzied fides. Serbs, Albanians, Montenegrins, Croatians, Slavs, and Macedonians ended up killing each other, in the fashion of Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis, on the premise that each faction had endured more historical grievances than the others and thus had a greater right to use their own tribalism to achieve political power and snuff out the others.

The race to the bottom of victimhood logically ends in Smolletism, an absurd effort to invent as many oppressors as possible, all beaten down by one’s own singular bravery, prowess, and overarching victimhood.

In the end, the only logical survivor of intersectionality is the multifaceted Smollet-like victim, not just black, but black and gay, not just a homosexual African-American, but a hip and left-wing victim, and not just black, hip, gay, and leftwing, but a young woke activist courageously on the barricades, and not just all that but also master of martial arts put only in the service of the oppressed.

The 2020 Democratic primary is a showcase of these intersectional Balkan wars—race, sex, class, and comparative claims on victimhood that cannot be reconciled by comparative set-asides, quotas, and reparations, much less by a self-appointed, supposed all-knowing, all-powerful old white guy like Biden, playing the role of Alexander among the squabbling city-states and Macedonian tribes, or Napoleon both channeling and transcending the bloody factionalism of the French Revolution, or Tito suppressing tribalism by an all-encompassing authoritarian leftist dogma.

Intersectionality ends not by compromise, but by implosion through its own utter nihilism that sees humans as collective cardboard cutouts rather unique individuals who transcend their superficial appearances.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

America • Cultural Marxism • feminists • Post • Progressivism • The Left

Worshipful Procession: The Progressive Liberal Protest March

In 2008, noted psychologist and addiction expert Stanton Peele argued in Psychology Today that, “Religious people are certifiable. They are obligated to believe crazy things . . . I write this from my hotel in Seville, on Good Friday, after marching through the streets following religious processions of floats, mournful bands, and men dressed in pointed hoods and robes (which makes all Americans uneasy). When I ask my daughter—much more culturally sensitive than I am—what this has to do with Jesus, she answers, ‘ritual.’”

This encapsulates a common conceit that secular progressive liberals hold. They look at the religious procession in much the same way they look at religion itself—a curious spectacle making very little sense.

Religious processions are a sort of inexplicable oddity of the sort they think they have escaped. When the clear light of secular, progressive, liberal reason is applied, curiosities such as these are supposed to fall away and be nothing more than bizarre spectacle.

Self-awareness isn’t a strong suit for this religion that pretends it isn’t a religion. But the progressive liberal faith has its own form of the religious procession: the protest march and rally.

The “Hidden Tribes” report by More in Common illustrates what I mean. “Progressive Activists,” approximately 8 percent of the U.S. population, are the most liberal part of our population. Of that group, 96 percent of them claim America needs more “science” than “religion” to overcome the nation’s problems. While hardly any of them ever attend traditional organized religious services, almost 70 percent of them have attended a political protest rally or march in the previous year.

As with worshipers who attend the Holy Week processions in Seville, the progressive liberal—when she marches—is involved with and receives the same emotional benefits as those Spanish men wearing pointed hoods and robes she criticizes. She feels a sense of euphoria from participating in what she believes is a noble cause; she senses an intense feeling of belonging—being in a crowd of like-minded individuals; she physically preaches her progressive faith and is preached at by various speakers during the march; she feels continuity with other believers who marched before her; and together, she and her progressive co-religionists are united against a common enemy.

Lara Americo, who took part in the Washington, D.C. Women’s March in 2018 described the experience as “euphoric” because there “were so many people there, in the streets, standing up for equality.” I imagine it’s not much different for those bumpkins who take part in the Holy Week processions in Spain. I know when I took part in the Holy Week festivities in Israel, I also felt an overwhelming sense of emotion and connectedness to my fellow believers. It was Orthodox Easter and I was surrounded by thousands of Orthodox Christian pilgrims. Knowing that they were believers like me gave me a powerful feeling of being in a holy place because it was consecrated by all those other believers like myself.

At the 2018 Women’s March, Denise Migliaccio connected her experience with protests of the past, “’Last time I marched was in the late ’60s, protesting the war and supporting George McGovern. This felt more important than even that time, those concerns. We felt our country was in danger . . . My husband and I joined our group . . . with a resurgent activism we had not experienced in a very long time.” Verna Ingram said that she marched because “People in my family marched for civil rights, and my family is from the South,” she said. “It was important to continue that legacy and to make sure everyone’s voice is heard.”

At the 2018 March for Our Lives, one “teenager drew parallels with the civil rights marches of the past, relishing the idea that he was literally following in the footsteps of icons such as King.” For the progressive liberal, the protest march connects her with events gone past, providing a similar feeling of meaning, purpose, and zeal. For each and every one of them, the psychological feeling of being connected to heroes of the distant past—in this case, usually the 1960s protest marches—is the true object. It gives them a connection to a tradition no less sublime for them than my own feelings as I walked among Christians pilgrims in Jerusalem. I don’t doubt for a second that the Women’s Marchers or March for Our Lives participants literally think that they are walking in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Susan B. Anthony.

Just remember, when you watch the news about the recent (and poorly attended) Impeach Trump Day protests, you’re not actually watching a political protest. You’re seeing a religious procession. What you’re seeing is religion: the Church of Progressive Liberalism.

Photo Credit: Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

feminists • Identity Politics • Post • The Culture • The Left

A Swift Demise

As I long for the days of the anticapitalist Left, I now yearn for a time when I could enjoy mindlessly the musical talents of the once-great Taylor Swift.

Swift on Monday released a song and music video titled, “You Need to Calm Down.” Designed to be a summer bop for pride month, the song itself and its attenuant visual component are so stupidly constructed with strawmen and tropes that I feel I can’t analyze the thing itself in good faith.

Michelle Kim at Pitchfork wrote an incisive review of the anthem, in which she offers that “in an effort to ‘brush off the haters’ and display resilience, [Swift] doesn’t reveal any of the uncertainty and vulnerability that previously lay at the heart of her songwriting. Instead, the words are penned with the energy of a nail-painting emoji and delivered with a plastic smile.”

I had essentially the same reaction when I first heard the song. To the end of analyzing the song itself, Kim’s review should suffice. But there’s something more interesting happening here. The trajectory of Taylor Swift’s career has taken a certain downward turn that is in some ways unique, but on a metapolitical level, all too familiar.

In so hamfistedly trying to make herself a gay icon, Swift has completely sacrificed what made her truly iconic. Sadly, her degeneration to the fag hag era of female pop stardom—the phase following a failed album and preceding a butch haircut—signals a slide into mediocrity that is heartbreaking for long-time fans like me. What happened to the Taylor of “Red,” who lamented that her ex would “call me up again just to break me like a promise; so casually cruel in the name of being honest”? Or the Taylor of “1989,” who commented on her generation’s tendency to “show off our different scarlet letters; trust me, mine is better”?

It was once Swift’s authentic innocence that made her universally appealing. Before now, Swift’s lyrics consistently reflected a certain level of self-awareness. The combination of knowing herself and her willingness to say what was true about her identity and her life made for greatness of iconic proportions. But that syncretism has dissolved of late. Now, it seems that the disparities between who she once was, who she could have been, who she became, and who she is trying to be, are too disjointed to work in her favor.

Taylor Swift rose to prominence originally as a picture of feminine innocence. In the early days, there was a clarity in her voice that suggested a purity of heart. The content of her lyrics—princes, princesses, white horses, roses—was wholesome, endearing, and appealing. Even in coming of age, and to some extent losing her innocence (“Red”), Taylor never lost her joie de vivre. She remained enthralled by romance. She felt its implications deeply and expressed herself poetically.

Though the connotation of romance has been subverted to become something of a passing and perfunctory feeling attached to often sterilized sex, its natural orientation toward reproduction and family is inescapable. By aligning her own lyrics with more classical notions of romance and love, Swift for many years implicitly oriented herself toward these natural ends. She was all youth and energy. Unabashed feminine power with nothing out of sync. Pure potential.

In 2017, Swift released “Reputation,” in which she traded in that sparkling-eyed love for life for ironic detachment. For the first time in her discography, it was as if her lyrics were not her own. She incorporated cool-kid internet talk into her lyrics—“Is it cool if I said all that? Is it chill that you’re in my head?”—as well as several gratuitous references to sex and booze. The old Taylor was dead, she said, and her little size zero outfits, too! With “Reputation,” she lost her orientation, and market analysis pointed to decline.

Swift will turn 30 this year. She is childless and unmarried with a number of failed relationships under her belt. But rather than gracefully end on a high note, Swift has committed to rebranding in order to stay relevant. Her latest strategic move is to team up with other people whose fathers failed them to deliver a lispy “FUCK YOU” to anyone real or imagined who reminds them of the God-shaped holes in their hearts that fornication has failed to fill.

As if they are experiencing any real resistance in the public square. Spare me.

Swift has always had a knack for capitalizing on (utterly kosher) social trends. In a ballad she wrote many years ago about the exploitations and pitfalls of show business, she sang: “You’ve had it figured out since you were in school; Everybody loves pretty, everybody loves cool; So overnight, you look like a sixties queen.”

In the current year, much attention and money stands to be gained by grifting the gay. She knows this. Everyone does. Judging by her sharky tendencies, there might be some element of cynicism involved in her embrace of globohomo. She could just be a vapid mercenary. Doesn’t really matter either way.

The urgency and intensity with which she delivers every gay bourgeois sentiment smacks of a deep personal insecurity and desperation. Swift seems to be hiding behind a rainbow flag so as to conceal the fact that she’s lost her spark personally and (as one is deeply connected to the other) artistically. Is it merely coincidence that her bougie feminist activism increases precisely as her sexual market value decreases? What is left in life for sexually liberated women once her reproductive worth, denied for so long, diminishes completely, along with her opportunity to participate in the natural order?

There are two possibilities: sincere penance or satanic pontification. That is to say, women either may be honest about their mistakes, or refuse to acknowledge them for what they are—instead redirecting squandered would-be mommy energy toward convincing everyone else, especially other (younger and more fertile, i.e. sexually competitive) women, that down is up and up is down. Since the latter is the less immediately painful option, most disappointed women choose it. Most people try to avoid pain. If the Truth is painful, deny it. Most feminist causes are actually united in this basic inversion of reality. And because misery loves company, most who live in a world of unreality cannot stand to live alone.

Swift like so many before her has chosen to participate in that big lie. This disappointment is hardest felt because she was once so naturally beautiful, good, and true. She is now none of the above. All she has left is cheap imitation. It’s a real loss for her personally and for the music scene at large.

Taylor Swift’s latest propaganda project will age as gracefully as she and Katy Perry do. I’m now counting down the days ’til the next breakup and breakdown, the next cat adoption, and (inevitably) the day Swift engages in performative bisexuality or shaves her head. She should have chosen the rose garden over Madison Square. What a shame.

Photo Credit: Rich Fury/Getty Images for iHeartMedia

feminists • Identity Politics • Post • The Culture • the family • The Left

The Diminishing Dad

As the man hastily parked his car in the parking lot on an early spring morning, the sun was not yet peeking out from behind the clouds. The grey-haired father shoved his keys into his pocket and rushed down the hospital corridor, anxious to see his daughter and his infant grandson. Word had come to him that the newest member of his family had joined them sometime in the wee hours of that morning.

The man rapped softly on the door of his daughter’s room and then entered quietly after hearing no reply. In shock, he viewed an empty room—no baby bassinet, no awaiting mother in the bed, the lights completely off. It was at that moment he feared the worst, his thoughts not even nameable.

His daughter, not expecting such an early visitor, was enjoying her first shower since giving birth. She put on a clean gown and opened the door from the bathroom, eager to climb back into bed, when the welcome sight of her father greeted her. The anxiety on his face was palpable, expressing both joy at seeing her and tentative questioning about the baby. She laughed and reassured him that his grandson would be along shortly from the nurse’s station, where they were administering some care while she bathed.

Nearly a quarter-century later, he still speaks of those panicked moments and how relieved he felt upon seeing his daughter. She listens to the story every time it’s told, basking in the warm glow of love and appreciation emanating from her Dad. It is a tender testimony to the nature of fatherhood, one of many such examples she cherishes in her heart. This man, her dad, became her chauffeur, English tutor, religious instructor, sparring partner in a debate or a discussion, respected advisor, and, finally, as an adult, a bosom friend.

In an age when the topic of toxic masculinity is more likely to dominate conversations than acknowledgments of such tenderness, we wonder what will become of this day when we gather together to celebrate fathers. There are natural questions we ask ourselves: as citizens of a “woke” culture, are we even allowed to recognize fathers as something noble and distinct? Doesn’t that suggest a (reasonable, rational) assumption of gender, and assign a unique value to it? If we recognize fathers, for what can say we recognize them? Surely we can’t pay homage to the typical male characteristics of yore?

We now celebrate the hipster, with his ratty corduroy jacket and skinny jeans who knows his barista by name, but not the man wearing dirty, worn work clothes bearing grime on his face at the end of the day. We laud the man standing behind the woman (hear her roar), but not the one taking seriously his responsibility to lead and protect his family. We honor the open-minded beta male who seeks the journey, but never the alpha who rests in the truth. We have turned traditional American culture and the values of Western Civilization upside down!

If the underpinnings and history of the true, good, free American life have been Judeo-Christian values and beliefs, the family has been the method to impute those values to future generations. It is, after all, the family that has reinforced, taught and encouraged the belief and practices of those mores. What better way, then, to demolish the great and proud nation of America then by dismantling her foundation, one block at a time?

At the center of this effort, we find an attack on the cornerstone of the family: fatherhood. Consider the words of Linda Gordon, a well-known feminist, who says, “The nuclear family must be destroyed . . . Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Toxic masculinity is under attack from toxic feminism!

What if the nuclear family is being destroyed by making society hate what has been the typical fatherhood role? What if the traditional admirable traits of strength, rationality, responsibility, protection, generosity, decision-making, and leadership are decried as woman-hating? What if we effeminize our boys to the point that we reduce or eliminate such characteristics?

But try this one on for size: God created fathers to be unique, with special attributes and responsibilities. And those strengths, when used appropriately and to good ends, create more harmonious families, children more rooted and grounded in Truth, and they further enhance the peace of society.

A disclaimer—which now must always follow statements such as those, in order to protect the author from oversensitivity on the part of . . . well, anyone, really: the author believes women can be most things, that women have special gifts and abilities, that women are equal in worth to men in terms of their rights and responsibilities, that women are not doormats, nor should they be treated or used as powerless human beings.

Nevertheless, fathers are not mothers—and both fathers and mothers have their individual, sometimes overlapping, roles. But it is precisely the role of fatherhood in its truest and best form that we gather together today to honor.

For the father who turns into his bed at night, weary with the day’s work and its responsibilities and cares, who utters soundless prayers throughout the day, beseeching his Creator for patience, wisdom and strength; for the one who silently wipes tears away from his eyes while watching a son graduate, a daughter curtsy on a stage, or a child walk down the aisle, you are not unwatched nor unappreciated.

For the man who has had to play the role of mother and father, your efforts will not go unrewarded. For the dad who sacrifices so that his family may prosper in innumerable ways, those littlest of eyes are on you, absorbing and learning your unspoken lessons. For the one who teaches a youngster how to use a hammer or a thesaurus, or how to change the oil in her car, those lessons take root and shoot, teaching far more than the skills themselves.

If you didn’t have a wonderful father, if you haven’t been the best one yourself, know that some of the richest things in life are forgiveness, mercy, and sometimes even forgetfulness. After all, some of the most difficult and painful lessons in life teach us the most valuable lessons. And sometimes we must also remind ourselves that not all broken fences should be mended.

So today we honor fatherhood. We nod to the humor of a whole classification of men for whom an order of jokes is named (“Dad, I’m hungry.” “Hi, Hungry, I’m Dad.”). We banish thoughts of toxic masculinity and, instead, praise the good in our fathers and the men who fathered our children. After all, they deserve a day.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Left

Hugh Culverhouse, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics

The University of Alabama on May 29 announced its plans to return a $26.5 million donation from the largest donor in the university’s history. The announcement came only hours after the donor, Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., called for students to boycott the university in response to Alabama’s recent ban on abortion.

Culverhouse claims that the university returned his donation because of his statements on abortion. The university disagrees, and insists that its decision was based solely on Culverhouse’s attempts to control the administration.

Culverhouse published an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 7, attributing the university’s decision to his abortion stance. In it, Culverhouse notes that his father was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the 1950s, and would have opposed strongly Alabama’s new law, which prohibits abortions except in cases that endanger the mother’s life.

That Culverhouse boasts about his father’s role on the board of Planned Parenthood in the 1950s suggests that he has no idea about the origins of Planned Parenthood and the activities the group was involved in during its early years. Or he does, and just doesn’t care.

Though the modern iteration of the organization promotes itself as central to women’s “healthcare,” Planned Parenthood was founded with one particular goal in mind: eugenics.

The eugenics movement aims to “improve” the human population by “controlled breeding,” to increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics. The Nazis were fans of eugenics. So, too, was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Sanger started the group in the early 1920s to promote birth control, as the birth control movement was developing alongside the eugenics movement.  By the 1920s, support from academics and intellectual elites had brought eugenics to the forefront of the public mind.

For these elites, eugenics was a tool to promote the reproduction of those considered mentally, physically, and racially “superior,” and to prevent the reproduction of the “inferior.” Birth control and abortion—excellent tools for genetic manipulation—were intimately tied to the eugenics movement from the beginning. In fact, Sanger, advocated for contraception and sterilization as eugenic tools. In a 1950 letter to Mrs. Stanley McCormick, Sanger wrote:

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend on a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty-stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.

The “dysgenic types” or undesirable people to whom Sanger refers included especially African Americans—a group Sanger called “the great problem of the South,” and “the group with ‘the greatest economic, health and social problems.’” In 1939, Sanger launched the Negro Project to disseminate birth control throughout Southern black communities. She wanted black ministers involved, noting, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

It is not without a degree of sordid irony to point out that even today, African American women obtain almost half of the abortions in the United States, despite making up only around 13 percent of the population. The nationwide abortion ratio among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio it is for white women.

Even beyond Sanger’s leadership of Planned Parenthood, the focus on eugenics persisted. In 1959, Alan Guttmacher, a president of Planned Parenthood and vice president of the American Eugenic Society, urged “the quality of the parents” to be taken into account when considering a pregnancy. The question of whether to allow abortion, he said, must be “separated from the emotional, moral and religious concepts” and “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” Notably, Guttmacher believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.”

Lest one consider these questions dated relics of another time, the eugenic potential of abortion is even greater in 2019 than it was in the 1930s and 1940s.

For proof of this, look no further than Iceland, where doctors boast that they have “basically eradicated” Down syndrome. They have done so, of course, by aborting babies who screen positively for the condition in utero. “We don’t look at abortion as murder,” said one hospital counselor. “We look at it as a thing we have ended.”

Iceland isn’t alone. In Denmark, 98 percent of pregnancies with a Down syndrome diagnosis are terminated. In France, it’s 77 percent. In the United States, 67 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted.

A Nation Divided
All of this, of course, plays out against the backdrop of a country that remains tremendously divided over abortion. And though pro-abortion activists treat the question as settled law post Roe v. Wade, it is becoming increasingly clear that the public is not satisfied with the Supreme Court allowing one abortion law to govern all states.

This year, and especially in the past few months, states have become increasingly willing to test the courts by passing new abortion laws. Arkansas on March 15 banned abortion after 18 weeks. The same month, Utah, too, banned abortion after 18 weeks, and Mississippi banned abortion after it is possible to detect a fetal heartbeat (generally around six weeks of pregnancy). Ohio passed a similar “fetal heartbeat bill” in April. On May 7, Georgia, did too. Eight days later, Alabama passed a near-total ban on abortions, the most restrictive law since Roe v. Wade. On May 24, Missouri banned abortion after eight weeks; six days later, Louisiana signed its own heartbeat bill into law.

Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal, though it may be subject to some restrictions. The states recognize this reality, and many supporters of state abortion bans see their ultimate purpose not as banning abortion directly, but rather as pushing the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey expressed this sentiment in a statement of support for Alabama’s abortion ban. “At least for the short term,” Ivey acknowledges, “this bill may . . . be unenforceable.” However, she writes, “The sponsors of the bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur.”

At least one justice on the court seems prepared for this eventuality. In a stirring concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to consider the history of abortion as a means of achieving eugenic goals. In heavily cited and matter-of-fact prose, Thomas, only the second African American Supreme Court Justice in history, outlined how Margaret Sanger aimed to suppress the procreation of the black community, and otherwise eliminate the “unfit.”

“This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” he wrote. Regarding Indiana’s ban on selective abortion, Thomas went on, “This law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

Abortion supporters like Hugh Culverhouse have long ignored the eugenic potential of abortion, just as they have ignored the sordid history of Planned Parenthood. Far from the champion of the underprivileged that it is touted to be, Planned Parenthood supports policies that would promote their diminution or elimination.

Now, as states saddle the Supreme Court with increasingly strict abortion restrictions, the court will be forced to contend not only with public opinion, but also with history. As Thomas writes in his concurrence, “Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

feminists • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • the family • The Left

Are We Overdoing Father’s Day?

Like most American households, mine carries on all of the old-time Father’s Day traditions. Last weekend, we put up the Father’s Day tree. We’ve bought the fireworks, inflated the outdoor decorations; and we’ve laid out the decorative “Father’s Day Village” with the electric racetrack which runs between the sporting goods and the hardware stores.

We watch the Father’s Day TV specials, too. We love the old animated classics, like “Rude Al, The Red-Nosed Daddy,” and “The Grinch Who Caught The Punk Who Tried To Steal Father’s Day, And Thrashed Him Within An Inch of His Miserable Life.”

And who doesn’t love the Very Special Father’s Day episodes of our favorite sitcoms? You know, the holiday episodes in which Dad is predictably right about life issues, and his children grow into newfound respect for his wisdom, while his adoring wife reserves her withering sarcasm for his critics instead of offering it to her husband?

Most of all, though, we enjoy the traditional Father’s Day carols. We’ll revisit those shortly.

But are we perhaps, as a nation, overdoing Father’s Day? Overemphasizing old Dad, in an era when society may have evolved different priorities than our foreparents had, when establishing this festival in prehistoric 1972?

Our anachronistic Father’s Day celebration even interrupts the month long celebration of “Partisan Rainbows Insidiously Displayed Everywhere.” (Or is it “Preferences Recklessly Indulged, Demanding Exaltation”? I always forget.)

Anyway, like a feast day falling in the middle of Lent, Father’s Day—archaic though it may now be—is a chance to indulge in the forbidden for a bit. It’s wonderful to have license, if only briefly, to publicly celebrate an identity scandalously grounded in solid biological reality and adherence to masculine duty.

So amidst the hectic holiday season, in-between the frantic searches for the perfect Dad gifts of just the right vintage or caliber, take a minute to remember the true meaning of this great American holiday. And before you go on with your day, take a moment to really ponder the ancient, traditional lyrics, in a couple of those beloved carols for dear old Dad.

Feckless Thralls
Feckless thralls, of social justice
(Daddy daddy da, da da da da!)
You have failed to readjust us—
(Daddy daddy da, da da da da!)
Scorn we now, your gay malarkey—
(Daddy da, daddy da, da da da!)
Celebrate the patriarchy!
(Daddy daddy da da, da da da da!)

It Became, at Middle Age, Quite Clear
It’s come, again, that time of year
When Dads we bring to mind—
Who did that het’rosexual thing,
Which perpetuates mankind!
Then stepped up to overwhelming
And did their durndest, day by day,
To raise their families!

But lo, what Dadhood really means!
A lesson which cannot be learned
By youngsters, ‘til the times come round
When suddenly, it’s their turn!
And oh, how very smugly then
Will ancient grandpas smirk:
“Yeah, now you’ll learn what you put me through—
Man up, and get to work!”

O Little Frown
O, little frown on Daddy’s face—
What thoughts dost thou portend?
We’d hate to overlook concerns,
From you, wisest of men.
Hush, women, kids, and all those
Whose beards are not as grey,
And hear what our paterfamilias
Has got to say.

Photo Credit: iStock/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Democrats • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Culture

Death and the Democrats

Our nation is unique.

Most every other nation was established in a capricious fashion. Whether defined by an ethnicity, a linguistic community, or the happenstance of being ruled by a royal dynastic elite, other countries were not the result of their people appealing to first principles, of building a political structure from scratch based upon the lessons of prior centuries. Ours is different.

Yes, our Republic was born out of war, as has been the case with so many others over the centuries. But our Revolutionary War wasn’t simply waged over a brute demand for self-determination. The catalyst for the fight that would result in our being an independent nation-state was the grievous transgressions of a monarch who our Founding Fathers saw as acting in direct contravention to objective and universal truths.

After our unlikely victory against what was then the most powerful empire the world had ever seen, our forefathers enshrined those truths into our founding documents. And the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution have served not only to codify those principles as the foundation of our political system for at least 11 generations, they have become a beacon for hundreds of millions of non-Americans around the world who also believe in “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” When dissidents escape house arrest or brave shark-infested waters in search of freedom, their destination is rarely the French embassy or the shores of Africa.

When discussing rights—particularly those rights enumerated in our Constitution—we often weigh priorities. Freedom of speech purists, for example, insist that without the First Amendment, all other rights are nugatory, while Second Amendment advocates stand unwavering in their conviction that without the right of the population to protect itself from a tyrannical government, everything else is hypothetical.

Yet it should be obvious where our existence as free men and women starts. Not with the right of association, or a free press, or freedom of conscience, or the right to keep and bear arms. Everything begins with the right to life.

That is, unless you are a Democrat in 2019.

The Democratic Party has quite literally become the political party of death. Their promotion of abortion for any reason—or no reason at all—has now gone beyond the Orwellian demand for “reproductive rights” (how killing a baby in the womb can be twisted into a “right” of reproduction is perverse on its face), to prominent Democrats becoming champions of not only this trimester abortion but also “fourth trimester” infanticide.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this year signed a bill to allow abortion up until the baby’s due date, and  Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia—the “Butcher of Richmond”—openly advocated a mother’s right to kill her child after a botched abortion leaves the child alive and outside the womb. This is today’s Democratic Party.

Remember, not so long ago, the Democratic Party was the party of working-class Catholics, Italian immigrants, Irish manual laborers who would find the mere idea of politically sanctioned infanticide rightly abhorrent. Today there is no place for pro-life views inside that party. In fact, their attitude to the foremost cause of deliberate, non-accidental, death in America today, isn’t simply approval, it is a diabolical celebration.

Cuomo’s bill was deliberately passed by the New York Senate on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and as it became law the Assembly, with its Democrat supermajority, cheered in unison as if it were VE Day. Then, in the style of a banana republic, the political overlords gave the order that One World Trade Center be lit up in pink in celebration. New York is a city where 30 percent of babies are killed in the womb and where more black children are aborted than born alive.  

The Democrats 25 years ago promised America that abortions would be “legal, safe and rare.” They may be legal since Roe v. Wade, but they are neither safe nor especially rare. Arguably America’s greatest mass murderer, the abortionist Kermit Gosnell, took a mother’s life as well as killing seven babies outside the womb. As to rare, the U.S. abortion industry that Planned Parenthood champions, kills at least 600,000 babies in utero each year.

For perspective, the 70,000 plus deaths last year from opioid overdoses, is deemed to be a national crisis with federal and state programs created to staunch the flow of drugs into our nations and prevent needless loss of life. But more than eight times that number are killed as a matter of choice, not addiction or accident, and the Left celebrates it and wants more. With abortion taking 41 million souls globally last year, “reproductive rights” have become the biggest killer in the world. Again, for perspective: the Holocaust took 6 million lives; the Vietnam War—on both sides—cost the lives of 1.3 million. Abortion kills more than 40 million humans in just 12 months.

The arch-eugenicist Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would be most proud.

While these facts and figures are all shocking, they should surprise no one. The Democratic Party has become what it set out to be: a collective defined by a refusal to admit that eternal and objective truth exists. As Hillary Clinton’s thesis from Wesleyan is titled: “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

Quite clearly, the Democrats have fully internalized the “ends justify the means” mantra, a philosophy that when taken to its logical conclusion leads directly to the gas chambers or the abortion mills, which take tens of millions of lives per year.

As a result, the 2020 elections will not simply be about a second term for the Make America Great Again agenda. With recent state anti-abortion bills increasing in number, 2020 will be about a return to decency and a reversal of the culture of death the Democrats have embraced.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Democrats • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Culture • The Left

Abortion vs. Civilization

The recent push in Alabama to restrict most abortions has energized the culture war. But despite the seething passions on both sides, nothing has really changed.

Abortion has always been anti-family, always been about convenience, and always been evil.

What has changed is the candor of abortion extremists. The far Left’s recent embrace of late-term abortion on demand is as sign that the time for compromise and “dialogue” is rapidly fading.

Most people are still repulsed by overt infanticide—and most well-meaning liberals who aren’t so extreme probably do not realize what they are supporting when they acquiesce to a general “right to choose”—but the embrace of late-term abortion as a serious topic of discussion heralds a nation in decline.

The truth is that abortion is not just a “leftist” issue. It’s a gruesome convenience with which a broad swath of America has made peace.

A Cultural Shift
Abortion is popular. According to a Morning Consult poll, most Americans oppose Alabama’s new abortion law. A sizable chunk of Republicans—40 percent—either have no opinion or oppose the law, too.

By some estimates, nearly 50 percent of Republicans believe Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land.

If the new abortion extremism is a sign of some cultural shift, it’s not that a large segment of the population suddenly supports infanticide. It’s that an even larger segment of the population, libertarians, soft conservatives, and the like, quietly tolerate abortion in the name of “small government.”

It would appear that America has largely accepted abortion as part of the nation’s liberal contract. Even so-called conservatives find themselves unable or unwilling to oppose abortion in the name of non-interference.

Some conservatives who say that they are passionately opposed to abortion will nevertheless withhold judgment and make allowances for it on the principle of separating private belief from public policy. A moral outrage is received with a libertarian shrug: it’s not my business to “legislate morality.”

The notion that government should not “legislate morality,” and instead allow evil and injustice to thrive—in the name of minding one’s business, like a good American—shows how deeply liberalism has degraded the social fabric.

The social apathy that attends widespread acceptance of abortion is part and parcel of the corrosion done by liberalism, and its evil twin, utilitarianism. All arguments for abortion boil down to these two principles: that the freedom of the individual should remain as unrestricted as possible by inconvenience; and that the Good of society should be measured by convenience and pleasure.

Matters of Convenience
Abortion has been widely accepted as a necessary trade-off to accommodate the freedom and convenience of the individual. The ascendance of a philosophy of moral libertarianism, and the decline of family and community, have coincided with the acceptance of industrial-scale butchery. The abortion state is a gruesome convenience that must continue in order for humans to enjoy their sexual and personal freedom without consequences.

A grim data set from Florida paints a portrait of what most “pro-lifers” have always suspected about abortion. According to the statistics, fewer than than 2 percent of abortions in Florida last year involved cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening danger to the mother. Nearly 98 percent were for no specific reason or poverty.

If this data set is representative, then abortion exists largely, if not primarily, for convenience, if not as a form of contraception outright.

Yet pro-abortionists focus on the extreme, implausible cases of pregnancy through rape or incest in order to justify the rule. All that the extremists’ candor has done is clarify what abortion was really always about.  

Some children are born under the right circumstances. Others are “mistakes.” The child is always a hypothetical hindrance; the only tangible considerations are the desires, plans, and convenience of the those who contemplate killing it.

While abortion is often presented as the sole domain of women, the convenience of abortion knows no sex. It often gets lost amid the cliches of the debate that abortion is immensely liberating for men, too. Every man who supports a “woman’s choice” is, however secretly, supporting his right to evade the responsibility of becoming a father whenever he doesn’t feel like it.  

Abortion is, and always was, fundamentally about convenience. But the mind has clever ways of making selfishness look like altruism. To justify the violence necessary to accommodate the restlessly free individual, liberals look to a demonic, utilitarian arithmetic soaked in fatalism.

Pro-abortionists always assume that children born into challenging circumstances are without hope before their lives have even begun. The idea that it’s more cruel to bring a child into the world at the “wrong” time or under difficult circumstances, rather than simply killing it outright, is cynical nonsense.

But this is exactly how abortion is always ethically calculated: people are imagined as factors in a giant pleasure calculator rather than as ends in themselves. Their value and worth are measured relative to the convenience of the whole.

Abortion is thus justified as a compassionate release from pain for all involved. Individuals who are burdensome to the convenience machine are projected as having little chance of thriving in it, and only posing a hindrance to those with the luck to have survived the moment of birth.

A Barbarous Sacrament
Abortion serves the convenience of the individual in the bloodiest conceivable way, but those individuals are themselves denied essential value. They become part of an inhuman aggregate,  a civilization that has given up its humanity for pleasure.

The world envisioned as the liberal ideal, with abortion as its sacrament, is barbarous. There is no more society; instead there is a loosely connected mesh of individuals abstracted into a monstrous, libidinal organism. Individuals no longer exist within a web of meaning and social bonds; stripped of their dignity, severed from social ties and obligations, they are like isolated cells within a pulsing, hyper-stimulated dendrite.

Consumption and convenience are the guiding principles of this debased thing; life has no worth that is inconvenient. Anything that stands in the way of personal choice must be consumed, even innocent lives. Humans are mere fungible flesh, disposable according to their addition or subtraction from the convenience of the monster.

Civilization is reduced to a debased and dysfunctional state. With convenience and individual choice taking precedence over all else, the things that make society civilized are discarded. There are no hard and fast moral truths; ambiguity and arbitrariness rule. Morality, family, and community are dissolved in a libidinal acid bath. There are no consequences, no right and wrong, only the craving of the present moment.

This is a monstrous vision of humanity, but it is liberalism’s ideal. Liberalism can brook no limitations on the individual will. Abortion is core to liberalism and its ideal of a “liberated” humanity.

Abortion at any time, for any reason was an inevitable development given liberalism’s advance.

Abortion is necessary for the liberation of the individual, male or female, from the burdens that would hinder the personal quest. Abortion is about a woman’s choice, but more broadly it gives humans the choice to opt out of forming families, to retreat from responsibility for their neighbors and wider society.

Run-Away Individualism
Every form of liberation requires the destruction of whatever tethers and bonds are limiting one’s freedom. Abortion replaces the most intimate bonds of all with the restless individual will.

Family and community are replaced by individualism, materialism and careerism as the new ideal. A child conceived at the wrong time may frustrate the plans of those who did not “plan” for the child, so the child is disposable. Social responsibility is replaced with personal caprice.

With abortion, there is always a possibility to erase one’s “mistakes,” however grave. One’s freedom is curtailed as little as possible by things that, and people who weren’t “planned.”

If people cannot be expected not to kill their offspring, then virtually no social responsibility can be expected of them at all. But this retreat from social responsibility is not just the province of the Left; it is the consequence of a widely shared liberal tradition.

The “live and let live” mentality is a strong American instinct that is shared by “both sides.” The radicalization of abortion laws either way shows a certain divergence, but abortion has still very much been accepted by a large part of the population as the American way.

To counteract this will require a return to a more encompassing politics than the laissez-faire mentality which animates the thinking of libertarians who imagine restrictive abortion laws as an infringement on the hallowed principle of small-government.

It will require recognizing that right and wrong are binding and universal, not circumstantial and up to the individual; that society is more than individuals minding their own business in isolation; that politics is about justice, and that laws that sanction evil are lawlessness; that upholding standards is necessary for civilized society; that withholding judgment from evil in the name of “small government” is not a virtue; that abortion barbarizes humanity and destroys the things that make civilization possible; that true liberty is not freedom from consequences or the necessity of worrying about one’s neighbor. Above all it recognizes that the purpose of civilization is living a virtuous and happy life.

The popularity of abortion signals a nation and culture in steep decline. A change in course will require rejecting run-away individualism for the things that really matter.

Photo Credit: Emily Kask/AFP/Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • feminists • Post • The Culture

Pop Music, Public Mourning

What does it say about our culture, age, and political trajectory that over the years, pop music has gotten increasingly more depressing?

A team of mathematicians at the University of California, Irvine, recently analyzed roughly 500,000 pop songs released between 1985 and 2015 to learn what makes a song successful in the music industry. The paper’s abstract states the researchers sought “to understand the dynamics of success (defined as ‘making it’ into the top charts), correlate success with acoustic features, and explore the predictability of success.”

The researchers uncovered a couple of notable themes. They found “a clear downward trend in ‘happiness’ and ‘brightness’, as well as an upward trend in ‘sadness’.” The songs that were most successful stood out from the emerging, dark homogeneity by being “party-like.” Interestingly, across the board, songs are becoming “less male” and “more female.”

The current musical zeitgeist in the West feels something like the manic nihilism of a college party girl: a regretful and depressive bassline peppered by moments of reckless ecstasy. It’s becoming “Prozac Nation” pop. “Girl, Interrupted” pop. What might have been considered “edgy” female behavior 25 years ago is the new norm. You can see it in Lana Del Rey, Lorde, Halsey, and even Taylor Swift these days, but two artists dominating the charts right now particularly embody the trends that the UC Irvine researchers discovered. These are Ariana Grande, reigning queen of pop, and Billie Eilish, pop’s rising princess.

Feeling Is Perfectly Fleeting
Ariana Grande, 25, just released thank u, next, an album that might best be described as Candyland turned sour. In this iteration, Grande maintains some of the sugary aesthetics of her earlier work, but a newer, darker motif has come to the surface.

Grande’s own personal damage is a theme of every song on the album, no matter the vibe. In “bad idea,” Grande sings about cheating on a lover by calling another person over “to numb the pain.” She croons: “I know we shouldn’t, baby, but we will . . . You should know I’m temporary.” In “break up with your girlfriend, i’m bored,” she sings to a man she’s just met to end his relationship, reiterating an awareness about doing the wrong thing: “I know it ain’t right, but I don’t care.” In “bloodline,” she sings to a man that she “just wants to have a good time” with him, but she’s not looking for love.

In “ghostin,” Grande sings to the poor chump who holds her as she cries over another man: “I love you . . . I’m a girl with a whole lot of baggage . . . I wish he were here instead.” In “thank u, next,” Grande sings about her Rolodex of ex-boyfriends and her gratitude for what each of them “taught” her: “love,” “patience,” and “pain.” The moment of sincerity is alleviated by a flippant chorus. It goes, “Thank you, next. I’m so fucking grateful for ex.”

The disposability of men in Grande’s life is striking, as is the vulgarity of a woman who by her natural voice and appearance is the image of innocence. This is a girl in a lot of pain, and one who makes tacit connections between that pain and the morally degraded personal behavior she elevates.

Negative emotionality and immorality go hand in hand. Though Grande seeks some form of personal redemption or relief from her feelings, she also can’t let go of her broken moral compass. Her suffering, and her desire for that suffering to mean something greater, is palpable, even in the more playfully nihilistic moments.

Quite a Combo: Postsexual and Nihilistic
At just 17, Billie Eilish’s recently released album “WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO?” debuted at No. 1 on Billboard. Hers is more of a vanguard genre, but by a standard of popularity, she’s pop. Eilish’s aesthetic is stripped of the typical pop frills. It incorporates elements of R&B, rock, Japanese anime, and Tim Burton’s imagination. Eilish dispenses entirely with saccharine girlishness and instead embraces visual motifs similar to those of “Blade Runner 2049and “The Exorcist.”

Whereas Grande’s aesthetic is hypersexual, Eilish is nearly postsexual, bordering on transhuman. Grande might try to turn clichés on their head, but Eilish lives in total rebellion of the clichés. Grande sings that “God is a woman.” Eilish sings that “all the good girls go to hell.” Eilish’s embrace of satanic nihilism is more complete than Grande’s—or at the very least, less covert.

These trends in the music industry reflect how each generation is reacting to the broken world left for them by the Baby Boomers. Generation X and the Millennials reacted by screaming about it, medicating, and ultimately embracing the degeneracy as they partied through it.

Gen Z—or whatever they end up being called—is different. In “xanny,” Eilish wonders “What is it about [people who party]? They just keep doing nothing, too intoxicated to be scared . . . They’re nothing but unstable.” In “bury a friend,” “bellyache,” and a few other tracks, she sings from the perspective of a monster and a murderer. She creates new realities in her music; every song is its own world. Gen Z’s escapism is in the hyperreal. They are trading in the heartbreak of living in our broken reality for creating a new one. Perhaps it comes more naturally to a generation raised by YouTube. Ariana is transgressive, but Billie deals in the absurd.

Still, they have plenty in common. They have naturally delicate, feminine facial features. In interviews, they dip into a style of speaking that borders on vocal blackface. They have a young audience. They’ve been open about their own precarious mental health issues. Neither capitalizes song titles. Both claim to value “authenticity” more than anything. And for each, the devil-may-care attitude that carries the more popular songs only goes so far to distract from the deep sadness and emotional insecurity that comes out in the rest.

Signs of the Times
Our world destroys innocence and commodifies the loss. Ariana Grande and Billie Eilish are a sign of the times. They each represent, however differently, a culture that has given up on itself—a sex-saturated, intimacy-starved society that failed its young by refusing to transmit Truth while stubbornly insisting on foundational lies.

Women are hardest hit by these lies, which include but are not limited to the notion that happiness and virtue are atomizable issues, that men and women are infinitely interchangeable, that promiscuity is fun, that Xanax makes you feel better, that being a “good girl” is a bad thing.

The history of women in pop music is a history of stages of grief. In 2019, at what stage do women find themselves in the grieving of the loss of their virtue? How are they handling the death of the feminine ideal, sacrificed on the altar of equality by the feminists? Is it denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance?

A decade after the dawn of sexual liberation, Helen Reddy was certainly in denial as she sang about female invincibility with that infamous musical agitprop, “I am woman, hear me roar.” A few years later Joan Jett angrily insisted to naysayers “living in the past” that she didn’t give a damn about her bad reputation. The 1990s brought us the ultimate bargain in Britney Spears, equal parts virgin and whore. Reacting against that imagery in the late 2000s, we got Evanescence, poster children for clinical depression.

Yes, trends in pop music suggest that we’ve been moving toward demoralized darkness for decades. But Ariana Grande and Billie Eilish’s music suggests that we also could be in a period of transition. One foot remains firmly planted in depression, but they dip their toes in something new. These women are approaching self-awareness and acceptance.

They are deeply flawed, and they might not understand completely the reasons why things are the way they are, but unlike their pop princess predecessors, they take ownership of their sadness and even their depravity. They aren’t good “role models” by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s a shame that they transmit such dark themes to such young audiences. But at least they know they’re ill.

It is possible that after gazing too long into the abyss, the nihilist becomes aware of herself, looks up to the light, and finds God. One can hope. But these artists might just represent the ultimate, tragically absurd outcome for a civilization that has lost its way. That song has yet to be sung.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Ariana Grande

feminists • Post • Satire

Sorry, Tucker, Titania McGrath Is Real

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Every civilization worth the flame of its kiln produces an epic that combines poetry, storytelling, philosophy, and commentary.

Greece had The Iliad. Rome had The Aeneid. The Brits have Beowulf.

The civilization that postdates Twitter’s 2006 launch now has its epic: Woke: A Guide to Social Justice.

The book, written in the first person, includes a helpful introduction:

Allow me to formally introduce myself. My name is Titania Gethsemane McGrath. I am a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest.

Last week, Tucker Carlson committed the ultimate microaggression against the author by interviewing a British comedian who called her a “parody.”

Parody, though, evokes delight by distorting something that exists. The work of Titania McGrath delights in nothing that exists.

She refuses to laugh, especially at herself. Here are a few lines of her slam poetry, from a piece titled “Comedy”:

Punchlines are bayonets, severing throats

In a toxic chucklesmog of despair.

A homicidal mirth-whore speaks blood

And spills his surly mousse of ruination.

A second Rwanda.

Also, unlike parody, Titania McGrath is real by the rules that say if you deny global warming you can be investigated by Canadian authorities. She is real because she politically compels you to accept her.  What could be more real than that?

Moreover, she has a deliberately posed profile picture: a pouty smile beneath welder’s glasses and carefully disheveled blond hair that together scream “conventional Scandinavian beauty.”

Which means she must be real.

Finally, her social media outrage makes her real. That is why I was reluctant to describe her as conventionally beautiful, which she considers a form of tyranny. But dammit, she is hot.

Putting aside the patriarchal attempts to silence her by calling her a parody and thereby metaphorically pinching her ass, Titania McGrath is on a mission.

She has something approaching apostolic zeal in her singular obsession to make people “Woke.” As she puts it:

Anyone can be an activist. By simply adding a rainbow flag to your Facebook profile, or calling out an elderly person who doesn’t understand what ‘non-binary’ means, you can change the world for the better. Indeed, social media has now made it possible to show how virtuous you are without having to do anything at all.

The first three chapters of her book, “My Struggle,” “Fuck the Patriarchy,” and “The Tyranny of Facts,” sprint out of the gate and set the pace for what follows, each chapter standing alone as the most important essay of this generation or any other.

Including even those unfortunate generations that had their best essays burned when Julius Caesar set aflame the Library of Alexandria, destroying in the process all the great works of antiquity.

We don’t know exactly what was lost, but there had to be at least one or two Greek tomes penned by distracted, verbally impulsive, post-adolescent girls convinced that the world is against them.

Mx. McGrath modestly fails to note that her first chapter’s title is actually the English translation of the more well-known German expression, Mein Kampf. In it, she gives a hint at the refiner’s fire that forged her steely Twitter presence:

My higher education was fairly typical. I studied Modern Languages at Oxford University and then stayed on for an MA in Gender Studies where I wrote a groundbreaking dissertation on technopaganism and the corrosive nature of cis-masculine futurity. It’s the kind of degree that prepares you for life in the real world . . . . I don’t write poems; I write eviscerating daggers of truth . . . . I have made it my mission to change the world for the better, to follow in the footsteps of such trailblazing luminaries as Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks and that guy who played Mr. Sulu on Star Trek.

For her honesty, Titania is figuratively drawn and quartered with the executioner’s techniques of the present age. She is sometimes unfollowed and was once temporarily banned on Twitter for a day. There’s not even an emoji for that.

Some human experiences are impossible to describe because language itself is inherently limited. The collected works of William Shakespeare touch upon love and betrayal but fail to define them concisely. “World War II” does not begin to depict that particular car crash.

Woke: A Guide to Social Justice is one of those things. Any attempt to discuss it—as Tucker Carlson did and as I have done here—is a malignant self-gratifying gesture that diminishes the book like a fat joke in the workplace that would get someone fired.

We are typical privileged white males appropriating Titania McGrath’s idiosyncratic zeal without her consent. That is no different than forcibly groping her in 1983.

Titania McGrath would be perfectly justified to look me in the eye and tweet #MeToo.

I will stop now and apologize to anyone I have ever injured. Titania McGrath has achieved her purpose in this reader. I am Woke.

A parody couldn’t do that.

America • Cultural Marxism • Democrats • feminists • Post • The Culture

Are Women Malcontents?

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

I have decided to finally read what is widely regarded as the literary work that unleashed the modern feminist movement, Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique.”

I am halfway through the book, and I find it to be a well-written cri de coeur (cry from the heart). Historically speaking, there was always much to lament regarding the status of women. Though I have none of the contempt Friedan has for “housewifery,” her description of women who felt they had no sense of self because they were only someone’s wife and some children’s mother is emotionally compelling.

But a big and troubling thought hit me while reading the book. In the 56 years since “The Feminine Mystique” was published, every complaint Friedan made regarding the situation of the American woman has been addressed. Few American women are forced into “housewifery.” The few women who choose to place marriage and home over career have truly chosen to do so; it is the rare young woman for whom marriage and family are greater goals than a successful career. Nor do women any longer go from high school to the wedding chapel. They go from high school to college and often graduate school. In fact, far more women go to college than men.

Yet, if you were to listen to many American women today, you would think nothing has improved. Every women’s group and millions of individual women say women are “oppressed” despite the fact that virtually nothing remains of the “feminine mystique” described by Friedan.

In January 2017, between 3 and 5 million American women took part in the Women’s March, widely regarded as the largest number of Americans to participate in a single-day march in the nation’s history. A year later, millions of American women again participated in the Women’s March in marches around the country.

Feminist groups describe the state of American women in dire terms. Young middle-class and upper-class women, many attending the most expensive universities—paid for by their parents—are among the greatest malcontents in American life.

In fact, women today, including young women, who lead lives the very opposite of those described in “The Feminine Mystique,” are about twice as likely to be depressed as men. And that statistic is true for women across all economic, racial and ethnic groups.

So, then, what was my big and troubling thought?

If women are as likely—perhaps more likely—to complain about being oppressed today when they aren’t oppressed as they did when they were oppressed, and if women today are nearly twice as likely as men to be depressed, and if women at elite colleges—where they are pampered and more assured a financially successful future than most men living now or who lived in the past—are particularly angry and malcontented, simple logic suggests two choices: Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents.

Given that the reality is that American women—especially the ones who do the most complaining—are not oppressed, we are left to conclude that the female of the human species may tend toward being malcontents. The simple-minded will respond to this exactly as they were indoctrinated to respond—not by asking, “Is it true?” but by accusing the person who offers this suggestion of sexism and misogyny.

So, allow me to respond in advance: This is no more an attack on women than describing men’s nature as aggressive is an attack on men. Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society—a society that has rejected wisdom—in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?

Finally, this helps explain why one would consider the left feminine and the right masculine. Though life in America is a blessing for the vast majority of its citizens, the left constantly complains about America. Indeed, the better America gets, the louder the left’s complaints about America—about its racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, xenophobia, inequality, systemic bias, etc. The right, on the other hand, regards life’s difficulties as inherent to life, not inherent to America’s flaws, and doesn’t much complain. Like men, conservatives complain less than liberals. And just as male and female feminists demand that American men complain more—that their lack of complaining is a form of “toxic masculinity”—the American left demands that Americans complain more.

All these women’s marches and angry women at colleges probably tell us more about women’s nature than about American sexism.

Photo Credit: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images


America • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Elections • feminists • Identity Politics • Political Parties • Post • The Culture

Dems Rediscover Nuance to Save Biden

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Democrats and media pundits are conflicted after a slew of allegations of “inappropriate” behavior preempted Joe Biden’s potential presidential candidacy announcement.

No one is accusing Biden of blatant sexual harassment, let alone rape. But lengthy cringe-inducing compilations of the former vice president being handsy and perhaps overly affectionate, along with various first-hand accounts, have raised questions about whether he is the right candidate for a party that has become increasingly sensitive to any trace of impropriety.

Battling columns in the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and a myriad of other publications have struggled with how the party that championed the #MeToo movement and aggressively attacked Justice Brett Kavanaugh should deal with Creepy Uncle Joe.

Many have come to Biden’s defense and have called for us to “look at Biden’s life’s work in its totality.” Mika Brzezinski slammed the accusations as “ridiculous,” saying that Biden is a “nice guy.” Hostesses on “The View” questioned the motivations behind the accusers, asking why they didn’t come forward before Biden’s potential run.

But both the positive and the negative coverage of Biden’s conduct has been laced with something that we haven’t seen in a while when it comes to claims of misconduct. For once, we see a semblance of nuance.

When female colleagues and friends of Brett Kavanaugh hit the airwaves to lend support for his nomination to the Supreme Court, they were roundly denounced. We heard that the positive experiences of scores of women over decades of interaction should have no bearing on how we viewed Kavanaugh. We were told that Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations alone should be enough to disqualify his nomination.

But we are now told that we should consider the outpouring of support for Biden from his female colleagues and friends; that these personal anecdotes add “more information to the unwritten story of Joe Biden.” Imagine—no, we don’t have to imagine, just recall— the scornful responses that were unleashed every column claiming to “add more information to the unwritten story of Brett Kavanaugh.”

Biden’s supporters must understand the jarring double standard they are demanding. They take extreme care to claim their experiences do not “discount the writings of any other women or question their right to be heard” and emphasize that they are not “questioning anyone else’s experiences with Biden.” But when the next phrase after that carefully constructed qualification is “his penchant for showing affection has absolutely nothing to do with him not respecting a woman’s agency over her own body,” the message is clear.

Why else would someone write a column cataloging her positive experiences with Biden? Is there any point other than to cast doubt on the severity of the claims and the accuracy of the accuser’s perception of impropriety? The purpose of these columns is to add positive narratives to dilute the negative ones—quite literally discounting the writings of other women.

To be clear,  there is nothing wrong with this.

These narratives are often helpful. We have all had experiences where we felt uncomfortable because of someone’s behavior only later to learn that we misinterpreted the situation. Imagine if To Kill a Mockingbird ended with a media firestorm with Scout, Jem, and all the other children of Maycomb writing columns and booking television appearances to recount how Boo Radley—the notorious recluse who ends up saving the children’s lives—made them feel uncomfortable.

But these columns lay bare the double standard, a double standard that is obvious and sickening.

If Democrats and the media gave one quarter of their newfound nuance and care to Kavanaugh’s case, we may have avoided the profound discord and ugliness that visited Washington last fall. We may have worked through some of the more difficult questions that plague gender relations in an age of rapidly shifting mores and norms. Who knows?

But it is increasingly clear that our newfound delicacy in male/female relations has nothing to do with propriety and everything to do with politics. This double standard is intentional. And no one should have any delusions that Democrats and the media would have spared one iota of nuance if Biden’s name was followed by an “R” instead of a “D.” Although many conservatives are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to their opponents, the Left is hell-bent on destroying their political enemies. At any cost. And if the Democrats throw their lot in with the Left, they will reap what they sow.

We shouldn’t buy that the crocodile tears and the calls for nuance are indicative of anything but an attempt to save one of their own.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit:  SAUL LOEB/AFP/GettyImages

America • civic culture/friendship • Conservatives • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Religion and Society • The Culture • the family

‘Unplanned’ and the Effective Arsenal of Life

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

One thing you can say about “Unplanned” is that it is ambitious. The film tops “Gosnell” in forcing the audience to confront the true nature of a legal abortion in a sanctioned clinic.

Even given the advanced medical equipment and sterile conditions, the true nature of an abortion horrifies. But that isn’t the point of the movie.

Although it’s hard to imagine anyone short of a hardcore zealot making it through the entire film with his pro-choice beliefs intact, the intended audience of “Unplanned” does not appear to be the pro-choice crowd. The movie seems more to be directed at turning existing pro-life opinion into effective action.

The film’s critical scene depicts the contrast between two kinds of pro-life responses. On one side are grandstanding protesters screaming at women as they walk into a clinic. As the demonstrators bombard these pregnant women with accusations of promiscuity and murder, this moves moves the sympathy needle toward the volunteers protecting their patients as they scurry into the clinic.

A contrasting group of protesters employ the tools Jesus taught: Love, forgiveness, understanding, and prayer. They calmly entreat the abortion-seeking women just to talk to them, tell them their story. They offer help through counseling and adoption services. They offer understanding and forgiveness to women who have made mistakes but who can still be reached through the healing redemption of divine forgiveness.

The movie retells the story of a former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic named Abby Johnson. As the plot unfolds, Abby begins to interact with the gentler protesters. They learn each other’s names and the protesters inexplicably offer her smiles and encouragement, even congratulating her on a promotion. At one point, Abby lashes out at them with a political speech about reproductive rights. Abby is shocked to learn that the protesters have an intellectual argument, not just a faith-based one, that leaves her speechless.

Little by little, the people in Abby’s environment encourage her to take a different path. Abby resists, seeing them as misguided. She feels irrevocably committed to the abortion rights cause because of her personal history with abortion. Her husband, an earnest pro-lifer, swallows his personal distaste for her chosen career and nevertheless showers her with love and support.  

As Abby rises through the Planned Parenthood hierarchy, she begins to realize that some of her assumptions about the morality of Planned Parenthood’s work just aren’t true. The core focus of Planned Parenthood is not birth control or prenatal counseling. The money that pays her salary comes from abortion and she’s trained to sell abortions as a product. Planned Parenthood purposely expands operations to accommodate later and later abortions beyond Abby’s red line of fetal viability.

She also learns that the clinic is actually an assembly line or, rather, a disassembly line for abortion. When one patient has complications due to the negligence of the performing doctor, Abby is forbidden from calling an ambulance to aid the woman because it might open up the clinic to public criticism.

Early on, Abby delivers her sales pitch to reluctant customers, reassuring them that the fetus growing inside of them is incapable of feeling pain. But when she’s forced to watch a procedure on a sonogram, she realizes this is a lie. The unborn baby clearly reacts in pain and attempts to flee the vacuum hose. “They all do that,” the performing doctor quips in response to her shock.

When Abby does switch sides, Planned Parenthood sends an army of lawyers to silence her.  Abby successfully defeated these efforts in court with the help of a plucky attorney’s pro bono work. Abby’s experience calls to mind the use of a prosecutor to retaliate against Project Veritas when it recorded a video of Planned Parenthood openly discussing selling the remains of aborted fetuses. While it is a felony to sell human tissue, that’s not the crime that got prosecuted. Instead a pro-abortion prosecutor exacted vengeance on behalf of Planned Parenthood to deter future abortion-rights dissenters from exposing the ghoulish trade to public scrutiny.

While watching “Unplanned,” tears of impotent rage wet the viewer’s cheeks. But the story of “Unplanned” demonstrates clearly that the monstrousness of abortion cannot be conquered with anger or violence. The key success of the pro-life group depicted in the movie is to offer the women in crisis a choice. The abortion industry thrives on women motivated by shame and fear over their pregnancies. Offer forgiveness and support to those women and you take away Planned Parenthood’s most powerful marketing device.

At the end of the movie, the creators display a written message with instructions to abortion workers about how to get assistance if they decide to quit their jobs. The pro-life activists promise help with job placement and support. And yes, prayers do work. Near the end, when Abby joins the protesters, one of them expresses doubt that all of their prayers end up doing anything. Abby gives them a priceless insight: When potential patients saw people praying outside the clinic, the no-show rates would skyrocket.

For a pro-life activist awakened to abortion’s gruesome nature, it must feel impossible to show love and forgiveness towards the abortion practitioners and the women who hire them. Yet, if you are called to take action against abortion, this is what “Unplanned” challenges you to do. The awakening of Abby Johnson is an invaluable victory for the pro-life cause and the story of “Unplanned” is a study of the tools proven effective to replicate this victory. Prayer and love worked on Abby and they remain the most effective weapon in the arsenal of life.

Cultural Marxism • Democrats • feminists • Post • Progressivism • The Left

Cut Off Those Baby Factories

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

An outlandish video of a New Age mother-daughter duo went viral on social media, and by now most everyone has heard their “cut off the baby factories” message.

Calling themselves the Angelic Initiative, LynnLife and Jamie BodyMind believe they are channels created to receive other-dimensional instruction for our humanoid purpose on Ground Zero Earth. In brief, they say our planet is endangered by the biohazard of overpopulation, humanoids need to stop having babies, and we must reduce the population by 6 billion people if we want our planet to survive.

Viewer intrigue is not owing simply to their disturbing message, but is as much about their freakishly weird arm-pumping and Jamie BodyMind’s orgasmic facial expressions as they supposedly interact with souls from other dimensions—in which, by the way, reside the two “higher souls” they say oversee “the situation”: a wizard and his appointed assistant, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Of course, I had to dig in and find more of these outlandish videos other than just the viral “No more humans!” episode. As I watched, I either laughed out loud at the absurdity, or felt the urge to pray the St. Michael Archangel prayer to protect myself from the demons these disturbed women undoubtedly were conjuring.

But here’s the thing: I’m surprised at the level of shock over this newly unearthed treasure trove of insanity, because there is little in it that we don’t already get from the “progressive” propaganda that assaults us daily.

These deranged women spout ideas that differ only in degree from the leftist schlock we hear every time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opens her mouth—not to mention the other patronesses of the Democratic Party: Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Robert Francis O’Rourke. All of these women are just as unhinged as the “Angel Initiative” women, and some of them (like AOC and “Beto”) even exhibit their own version of Mussolini-esque arm-pumping.

LynnLife sums up the video message: “It is an extreme biohazard to make justifications for parasitism.” The parasite she’s referring to is a baby. “We don’t need children. If you find yourself pregnant there are options and you can have an abortion. No babies! Women who have babies and stay home to raise them should not be viewed as doing a good thing!”

Hey, woman sitting next to your daughter, I have a better idea: How about you shut up?

“Parasites” Everywhere
Ironically, at one point during the video, LynnLife and her daughter are distracted and wholly entranced by a pair of downy woodpeckers. They sigh and lament that the “poor downies are being pushed into an endangered status” by people who overbreed. Clearly all the parasitic humanoid babies are guilty of killing off the downy woodpeckers. Better get rid of those biohazard babies and save the earth. (By the way, downy woodpeckers are doing just fine.)

Sound like anything in the news recently? The Green New Deal may have been unanimously voted down by the U.S. Senate, but don’t for a moment believe that this is the last we will hear of it. Climate change is the only true religion of the Left, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez serves as its loudest mouthpiece. She has made it clear that in order to save the earth we need to question whether it’s ethical to keep having children. “There’s scientific evidence that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” she prognosticates. Evidently Ocasio-Cortez channels messages from LynnLife’s wizard of planetary consciousness.

But wait! It’s not just the babies that are parasites—so are the mothers who stay home to raise them. “Just as bullying is an error pattern that males tend to fall into,” LynnLife explains, “parasitism is an error pattern that females tend to fall into when life is too easy.”

On how many levels should we humanoids be offended by this tripe? The “error pattern” of males, indeed! The obscene idea of “toxic masculinity” has been pushed down our throats by all the favorite step-children of the Democrats: The Pussyhat feminists, the #MeToo movement, most of Hollywood—as if none of those groups act as bully mobs!

Let’s be real: If any sex can be said to have perfected the art of bullying, it’s the female sex. By the time they are 10 years old, females have mastered psychological warfare. Women can become masters at bullying—just look at Hillary Clinton and Amy Klobuchar. And then, in masterful extension of the art, they can attempt to excuse it by pretending they simply aren’t allowed to be as “powerful” as a man. What is power, again?

Don’t ever forget the words of the mother of all contemporary lefty female bullies: “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies.” Hillary, it seems, also had the wizard of our “Angelic Initiative” on speed dial. We parasitic females with such easy lives, falling into terrible error patterns, having babies and staying home with them because all we want to do is bake cookies. The Left loves to pigeonhole non-leftist women as a bunch of white, affluent, suburban moms who are oppressed and brainwashed by our husbands.

Does it ever occur to them that oppression and brainwashing is the forte of the feminist Left? The entire radical feminist movement is a bully mob. If any woman dares to disagree with their anti-male and pro-abortion agenda, she is pitied, ridiculed, or dismissed entirely. One of the aforementioned women refers full-time mothers as “sled sitters”—humans who coast along in life and don’t contribute to society in any meaningful manner. I’ll let you try to guess who, but in truth, it could be any of them.

It Isn’t About “Choice”
Meanwhile, let’s get back to the parasitic babies. Hearing the word “parasite” used to describe a child really rocked the collective conscience of social media this past week, as it should have done. But pay close attention. This is precisely what the “pro-abort until birth” radical Left believes: Your unborn child is a parasite. Your living children are parasites.

Huh, is that why Planned Parenthood is always parked in poor and minority neighborhoods, masquerading as health care, anxious to exterminate harmful parasites? For generations now, this “health care” has been a form of African American genocide, exactly as Margaret Sanger and other progressives planned. Not only did she say “I believe that there should be no more babies,” she also made clear her mission was “to exterminate the Negro population.” The current population control credo is simply the evolution of Sanger’s eugenics. But now, anyone who wants to limit and control childbirth can simply signal their “virtue” by proclaiming it is their sole mission to protect the ecosystem and save our dying planet.

It should be abundantly clear that the pro-choice Leftists aren’t really interested in “choice” at all. They’re more interested in obtaining the power to dictate what’s best for other women. Ocasio-Cortez chides those who disagree with her New Green Deal: ”So until you do it, I am the boss!” (No, actually you’re not). A board member from the group Population Matters says “Having children, from a biological point of view, is probably one of the most selfish things you can do. You’re stealing resources from others in order to perpetuate your genes.”

Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) once advocated high taxation of families with more than two children for “irresponsible breeding,” and currently provides K-12 pro-choice and anti-population growth curriculum for millions of school children across the country. “May we live long and die out” is the mission statement for The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a group that refers to humanity as a “greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet.” Elizabeth Warren and Beto are just two among the many liberal politicians who receive donations from population-control organizations. And with no sentience whatsoever, all of these people and organizations claim they aren’t coercive.

“You can’t actually get someone to do something they don’t want to do, and the best thing you can do is help them see how it’s a good idea to do what they’re supposed to do, but you’ve got to make it seem like it’s their idea.” Any idea who said this? Again, seems like it could be anyone named above. One thing is certain, it’s exactly the modus operandi in China—first with its one-child policy and now with its selective two-child allowance. If peer pressure and propaganda isn’t enough to achieve compliance, punishment is imposed. Chinese population police monitor women closely from fertility to sterilization, they’re punished by deprivation of basic needs for their extended families, and subjected to violent forced abortions.

Despite these horrors (or more likely because of them), China is acclaimed by leftists around the globe for its “contribution” to protecting the climate, and even is used to model how population control is a commendable solution to climate change. Solution? Where else in history was that word used? Put the word “final” in front of it, and you’ll arrive at the Holocaust.

Population control still occurs around the world and even in our own country. Targeted human beings are usually minorities, people of certain creeds or color, people with lesser means, people subjectively categorized as less than perfect, and those deemed unworthy of parenthood. The United Nations has engaged in population control for decades, targeting parts of the world including countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

A Terrible Consistency
Peer pressure and propaganda are the norm for the Left, but the punishment stages of coercion are already in motion. How else can you describe the abhorrent support for abortion until the moment of birth? How else would you describe the push to legalize permitting a child to die after birth? How else could one possibly justify infanticide by trying to call it “abortion after a live birth?” Look at the list of the Senate Democrats who voted against the Born Alive bill, and pay close attention to both the abortion agenda and population control agenda of the Democrats running for president in 2020.

They all oppose the Born Alive bill under the pretense that legislation already exists to protect all infants that are born alive. It doesn’t. The bill adds a needed measure of accountability, making it law that medical practitioners and abortionists cannot deny life-saving care to infants born prematurely or after a failed abortion. Currently, these infants can legally be denied life-saving efforts if the medical team decides their viability isn’t an option.

The Left certainly is consistent: Decisions regarding the life and welfare of a human person are determined by the state. A vote for any of them is your consent to be bossed around. Welcome to Nazi Germany, China, the New Green Deal, and to any other agenda that questions whether it’s ethical to have children; where arrogant “superiors” decree who can have babies, when, and how many.

The outlandish Angelic Initiative video is disturbing but nothing new, and certainly nothing that is outside of the mainstream of Democratic talking points. Indeed, it’s typical of the population control agenda: Inculcate people with a sense of fear about climate change, instill guilt that we aren’t doing enough to stop the destruction of the biosphere, and then offer the same solution pushed by liberals throughout history: Terminate inconvenient human beings.

Photo Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images