Category Archives: Progressivism

Why would men bother with the contempt and persecution?

Posted on by
Reply

No wonder men are opting out

– They are dropping out of work and marriage because the women aren’t worth it.

Bettina Arndt, May 15, 2026

The warning signs have been there for decades. Back in 1983, American author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a powerful book — The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment — arguing that a male revolt was underway. Since the 1950s, she suggested, men had begun rebelling against the breadwinner ethic – inspired by Playboy culture, the counterculture, and a desire for personal freedom. They were rejecting the cultural ideology that had shamed them into tying the knot and becoming a good provider, lest they be seen as immature, irresponsible, and less than a real man.

Ehrenreich understood that marriage was the mechanism by which society harnessed male productivity. Remove the shame, and the yoke comes off.

Forty years on, the yoke has disappeared. In April 2026, the American male labour force participation rate hit its lowest level since records began in the 1940s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. One in three American men — roughly 33% — were not working or actively looking for work. The overall male participation rate for men aged 16 and over stood at just 67%, down from 73.5% two decades ago and from 87% in the postwar years when Ehrenreich’s story begins.

The trend is not confined to America. Australian men’s workforce participation has fallen from around 79% in 1978 to approximately 71% today (see below), while similar declines — though less dramatic than in the United States — have occurred in the UK and Canada.

Read the rest HERE . . .

It’s now the dangers of ‘masculinism’

Posted on by
Reply

I made this comment on the video below:

Helen Lewis knows how to articulate her point of view and, mercifully, she did not indulge in a feminist rant to highlight the dangers of ‘masculinism’ – typically the sort of coloured word the left spin to support their leftist views. She gives an interesting update or ‘state of the nation’ address on men and masculinity, a lot of it very true from my masculine perspective. But what she also does, as most feminist commentators do, is focus on the extreme elements and personalities in the rising fightback by men against an out-of-control feminism.

Feminists don’t know where to stop. Women are now in the majority of university enrolments, and in such professions as the law and medicine. Feminists have no trouble in accepting their favoured positions while going in boots and all in areas which men are naturally attracted to – the STEM field. They are blase about formulating strategies to favour women and discriminate against men by enforced quotas.

These are issues raised by Helen Andrews and Janice Fiamengo. Ms Lewis has ignored them and their objections. It is a logical conclusion that if women refuse to have children, the society, even the nation, in which they live will break down.

According to Janice Fiamengo, the evidence shows that women destroy civilisations because their decisions are driven by emotion. They are not able to take the decisions and measures that reason dictates. Indeed, most teenage boys notice that inclination as soon as they start to mix with girls. The bad news for Helen Lewis is that the repeal of women’s suffrage is logically necessary to avert our democratic society’s collapse. The bad news for men is that the will seems no longer there for most men to take that action. Incidentally, Helen Lewis, what percentage of Atlantic’s reporting staff is female?

A grotesque man demonstrates our judicial insanity

Posted on by
Reply

Tell Pauline Hanson that you will vote for One Nation if she and her party reform the Human Rights Commission (sack the people there) and repeal the legislation that allows men to indiscriminately invade women’s spaces – including toilets, locker rooms and bathrooms.

Australia’s dominant political class needs to have huge doses of electric shock therapy.

Four stages of ideological subversion

Posted on by
Reply

Former KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov tried to warn the West about communist subversion. After his defection, he spent his time outlining the four stages of Marxist subversion. It happened as he predicted, especially in Australia, where the Marxists have infiltrated and poisoned all the major organs of the nation.

SUBVERSION IN FOUR STAGES

1. Foster cultural decadence and demoralisation
– Attack family, history of white people, encourage sexual promiscuity and drugs, attack patriotism, undermine people’s pride in their country.

2. Create social chaos
Everyone is equal. There’s no difference between man and woman, different races and people. Unequal outcomes are the result of white prejudice, bigotry and injustice.
– Communists plan to use minorities to undermine white society.
– Manipulate the movement for civil rights as a tactic to destabilise white society. Brand anyone objecting as a racist.
– Destabilise with rampant mass immigration. The push for Third World immigration came directly from the communists.
– Encourage black people to see all inequalities and disadvantages as a result of white oppression.

3. Instigate a crisis that leads either to civil war, revolution, or invasion.

4. Launch a quick savage coup to bring the country under the control of the communist party to bring ‘normalisation’. Communists and Islamists are most successful in mounting a coup.

Madman Leon Trotsky invented and spread the word ‘racism’ because he knew that multiracial societies result in social chaos.

Use DIVERSITY as a tactic. Diversity undermines a coherent, cohesive society. Diversity is the major weapon against white societies.

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, also known as Tomas David Schuman, was a Soviet journalist, KGB-associated informant, and defector who worked for the Novosti Press Agency before fleeing while stationed in India in 1970. Resettled in Canada, he became an outspoken anti-communist author and lecturer, best known for exposing the KGB’s “ideological subversion” strategy—demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization—outlined in his 1980s books and lectures until his death in 1993.

Farrer – electric shock treatment for the political class

Posted on by
Reply

The dominant political class is reeling, eyes spinning, at the success of One Nation in the seat of Farrer. It’s been gloomy, depressing times for conservatives, but Farrer has given us hope.

I watched the ABC broadcast of the count, presided over by David Spears and Patricia Karvelas. The shameless bias and the inability to competently analyse what was happening should be embarrassing for the ABC. But it won’t be. The ABC is full of woke, feminist types like Karvelas, but on this occasion, she shone in her perversity.

Despite a graph filling the entire television screen, showing a drop in the coalition support almost equal to the rise in One Nation support, she had to blather on about Angus Taylor being smashed because he preferenced One Nation and didn’t follow Sussan Ley’s plan to bring the Coalition back to the ‘sensible centre’. Instead, he disastrously aligned himself with the ‘hard right’. Karvelas has absolutely no idea what it means to be a philosophical conservative – and it’s likely she never will.

What is obvious to everyone except the ABC and the woke bubble they’re in, the Coalition lost their support to One Nation because the people thought One Nation represented their values, and the Coalition didn’t. I’m typical. I’ve always been a Liberal voter – that is, conservative – from the time I developed a political consciousness. Until now.

The two most pressing issues for conservatives are migration and the Aboriginal industry. The Coalition has failed to deal with these two issues as a conservative party should. The difference is that One Nation has. And they’ll get my vote until the Coalition regains its true conservative values and perspective.

The Coalition was always going to get smashed in Farrer. It would have been worse if they, as silly Karvelas wanted, had steered to the so-called ‘sensible centre’. The sensible centre for a conservative is another version of Labor or, even worse, TEAL. Angus Taylor took the right course in the circumstances.

He showed he wants to put his party on the long road back. That’s the start. Now he must hold the line and develop the right (conservative) policies to deal with migration and the reinverted white-Aboriginals who insult the majority of Australians by telling them they are not legitimate on the land their ancestors fought for, some spilling their blood. Could there be a greater insult?

If the Coalition is not prepared to shut down the Aboriginal industry, I’m sure One Nation is. And, for that, they’ll have my vote.

If as a man you vote TEALs, you vote against yourself

Posted on by
Reply

The TEAL record is there. It’s a woke, full-left party, left of Labor, and similar to the Greens. Their campaign modus operandi is the same in each contested seat. They, overwhelmingly female, swarm the electorate in T-shirts with their disguised deep woke agenda. They bus in female swarmers from all around the continent.

The distinguishing feature, however, of the TEALs is their man-hating feminist agenda. It’s no accident that all TEALs are women, except for David Pocock (you’ve got to wonder what happened to that bruising Rugby player).

Female quotas, female empowerment, identity issues, gender inequity, and warping the judicial system against men are foremost in their agenda.

If you are a man and you vote for a TEAL, like the disguised independent in Farrer, you’re voting against yourself. It comes back to what I have said consistently on this blog. Most men are unaware of the extent of man-hatred in our society, particularly in our institutions.