Imagine the following message in a public space: Caution: Area of Frequent Attempts at Reputational Destruction by Females
I have never seen a sign bearing the above message in any public space, nor do I want to. Similarly, I have never seen a sign near a heavily African American neighborhood that says, “Caution, entering an area in which your chances of being the victim of a violent crime are statistically proven to be much higher than in other places.”
And again, I do not want to.
My reasons for not wanting to ever read these things are, or should be, self-evident to any reasonably thoughtful person: it is never permissible in a society that purports to be democratic to have the state apparatus cast moral aspersions upon an entire subset of the culture on the basis of that subset’s immutable characteristics.
And yet, in many municipalities in the US and Europe there is a trend toward posting signs in public transport that, in various levels of explicitness, point toward all men as being gropers and harassers in potencia.
For example, on a recent ride on the transport system of the Catalan Government I was informed, via messages on the wall of the rail car, that public entity will have “Zero tolerance with male violence” in the public areas it administers.
As I write I can already hear the objections of some readers. “Are you saying groping and male harassment does not exist on public transportation?” “Or that you have no interest in stopping it?”
I am saying nothing of the sort.
Of course, it exists and it should not be tolerated.
The question is whether in the attempts to eradicate the problem it is morally and legally responsible to use public monies to single out 49% of the population as constituting a lurking threat to each and every member of the other 51% of the population, with all that such signaling produces in the realm of generating widespread social distrust within the population.
“But Tom, are you suggesting that sexual violence, however defined is not predominantly male-on-female in nature?”
Of course, not.
No more than I am denying—as I suggested with the deliberately provocative title of this essay—that in today’s universities, with their ever more female-dominated administrations and HR departments, reputational destruction aimed at sidelining or destroying the professional trajectories of rivals for power and privilege within the system is an overwhelmingly female-on-male form of violence, or that one’s chances of being an object of violence are clearly statistically greater in predominantly black areas of the US than in predominantly white ones.
But as I suggested earlier no one, quite rightly, would ever think of using public monies to alert others to the dangers they might face from these two genetically determined sub-categories of human beings in these circumstances.
However, given the tomb-like silence on the matter in our public discussions, it seems most are just fine with having the government signal citizens with the genetic trait of being male as constituting a special threat to public comity.
As I have often said, it is never a waste of time to try and intuit the goals and methods of the small class of fabulously rich people who seem obsessed with constantly increasing the enormous level of control they already exert over the lives of the great mass of the population.
I also know that the fact that men have greater testosterone levels, and hence much greater tendency and ability to physically challenge the forces of order deployed to protect the elite-favoring status quo and their disposition toward muscular forms of rebellion is a constant matter of concern among the ultra-powerful.
And because these ultra-powerful people also understand that the course an open social conflict can take is always unpredictable, they will, whenever possible, seek to head off such clashes by preemptive means. As the saying goes, the best battle is the one you win without ever fighting.
So, how might you gain a preemptive victory against increasing legions of often quite justly pissed-off males?
Easy. Use the culture-planning tools at your disposal as a member of the ultra-elite to systematically denigrate the “toxic” nature of traditional male attributes.
And there is no better way do this than to do this than to seize upon one of the more ugly manifestations of traditional male behavior—sexual violence—and use it as a cudgel to discredit male attributes in general, including positive ones like the setting of hard limits, physical bravery in the face of hardship and unjust governance, and the desire to protect valuable social norms and traditions against the erosive forces of planned or unplanned social entropy.
And the benefits to the super-elites of implicitly characterizing all males as potential sexual predators in the eyes of young females and many others do not end there.
For some time now, it has been clear to anyone who has taken the time to look, that our current super-elites have an enormous disdain toward the vast majority of the human beings with whom they share the planet, seeing them mostly as obstacles to the implementation of their plans for more “efficient” (read: more favorable to them) distribution of the world’s good and services.
For example, Curtis Yarvin, a misanthrope whose high opinion of himself far outstrips the demonstrated fruits of his intelligence and his humanity, and who has perhaps for this reason achieved that status a of “big thinker” in Silicon Valley technocratic circles, has spoken openly about the coming “dire problem” of what to do with what he calls the “mindless mass,” which is to say the excess of useless human beings that will be produced by technologically-enabled economic efficiencies.
His solution? To house and feed them but keep them enclosed in a virtual world, supported by high quality virtual reality where they can’t gum up the wonderful plans for the marshaling of the world’s resources generated by the small and far-seeing thinking class.
But, of course, an even better approach than this one would be to ensure that most of these useless eaters never get born in the first place.
And we have witnessed a number of them in recent years.
One is to run campaigns designed to convince confused and/or mentally ill teenagers that mutilating their sex organs is a lasting solution to their current unhappiness. Another is to rhetorically elevate abortion from the status it has had in all virtually healthy cultures up until now—a regrettable but perhaps occasionally necessary evil—to that of an unmitigated cultural good.
But perhaps the simplest one of all is to convince one or the other side of the male-female dynamic that their would-be partners in procreation generally cannot be trusted to safeguard their own well-being or that of their would-be children.
Hence, the current effort on public transport and in other public spaces to cast doubt upon the ability of the men in those places to act in a civilized and dignity-supporting manner.
And it is working. And if you don’t believe me, take the time to speak to the 16–35-year-old cohort of women in your life, especially if they attended a “prestigious” institute of higher learning.
Just as sure as they “know” that in every generation previous to their own queer-beating was a widely accepted and widely enjoyed sport among most straight men, they are “sure” that a happy and respectful complementarity of function in relations between men and women rarely, if ever existed in the past, and that the reason for this was that most men simply could not control their inherent need to dominate women and prevent them from becoming happy and fully developed individuals.
Is it any wonder that births are reaching historically low levels in most Western countries?
Yes, economics has a good deal to do with this phenomenon. But blaming it all on that obviates the fact that people have tended to reproduce through thick and thin throughout history.
Indeed, bringing new life to the world has often been seen and practiced precisely as a key means of fighting against difficulty and oppression for the simple reason—one that elitist materialists who want to play God like Curtis Yarvin would never understand—that every new life is a miracle that contains the promise, however faint it at times might seem, of our species becoming a little more creative, a little more humane, and yes, a little more free.
During the Covid operation, the government, working in concert with its corporate and media allies, deployed a wide variety of culture-planning techniques designed to enhance its ability to control the behavior of the population.
Among the more important if least commented upon of these was arrogating to itself the “right” to identify as morally defective and in need of punishing remediation those who happened to disagree with the then administration’s view of bodily sovereignty. This is what took place when the formaldehyde-drenched Joe Biden was told by his handlers to say that he was “losing patience” with the 100 million or so American citizens who refused to take medically useless and, in many cases, dangerous vaccines.
This case of the US president calling out the supposed “enemy within” on a matter that—given the vaccines’ manifest inability to prevent infection or transmission—was purely a matter of personal bodily sovereignty, should have produced widespread protest and revulsion.
But it did not. And the designers of the Covid experiment obviously took note of this non-reaction and reasoned if they could get away with it in that case, what was to prevent them from doing the same in regard to other groups, first among them being society’s stronger, more aggressive and thus more potentially authority-resisting male cohort?
And so here we are, with government-financed signs in public places that subtly but clearly suggest that people born male should be viewed by women not as noble protectors or carriers of wisdom or the many other positive things they often are, but as lurking vectors of violence.
Who wins with that message? It’s certainly not most men, nor for that matter most women.
It does work, however, for those super-elites who for reasons related to their obsessive drive to control resources as well as the comportment of their fellow human beings would like to see more social atomization, weaker families and communities, and ultimately fewer useless eaters to contend with.
While each of us are free to come up with and live by our own privately held theories regarding the actions taken by, or in the name of, Collective X or Collective Y, it is never right for the government to do so, especially when that collective is defined by its birth characteristics.
And if and when they do engage in this practice, know that despite what they might say, they are not doing it because they care for you or want to protect you, but because they want to sow discord or foster suspicions about a group they see as potentially standing in the way of their quest for ever more power.
Join the conversation:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
