With Ukraine’s Clown President Zelensky hogging the headlines, Olena Semenyaka has been sidelined. That is a pity as Semenyaka far more typifies the issues at the heart of Ukraine than does Ukraine’s corrupted Mr Bean.

She has been described as the “first lady” of Ukrainian nationalism. Her pseudo-intellectualism and international networking with NeoFascist groups, as well as her guru-like command of the Azov movement in Ukraine, make her a formidable power behind the throne in the Kiev regime.

Though Zelensky’s Russophobic jokes (sic) raised laughs in Kiev’s more halcyon days, Semenyaka has never been a laughing matter. Born in 1987 and raised in the post-Soviet era, Semenyaka was a gifted philosophy student, who dabbled in all kinds of pan-Slavic supremacist ideas until the 2014 fascist Maidan coup landed her with her current role as High Priestess of Ukraine’s Nazis.

Semenyaka more than pulled her weight in the Azov movement’s attempts to put Ukraine at the helm of a European racist revival. Working as the Azovs’ international secretary and head of their publishing empire, Semenyaka forged links with kindred spirits overseas and the various intelligence agencies that run them. Additionally, Semenyaka was seminal in forging an intellectual base for Kiev’s 2017 so-called Pact of Steel, for white supremacists worldwide to rally behind Azovs’ Russophobic pogroms. And, to top it off, as Semenyaka is personable and presentable, she was also central in knitting today’s Nazis their velvet media glove that masks their base brutality.

Though gifted, she is not novel. Robert Jackson, in his opening remarks at the Nuremberg Trials, had Hitler’s accomplices, deluded crackpots like Semenyaka included, in mind as Hitler’s Reich sprung as much from seeds intellectuals like Semenyaka planted just as much as it did from the fighting prowess of the SS volunteers who served under Heydrich’s adjutant, Joachim Peiper. Just as the Wehrmacht would not have congealed into the seemingly unstoppable Juggernaut it became in 1941 without the assistance of countless Semenyakas, so also would the Azovs not have been the power behind Ukraine’s throne without crucial actors like Semenyaka, who steered Ukraine’s re-emerging nationalist ideology away from its Russian roots and into the pan-Slavic, Russophobic cul-de-sac that is now being pulverized by Russian airstrikes and Russian ground advances into Ukraine’s heartland.

Semenyaka must take her fair share of the blame for all that. Working with Azov warlord Andriy Biletsky, she glorified the Azovs’ eight-year-long ethnic cleansing campaigns in Eastern Ukraine and tied those criminal endeavors into her Intermarium and Reconquista–Pan Europa fantasies, which envisaged a white supremacist empire stretching from Germany in the west to the Russian border in the east, and from Latvia in the north to Sicily in the south.

Like Hitler before her, Semenyaka did not lack ambition, and, like Hitler before her, Semenyaka, working through the Azovs, was determined to realize her ambitions, no matter how unrealistic and ultimately unattainable they were in practice.

Semenyaka’s vast secretariat put their hearts and souls into these projects. As well as publishing widely and facilitating the publication of other racist tracts, Semenyaka forged alliances with German neo-Nazis, the French New Right (Nouvelle Droite), Serbian Satanists, CasaPound Italia, the Estonia’s People’s Conservative Party (EKRE), and Blue Awakening (Sinine Äratus) movements, Latvia’s National Alliance movement, Polish young traditionalists, Alternative for Sweden, Finnish neo-pagans, Finnish identitarians Suomen Sisu, Portuguese identitarians Escudo Idetitario, sundry other European identitarians and American white supremacists, many of whom have been recently killed fighting for the Azovs in Ukraine.

Because her philosophical prowess enabled Semenyaka to weld Western Europe’s diverse far-right ideologues onto the Ukrainian nationalist narrative of Stepan Bandera and similar Nazi-collaborating Ukrainian pogromists, Semenyaka allowed Azov ideology to seep westwards into the European Union.

Philosophy, however, is a poor shield against Russian ordnance. Semenyaka’s dreams of a Baltic-Black-Adriatic Sea space, an Aryan Luciferism based on Black Metal, and fascist feminism is built, like the Ukrainian national anthem itself, on the false premise that Russophobia is a solid foundation stone. It is not. It is, as the Azovs are painfully discovering, quicksand.

Russophobia, like all such xenophobic manifestations, is only a prelude to war and to nothing else. True Ukrainian patriots must work for Ukraine by forging economic and social links with all her neighbors and not by instigating pointless pogroms that had to, at some point, reverberate on the perpetrators. This is not to whitewash, warp or discard interpreted histories but, to declare that a true Ukrainian patriot is one who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew previously.

Even without this war, Ukraine was in dire economic straits and because dreams of the Reconquista of the Intermarium, under the unlikely banners of Aryan Luciferism and Semenyaka’s dubious Black Metal musical icons, would not have been the ordinary Ukrainian’s preferred poison chalices. The project was doomed to ultimate failure. There can, in logic, be no new Holy Roman Empire without the socio-industrial means to promote its ideology and the military means to project it, Europe-wide. The Azovs have no hope of doing either of those from their vulnerable bases in Ukraine’s forests and besieged urban outposts. They are being played and not just by cut-price philosophers like Semenyaka and her Nietzschean and Wagnerian fantasies.

Although the Ukrainian war will end, as the Second World War did, with the defeat of Europe’s Nazi forces, the lasting peace all true Ukrainian and other patriots desire can only be found in a rejection of all esoteric beliefs that lead, in this world at least, not to an Aryan Valhalla, but only into the fathomless abyss that all those civilians who have been at the business end of NATO’s endless wars know too well.

If any positives are to emerge from this awful war, it is that all Europeans, both from within and without Semenyaka’s Intermarium, must reject NATO’s bombs and bullets, and try, in the words of the prophet Isaiah, to make plowshares instead of swords; and while they are at it, to trade Semenyaka’s philosophy books for Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and her Black Metal collection for Tchaikovsky. Though that is not as nihilistic as Semenyaka’s Nietzschean Crusade, it is infinitely more rewarding and productive. And it might, just might, make Europe worth living in.

How did Germany manage to exist for more than 70 years without a queer commissioner? Many may be forgiven for not having pondered this question, especially during a pandemic which has decimated the civil rights of a third of the population.

Sven Lehmann, Member of the Green Party, has announced that he wants to make Germany a pioneer in the fight against discrimination against transgender, homosexual and other sexual minorities. “Everyone should be able to live freely, safely and with equal rights,” he declared on Wednesday. Except of course the unvaccinated.

The federal government appointed the Green politician as the first commissioner for the acceptance of sexual and gender diversity. The new government will in future “pursue a progressive queer policy and also align family policy with the social reality of different types of families,” Lehmann announced. The SPD, Greens and FDP had already announced this plan in the coalition agreement.

The fact that nothing like this has ever existed, apparently weighed heavily on some.

“The protection of people on the basis of their sexual and gender identity must be ensured in the Basic Law and the fundamental rights of trans, inter and non-binary people must finally be fully enforced.” That is why Lehmann is planning a national action plan to protect “queer” people together with the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs.

In addition to their diets, federal government officials receive an allowance of around 43 000 euros per year. Lehmann sits in the German Bundestag for the Cologne constituency.

Female crash test dummies or just female dummies?

Germany has been busy cancelling itself proactively: In October last year, Hamburg’s deputy mayor called for “gender-neutral mobility”. The Green politician wanted crash tests in the auto industry to be carried out with female dummies in the future. This already raised the question: When will dummies for transgender people, non-binary people and people defining themselves as queer follow?

Deputy mayor Fegebank demanded that “female” dummies be used. Because although women drive almost only half of the average kilometres covered by men, about half of all road accident victims are female, as the Merkur reported.

The reason for this is not bad female drivers but that new cars are tested with “male” crash test dummies that have a standardised height of 1,75 metres and a weight of 78 kilograms.

Cars are less safe for mostly small and less heavy women, who have to push the seat forward to reach the clutch or the brake, for example, than for the “average man”, who is considered the template for the dummy, according to Fegebank, and female crash test dummies are to be introduced in the Hanseatic city to ensure “gender-neutral mobility”.

According to the Green politician, car manufacturing and accident research should address the differentiated requirements of women, men, old and young people as well as people with disabilities. She said dummies that are equal to the “prototype man” should be crashed as soon as possible.

These “protective” measures from a leftwing coalition in power are deemed necessary in a country which experiences more political violence categorized as “left” than comparable acts from the right spectrum. This has emerged from a response by the federal government to a small question from the AfD parliamentary group, which asked about politically motivated acts of violence.

According to the information, from January to September 2021 there were exactly 836 left-wing politically motivated violent crimes, the majority of which were physical, and 715 right-wing political violent crimes.

Some 94 violent crimes are to be assigned to the phenomenon of “foreign ideology” and 40 to the area of ​​”religious ideology”, a further 786 are not to be assigned at all.

A total of 2471 politically motivated acts of violence were counted from January to September. Leftwing violence is clearly on the rise: According to the government, 3 365 acts in this crime area were recorded in 2020 as a whole, while in 2019 there were 2 832 cases registered.

Conspiracy theories?

Unwanted political, historical, philosophical and scientific interpretations are dismissed by German politicians and the mass media fully in the grip of mass formation psychosis as “conspiracy theories”. They seem to come from the “edge of society”, where, according to the semi-official version, all sorts of dubious thoughts are exchanged.

In truth, it’s the other way around: the most powerful conspiracy theories come from above. Hollywood promotes them, the BBC and CNN, and German politicians and media are trotting out the same fantasies as their Anglo-Saxon “diversity” role models.

The fact that Corona will mutate and thus become less dangerous and that the pandemic will end as soon as a less dangerous variant prevails and infects the population, is currently considered a dangerous “conspiracy theory” repeated by incorrigible opponents of vaccination. They are blocked on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

But this is exactly what Isabella Eckerle, the head of the Center for Viral Diseases at Geneva University Hospital – an eminent virologist – said in the first half of December 2021.

According to German Health Minister, a 2G-Plus rule must apply to access to cafes and restaurants. “Gastronomy is a problem area. You often sit for hours without a mask,” said Lauterbach told RTL on Thursday evening. Many people infected each other with the Omicron virus in these establishments, he said.

Omicron is believed to be even less deadly than flu. But according to Lauterbach, “this assessment is a misconception”. He could not resist the temptation to spread more panic adding that “of the unvaccinated, many will die“.

Lauterbach is the most popular politician in Germany. Surveyed by the opinion research institute infratest dimap for ARD, 66 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with the fear monger, ahead of Chancellor Olaf Scholz (60 percent).

It is worth remembering that Germany has already required medical grade masks and N95’s with extremely high compliance, and nevertheless suffered significantly more deaths than Sweden for all of 2021.

As The Experts move the goalposts to surgical or N95 masks, it’s worth remembering that Germany has already required medical grade masks and N95’s with extremely high compliance, and reported significantly more deaths than Sweden for all of 2021

They are literally always wrong pic.twitter.com/3jc2nlFOZX

— IM (@ianmSC) January 5, 2022

freewestmedia.com

By Marcus DEVONSHIRE

It is a near-universal claim that the world’s first computer programmer was Ada Lovelace. She is referred to as the “enchantress of numbers”, a mathematical genius, a visionary and a fundamental contributor to the field of computing. The second Tuesday of October is “Ada Lovelace day” – an event to celebrate women’s achievements in STEM[4]. There is even a programming language named after her.

Ada lovelace was not the first programmer, nor was she any kind of genius and she contributed almost nothing to the field of computing. Almost all of the claims about her are wrong and together they constitute the biggest lies told in the field of tech.

Charles Babbage originated the concept of mechanical programmable computers. He named his most ambitious design the “analytical engine”. Due to funding issues and the manufacturing limitations of the time, he didn’t get to create it, but his plans were sound. In 1833, Ada Lovelace met Babbage at a party. She was seventeen and fascinated with Babbage’s work and they became friends. As the daughter of Lord Byron, who was a sordid character of the time, Ada was born a celebrity. Attention, privilege, talent and attractiveness came together to form very high self-regard.

“The more I study, the more insatiable do I feel my genius for it to be.”
Ada Lovelace,[1]

In 1842, a paper was published, in French, by Luigi Menabrea – it was based upon a lecture Babbage had given in Turin, two years prior, where he outlined the analytical engine’s operation and presented diagrams of some of Babbage’s programs that could run on it[6]. Ada was approached to translate the paper into English and Babbage suggested that she add some notes of her own. She also included Babbage’s sample programs from his Turin lecture and, through haranguing Babbage for help, modified the program’s complexity.[5]

“I want to put in something about Bernouilli’s Numbers, in one of my Notes, as an example of how an implicit function may be worked out by the engine, without having been worked out by human head & hands first. Give me the necessary data and formulae.”

Letter from Ada to Babbage,[7][8]

That’s it. Ada Lovelace is called the first computer programmer because she translated a paper written by one man, about another man’s work, using example programs written by that man from two years prior that she modified with a lot of his help. All of the fuss about Ada being the first programmer is about this translated paper. The claims made about her range from establishment media puff-pieces[2][3] which claim she was “the first programmer”, to more subtle claims that she was the “first published programmer” or that she “wrote the first published program”.

It’s ridiculous to even consider that Charles Babbage, who conceived of the analytical engine long before a teenage Ada was told about it, would not know how to program it or would not have written his own programs for it. Claims that Ada “wrote” the program in the published paper are incorrect. The program was written by Babbage in Turin, two years prior. Claims that she is the “first published programmer” or that the program is “hers” are more insidious. If you wrote a formula which you presented in a lecture, which would then be included in a translated paper by someone else – would that person deserve the credit for the formula? I have a hard time thinking that if such a case were made before a modern peer-review board, that they would conclude anything other than that the original author of a work is the one who deserved the credit. She was not the first published programmer because the program she published was not her work.

People believe what they want to believe, and computing has been a thorn in the side of feminists for a long time now. Special attention is given to “women in tech” because it’s a cushy position for people of higher ability than normal. It’s for the smart, the creative, the logically minded, and it must hurt quite a bit to see one’s own sex so under-represented. Since the game of modern feminism is about beating men, there is a great amount of cognitive dissonance in their brain over clearly lagging behind in many important fields. I could state it no better than they do themselves:

Reading through most accounts of history, we could be forgiven for assuming that women were not the warriors, the great thinkers nor the pioneering scientists who shaped and changed our world.

That men alone birthed art, churned out literature and fiercely challenged the status quo, while women functioned only within the domestic realm. But though the canon has perpetually erased the contribution of women and their work has been systematically discredited, devalued and derided, their light has doggedly broken through the cracks.

In short, the massive achievement of the male sex in creating so much of the modern world that serves us all, is a con. Women are just as good – nay, even better maybe, as they were the first to do it in your male field. Our lack of achievement isn’t our fault at all – it’s the result of a conspiracy to keep us down. My failures aren’t my failures, it’s just the (literal) man keeping me down! It’s the baying call of the loser, and we see far too much of it in our world.

When it comes to controlling the minds of the masses, and therefore the fate of a nation, a myth or a narrative is more powerful than anything else. It supersedes all thought, and when implanted strongly enough, may control that person’s thinking until death. We all see the futility of disabusing people of their notions sometimes, and simply must wait out the clock until the mass of people who have a competing narrative outnumbers them. Increasingly, I look at society as the result of a dominant collective who believes in a certain way “just because”. Slow and persistent subversion replaces those values with each generation – changes the nature of that society. People believe what they were taught to, very few people rationalise why they believe the things they do. This results in a series of “what about”-isms, knee-jerk responses to points to disengage the mind from considering painful thoughts.

The prevalence of men in physics? – What about Marie Curie?

American exceptionalism? – What about slavery?

The moral quality of British culture? – What about opium wars?

What about the logical male mind, of the clear contribution of male logic to society in the form of technology? What about Ada Lovelace?

That is why they lie.

References

[1] The cogwheel brain, Doron Swade
[2] Ada Lovelace Day: We should never forget the first computer programmer
[3] Who was Ada Lovelace? https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49960544
[4] Ada Lovelace Day
[5] What Did Ada Lovelace’s Program Actually Do?
[6] Charles Babbage left a computer program in Turin in 1840. Here it is.
[7] Luigi Menabrea Publishes the First Computer Programs, Designed for Babbage’s Analytical Engine.
[8] Excerpts from the letters of Ada Byron, Lady Lovelace

unz.com

“Men are abandoning higher education in such numbers that they now trail female college students by record levels.” So declares the opening sentence of a Wall Street Journal piece that is creating quite the buzz.

Here are some of the eye-popping statistics: Women now account for 59.5% of college students in the United States. They also earn 58.5% of master’s degrees and 52.9% of Ph.D.s. Women have been earning the majority of doctorates for 13 straight years. In the 2020-21 academic year, a million more women than men applied to college.

You can be forgiven if you find these numbers startling. The popular press focuses on the challenges women face, not on their achievements. We are constantly warned about silencing girls’ voices, discrimination against female athletes, glass ceilings, pay gaps, “mansplaining” and the paucity of women in the top ranks of corporate America. There are innumerable programs, scholarships and inducements to increase the share of girls and women who study STEM subjects (the only fields where men continue to earn more Ph.D.s than women). And the assumption persists that it’s a man’s world.

But that’s debatable. While it’s true that men still outnumber women among law firm partners, CEOs and college presidents, that may well be an artifact of age. The rising cohort is lopsidedly female, and the ranks of women managers and partners have been expanding accordingly. Top leadership will likely follow eventually (although it should be noted that women more frequently than men forgo the corner office in order to balance family and career — a subject I discuss in my 2018 book “Sex Matters.”)

Seventy percent of high school valedictorians are girls. They make up such a disproportionate share of qualified college applicants that admissions committees have been practicing sub rosa affirmative action for males for many years. “Is there a thumb on the scale for boys? Absolutely,” Jennifer Delahunty, a college-enrollment consultant who previously led the admissions offices at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, and Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, told The Wall Street Journal. “The question is, is that right or wrong?”

There is no simple answer to that question. Colleges are admitting men with lower grades and scores, but it’s not because they’re attempting to prop up a flagging patriarchy. No, the reality is that women are less likely to enroll in a college with a 60/40 ratio of women to men than one that’s more evenly balanced.

Some might note this female preeminence and shout hurrah for feminism. But I’d keep the champagne corked, because, let’s face it, women like to marry men who are their equals or superiors in education and income, and if this trend of women vastly outperforming men in education continues, a fair proportion of women are not going to be able to find compatible men.

I can hear the scoffing already. How Victorian! As if women need to worry about going to college to get their “MRS” degree!

That, obviously, is not the point. Marriage remains a life goal of most people. In a 2013 Gallup survey of American adults, only 5% of the respondents said they had never been married and didn’t want to marry someday. (For young adults aged 18 to 34, that figure was slightly higher: 9%.)

Americans are right to want marriage, which is associated with greater happiness, health and wealth for adults and with pretty much every advantage you can think of for children. Just one example: 75% of students who graduate from highly selective colleges were raised by two married parents.

This brings us to a bit of social science research that deserves a lot more attention. It’s not news that marriage has been in decline for decades. In 1960, about 5% of births were to unmarried women. Today, it’s 40%. It is well established that children raised in single-parent families are far more likely to live in poverty, perform poorly in school and become vulnerable to life-derailing mistakes like getting into trouble with the law or dropping out of high school.

But here’s the part that deserves more study: It seems that growing up in a single-parent home is not as damaging to girls as it is to boys. Comparing Florida brothers and sisters who grew up in single-parent families, an MIT study found that “growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys, yet has no similar effect for girls.” Boys raised without fathers or father figures tend to be less ambitious and less hopeful than girls raised without fathers or father figures, and tend to get into more trouble at school.

There is much other research finding similar effects. Richard Reeves, co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families, has said that when it comes to thriving in less-than-ideal family settings, “girls may be more like dandelions, while boys may be more like orchids.”

The gender gap that has emerged in educational attainment may be an effect of splintered families. Boys who grow up without the steadying influence of two parents struggle more than girls. So, hats off to the gals who are killing it in schools, but for both sexes to be their best and happiest, we need to revive the norm of marriage.

creators.com

Are we witnessing the feminization of America? And if so, is that a good or bad thing, or is it, like so many quiet but ineluctable trends, a combination of the two?

Perceptions of feminization come from some unexpected quarters. The (mostly) free market economist Tyler Cowen sees it as a long-term trend, going back to the suffragist movement a century ago and women’s inclination to prefer the perils of peace to the risks of war. “You might argue that I had the best of both worlds,” he reflects as he nears 60, “namely to grow up in the ‘tougher’ society, but live most of my life in the more feminized society.”

As an academic, he lives in an increasingly feminized environment. “A Generation of American Men Give Up on College” is a front-page Wall Street Journal story this week.

In postwar America, men outnumbered women on campus, with many veterans taking advantage of the GI Bill of Rights. In the post-Vietnam decades, that trend reversed. In the past five years, as higher education enrollments declined by 1.5 million students, men accounted for 71% of the drop. The sexual assault kangaroo courts set up by the Obama administration’s “guidance” probably contributed to this decline.

In the 2020-21 school year, 59% of college students, and 61% in private four-year schools, were women. And women are more likely to graduate as well, with 65% of women matriculating in 2012 getting a degree within six years, as compared to 59% of the smaller number of men.

It seems we’re headed toward a society where women outnumber men by 2 to 1 in higher education, by an even greater proportion among college graduates and even more among holders of postgraduate degrees.

But as contemporary feminists point out, that doesn’t necessarily mean that women are running things. Historically, college graduates have made much more money than nongraduates, but that gap seems to be narrowing. Men still dominate the ranks of billionaires, CEOs, and, by narrowing margins, major politicians.

It seems male and female graduates seek out different career paths. Half of law and medical students these days are women, but women choose less demanding and competitive specialties. Women are hugely dominant in veterinarian, social work and education schools. Professionally, they are large majorities in caring professions such as nursing and in what one might call the “Karen” professions — corporate human resources departments and university diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies.

In effect, biology keeps trumping feminism. Despite the claims of biological men who believe they are women, only biological women can give birth and nurse babies. As Charles Murray notes in his 2020 book “Human Diversity,” even women with very high IQs and unlimited career prospects often stay home to care for their infants and young children.

Nor are political causes associated with feminists gaining strength. While American opinion has shifted massively on same-sex marriage, it has remained static on abortion. Most voters favor substantial limitations on abortion. Abortions per capita peaked way back in 1980, and the actual number of abortions has been declining since 1990, even as the nation’s population has risen 33%.

As conservative radio talk show host Erick Erickson points out, Democrats’ reconciliation package is geared toward feminist ideas of what women want: subsidized day care and preschool, paid family leave, more money for public schools and free community college. It recalls “The Life of Julia,” the 2012 Barack Obama ad showing a female cartoon character going to preschool, getting free birth control and low-interest student loans, and ultimately receiving Medicare and Social Security without any spouse or partner except government.

But “the trendline research that’s out there right now, across the board,” Erickson writes, “shows moms aren’t going back to work.” That may be one reason why many jobs have gone unfilled, even in states which cut off the Biden Democrats’ supplemental $300 unemployment subsidies. Mothers seem to be turning to home-schooling as enrollments in public schools, shuttered last year by teacher unions, are not rebounding.

Erickson speculates that “particularly in married households, (women) can survive on one income or can do something from home. Many have started Etsy shops or gotten into crafts and can sell stuff online and supplement the family income.” And they can save the money they used to spend on work clothing or commuting.

I take Erickson’s comments as speculation rather than as hard trends. But he raises the possibility that the feminization of America will not produce a society along the lines that either feminists or their cultural critics expect. And that may render some of our caustic arguments increasingly beside the point.

creators.com

The Chinese Communist Party, sensing an ideological challenger no less daunting than a religious order, has drawn a line in the sand, ordering regulatory bodies to reign in the ‘chaos’ of celebrity culture, while finding ways to curtail the influence of ‘effeminate’ celebrities. Can the United States, which lacks such a unified decision-making apparatus, adjust its sails to meet the same challenge?

With the invasion of foreign cultural influences, not least of all from South Korea and its popular ‘K-pop’ boy bands, Beijing has practically declared a state of national emergency. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in the name of promoting a more moral and “healthier society,” has called for a program of “national rejuvenation” with an aim to controlling the “idol worship” of celebrities, not least of all those male stars who exhibit a feminine persona, AP reports.

The ruling, which wasn’t forced to pass through a tortuous game of partisan chutes and ladders as is always the case in the United States, has already sent a chill through China’s thriving entertainment industry.

The ban requires broadcasters to “put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics,” according to the National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA), which employed a derogatory slang term for effeminate men — “niang pao,” which roughly translates into “girlie guns.”

@BTS_twt CONGRATS BTS 🧈 You’re nominated for Group of the Year at the 2021 #VMAs!

Vote on @MTV’s Instagram Story starting TOMORROW! pic.twitter.com/9kgfOaJG7Q

— Video Music Awards (@vmas) September 3, 2021

The collective frenzy that has welcomed K-pop bands in China – groups like Exo, a South Korean-Chinese collaboration, which is ranked as one of the most influential boy bands in the world – is no longer a phenomenon that Beijing feels it can ignore. Impressionable adolescents, eager to emulate the style that seems so alluring to young female fans, has got the authorities worried that the “feminization” of young men will lead ancient Chinese civilization, if not to a radical change in its traditional makeup, then to the brink of national disaster.

Here it is interesting to note how China and the United States, two competing economic and military superpowers, view the issue of masculinity – or the purported lack thereof – in their separate cultures. In China, the question of protecting masculinity from the onslaught of a hyper-sexualized world is obviously a priority; in the United States, the debate is heading into a maddening cul-de-sac, with the authorities – including teachers, politicians and even, to its eternal shame, the Gillette Company – calling out “toxic masculinity,” while promoting LGBTQ+ lifestyles inside of the classroom.

In Shanghai, male students aged 10 to 12 are taught from a 2016 textbook entitled, “Xiaoxiao Nanzihan,” or “Little Man,” which is designed to address China’s perceived masculinity crisis. Chen Laixiu, a teacher who co-authored the book, has a simple message for Chinese males: “man up.”

“Boys have to be outgoing, be able to face the pressure of life and society, and be responsible for protecting the family,” Chen told Sixth Tone.

Now just try and imagine a school teacher in the United States – where Drag Queen Story Hours are being organized at public libraries across the land, and young children are being introduced to the mysteries of transgenderism – holding onto their position for longer than 24 hours after uttering such a glaringly confrontational remark.

Meanwhile, in January, a representative of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a governmental advisory body, warned that Chinese youth are becoming “weak, self-effacing, and timid,” and may be unduly influenced by the so-called “little fresh meats,” those boys who gyrate on stage to the approving squeals of females under the K-pop circus tent. The warning went on to describe the feminization of young Chinese males as “a threat to the development and survival of our nation.”

Imagine that. A single word by a single Chinese official put into motion a national movement to get the Asian powerhouse moving again, with emphasis being placed on physical education in schools, and less time in front of the computer. And people wonder how entire Chinese cities arise out of the desert almost magically overnight.

Just last week, China’s National Press and Publication Association announced the prohibition of online gaming on school days. The rules also limit gaming to one hour a day on the weekend and holiday evenings. Once again, no endless debate that gets nowhere in the political talk shops.

The authorities were moved to swift action after “many parents… reported that game addiction among some youths and children is seriously harming their normal study, life and mental and physical health,” the administration said, as reported by the New York Times.

NEWS: Government of China plans to prevent activities of foreign celebrities in the country #kpopnews https://t.co/gNHn5vqh4H

— Reddit K-Pop (@redditkpop) September 6, 2021

The first conspicuous lesson to be learned here is that, for whatever reason, the elites in the United States either do not sense a problem with the ongoing feminization of American boys, or they have no desire to see the United States succeed as a viable nation for long. Considering the disaster that just transpired in Afghanistan, the second choice is a tempting one. The advantages of supporting masculine traits in society are too obvious to warrant serious discussion here; suffice it to say that no nation that promotes the feminization of its male youth can expect to survive for long, neither in the demographic realm nor on the battlefield.

Russia, by the way, no stranger to surviving in a hostile world, saw the immediate threats posed by global cultural trends and acted accordingly. While not denying anyone of their freedom to pursue whatever type of lifestyle they choose, the Russian Duma in June 2013 passed a law (“for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values”) that prohibits the distribution of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors. The Russian population overwhelmingly supported the motion.

Meanwhile, the United States, a culturally and politically fractured nation that has become ground zero for the globalists and their worldly machinations, has become utterly paralyzed when it comes to invoking legislation that protects children from the onslaught of cultural experiments gone mad.

Independent-spirited countries like China and Russia, which have not been conquered by liberalism on steroids, still have the power within them to protect their young citizens, and with amazing alacrity. This right is no longer possible in the land of the free, where a complicit corporate media machine keeps two sides – the conservatives and the liberals – perpetually at war with each other over issues that never should have been issues in the first place.

‘Boys will be boys’ is no longer a given anymore, and that tragic state of affairs may just help the United States to fade away on the geopolitical stage faster than anyone could have imagined.

On the one hand, America’s Supreme Court is so concerned about the alleged ‘right to life’ of non-conscious early-stage human fetuses as to dictate to any woman in whose body such an object is being formed, “That is state property and you have no right to terminate it.” But, on the other hand, America’s public are so little concerned about their own and actual “right to [conscious] life” as to allow (and to accept their Government’s allowing) — at a time of one of the deadliest and most intensely communicable pandemics in global history — unmasked people to mass together in crowds of strangers to entertain themselves and so to catch the sometimes deadly disease and pass it on to others (after the event), and they thereby produce vast numbers of entirely preventable deaths throughout the entire U.S. population, despite America’s claimed ‘right to life’. Americans, obviously, care more about protecting the lives of pre-conscious fetuses than about protecting the lives of themselves and all of the strangers whom they meet — conscious beings. Is that sane?

On September 3rd, NPR’s Nina Totenberg headlined “The Supreme Court Heads Toward Reversing Abortion Rights”, and reported:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority tossed a legal bomb into the abortion debate late Wednesday night.

By a vote of 5-to-4, the court’s most conservative members upheld, for now, a Texas law that, in effect, bans abortions after about six weeks. But almost as important as the result was how the court reached its decision — without full briefing and arguments before any court.

The court majority, including its three Trump appointees, emphasized that it was not ruling on the issues presented in the case. Still, it refused to block the law from going into effect for procedural reasons. The unsigned court order was just one long paragraph in length. And within a day, state legislators in Florida and elsewhere announced plans to introduce copycat legislation in their states.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has dissented from almost every decision upholding expansive abortion rights, disagreed this time. He called the Texas law unprecedented because it not only bans abortions after roughly six weeks, but delegates enforcement powers not to state officials but to the general “populace at large.” Roberts noted that the law appears to be deliberately structured to prevent courts from being able to promptly consider the constitutionality of the law. …

Specifically, the law confers on any individual the right to file suit for money damages against a clinic, or any person who aids or abets an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

This is now the Trump Court; and, whereas, previously, signed 5-to-4 conservative U.S. Supreme Court rulings were common, this was an unsigned 5-to-4 theocratic ruling by all 5 of the U.S. Supreme Court’s fundamentalist Christians: four Roman Catholic fundamentalists (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), and the only Protestant fundamentalist) (Barrett), ruling that the new Texas law, which places $10,000 bounties on the heads of anyone who participates or assists, or “intends” to, an abortion in Texas, should maybe be allowed to be enforced by this bounty-system, and should temporarily be allowed to be enforced, though “this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law,” but the ruling instead invites all states to consider passing similar laws so that the U.S. Supreme Court itself maybe won’t need to act in order to outlaw abortions, and thus this matter might simply go back to being a state instead of federal matter. Interestingly, the billionaires-controlled U.S. ’news’-media report, and generally praise, details of each of the two (signed) dissenting opinions, but not of the one (and far more important but unsigned) five theocrats’ majority decision, so that the public won’t understand what’s happening (which that majority decision is preparing to impose).

Among the very few public commentaries on that majority (5-to-4) decision was one by the lawyer Luppe Luppen, who headlined “The Supreme Court Guts Roe and Opens a New Era of Nullification”, and he summed up by saying “If state legislatures can effectively turn off constitutionally protected rights by inventing or copying procedures that flummox these five Justices, they may well try to do it.” He pointed out the legislative chaos which that will cause. However, his assumption, there, that the five theocrats were simply “flummoxed,” instead of carrying out a very systematic and carefully thought-out pro-theocracy restoration of the coathanger-abortion era in America, wasn’t backed by him citing any evidence, because it is simply false. These theocratic ‘Justices’ are respected by the public, though they are carrying out the commands in the Bible, instead of in the U.S. Constitution, and it’s achieved by their own, and by the ’news’-media’s, deceits, and, especially, by ’news’-media refusing to call lies “lies.” Though, during Trump’s Presidency, Democratic Party ’news’-media were starting to call his lies “lies,” none of the American media call lies “lies” generally. For example, Obama’s hefty serial-lying is still generally ignored, instead of noted.

As regards Americans being “so little concerned about their own and actual right-to-life as to allow (and to accept their Government’s allowing) — at a time of one of the deadliest and most intensely communicable pandemics in global history — unmasked people to mass together in crowds,” RT headlined on September 5th, “‘Not a mask in sight’: Fans return to U.S. college football in a BIG way – to the delight of many, but the horror of others (VIDEO)”, and posted numerous photos of huge crowd-scenes of Americans at sporting events and other entertainments, in which no one was wearing a mask. Covid isn’t just a matter of private health, but it is especially a raging matter of public health; but, if Americans don’t care about the health of anyone but themselves, and if they are stupid enough to believe that by attending such events they are not endangering both themselves and others, then what else can this be but an insane country, where such dangerous behavior is legal? It might be common for many countries — France, for example — but still it is, quite simply, insane.

Is insanity normal? Is it good? Or is it bad? Is there any doubt about that?

Tolstoy’s novel teaches that sexual freedom actually enslaves women.

By Carmel RICHARDSON

Under our senseless conditions, the life of a good woman is a perpetual struggle against self; it is only fair that woman should bear her share of the ills she has brought upon man. — Rousseau, Emile

As we ride feminism’s third wave to new lows of late-stage capitalism, we’re often at a loss for what cures, if any, remain. What word of sanity can bring us back from the breach of normalizing pedophilia, for example, when the slope everyone swore wasn’t slippery has indeed led to the prophesied transgender craze and the celebration of every manner of sexual perversion?

While there may be other ways to #slowthespread of post-modern sexual mores, I would submit that a rather effective one is by picking up an old friend of 145 years: Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. The story of an adulterous 19th-century Russian noblewoman is more than just a juicy plot to sink your teeth into and escape our malaise (though it can be good for that, too). Tolstoy’s novel presents a potent lesson in the enslaving nature of sexual freedom that is uncannily applicable today.

(Spoilers ahead.)

For its multitude of colorful characters, each with at least one patronymic you’ll likely mispronounce, the story of Anna Karenina is relatively simple. Woman (Anna) cheats on husband with young military officer (Count Vronsky), and suffers consequences (social stigma, separation from her son, despair). But of course, in a novel of nearly 1,000 pages—depending on your translation—there’s a whole lot more to the story than that. The reader watches as Anna, a brilliant socialite with a respected husband and a smart young son, falls from grace: she nearly dies in childbirth of her illegitimate daughter; is cast out of all polite society; is isolated from her son, family, and friends; drives herself mad imagining her paramour is in love with other women; and, ultimately, commits suicide. Through all this, Anna refuses to repent her decision to be unfaithful. If there’s one idea Tolstoy wants you to come away with, it’s that affairs have consequences.

Yet it’s more than that. Anna leaves her husband for Vronsky in search of sexual freedom, autonomy, as Tolstoy later reveals through the adulteress’ own lips, when she projects her own guilt onto her lover: “Yes, there was in him the triumph of successful vanity. Of course there was love too; but the greater part was pride in his success.” Caught in all the trademark traps of jealousy, she sees her own faults in everyone but herself.

What Anna seeks in her extra-marital affair is power—confidence that she can still conquer men, though her husband Karenin has ceased to bend to her wiles. Her lust for control is far greater than her lust for Vronsky himself. This is no sin of Tolstoy’s invention, of course, but the curse of Genesis 3, and though Anna, for a little while, seems to circumvent it, her increasingly hysterical attempts to control Vronsky through emotional abuse only work to drive him away, as he seeks to rule over her. Yet her proto-feminist quest for equality has nothing to do with equal treatment, and everything to do with power—power over men.

(No, Tolstoy didn’t hate women. On the contrary, his treatment of the fairer sex is more than fair.)

Perhaps you are thinking a story of a woman cheating on her husband is far too tame to speak to our current culture. After all, compared to the shows Netflix et al. write in 2021, this whole affair is so heteronormative. Except, in its ends, adultery is not so different from other perversions. Tolstoy knew this, though he may not have foreseen the 21st century, because human nature over time and place is not that different after all. It is the ego which seeks gratification, which demands—craves, even—the acceptance of the society that condemns it. Yet as his title character can attest, no amount of acceptance is enough to secure the happiness of the one who lives in sin. The wheels churn incessantly.

Though she only has one affair of the body, Tolstoy shows Anna dabbling in countless little affairs of the heart as she attempts to will her wishes into reality. Though, not without irony, Anna is haunted by the thought that Vronsky is unfaithful to her, she thrills in flirting with every man she can get her hands on—even the honest farmer, Levin, whose wife Kitty once received Vronsky’s attentions. Anna delights in flexing her good looks and charisma on every unwitting male, making a game of how easily she can make them fall in love with her.

Paired with the thrill of the forbidden—the fomes peccati—this cocktail of emotion and ego leads the two lovers to do what was unthinkable in Russian society at the time: live out their infidelity publicly, rather than behind closed doors. This is Anna’s greatest attempt at control. Believing too much in her ability to bend people to herself, she hopes to change society rather than admit her wrongdoing. So, too, with our sexual activists, who demand we accept their version of reality, despite all of biology, and morality, and human nature, which say otherwise.

Eventually, Anna’s lust for control takes control of her, in her suicide. She intends the act as revenge on Vronsky, for not loving her as she thinks he must—by which she means he must never correct her faults, never go against her will (in the final case, Anna rages against him for proposing they leave Moscow on a Tuesday rather than a Monday), and never—ever—keeping anything from her. But her surrender to self-destruction is telling. It is Anna, not Vronsky, who ultimately breaks under the pressure of the affair. She fails to control both men and herself, and at the last has less freedom than she ever did when living with her husband, Karenin. Her suicide, trapped under a moving train, is a grotesque but unmistakable symbol of her ultimate slavish condition.

As Rousseau writes in his Emile, the damage is worse for the unfaithful wife than the unfaithful husband, because she robs both her husband and her children of her good faith. Rousseau writes:

No doubt every breach of faith is wrong, and every faithless husband, who robs his wife of the sole reward of the stern duties of her sex, is cruel and unjust; but the faithless wife is worse, she destroys the family and breaks the bonds of nature; when she gives her husband children who are not his own, she is false both to him and to them, her crime is not infidelity but treason. … Thus it is not enough that a wife should be faithful; her husband, along with his friends and neighbors, must believe in her fidelity; she must be modest, devoted, retiring; she should have the witness not only of a good conscience, but of a good reputation.

The Anna Karenina affair is an ego-trip for both parties, but it is undoubtedly worse for Anna. Vronsky can still go into society, after all, while Anna is condemned in all polite circles. While Anna goes mad with jealousy, Vronsky goes to clubs, the theatre, and elections. While retaining her reputation may have preserved Anna, Tolstoy seems to think that a “coming out” is inevitable, since Anna at first was content to consort with Vronsky while living with Karenin. The truth will always come to light, and often is pushed into the light by the very ones who should most want to hide it.

For the feminist of today, Tolstoy’s message is probably exactly what she doesn’t want to hear: sexual freedom enslaves females. Most poignantly, it enslaves women to their bodies—quite the opposite of what the abortion clinics claim. Anna seeks sexual freedom, but what she gets is exactly the opposite. Near the end of the novel, Anna confesses to her sister-in-law, Dolly, that she is not only unhappy, but feels trapped. Her means of control—her physical attraction and charisma—while terrifyingly powerful on a fresh victim, eventually wear out in steering Vronsky. Outside vows of marriage, she knows her only hope to hold him is her flesh, and that only while there is no one younger and prettier.

Later on, meditating in solitude on that look—which expressed [Vronsky’s] right to freedom—she, as usual, came only to a consciousness of her own humiliation. ‘He has a right to go when and where he pleases. Not only to go away, but to leave me. He has every right and I have none at all.’ … She could not do anything, could not in any way change her relation to him. Just as heretofore, she could hold him only by means of her love and attractiveness; and just as heretofore, only by occupations by day and morphia by night could she stifle the terrible thought of what would happen if he ceased to love her.

Her suicide, in her own words, is an escape—from the misery in which she ensnared herself and the one thing left to her, her beauty, which is no longer useful.

“Why not put out the candle, if there is nothing more to look at?” she thinks to herself.

Anna’s hamartia, her fatal flaw, is not her belief that women should be free, nor even her desire for freedom, but her belief that she will find greater freedom without her marriage than within it.

Near the end of the novel, Anna’s friends notice her new habit of screwing up her eyes whenever the conversation turns to her affair, as though blurring her vision not to see the truth that repeatedly confronts her. So, too, can the modern reader squint up his eyes to avoid the truth Tolstoy presents, and the consequences of sexual sin, which are catastrophic. But for the honest, there is an entreaty to fidelity—the highest chord played throughout Tolstoy’s masterful work—and it’s one worth tuning into again and again.

theamericanconservative.com