There is a lot of underlying anger (some not so underlying) in Subetei Gur’s article on the xyz site (a conservative alternative to the ABC) along with a similar level of indignation in some of the responses. Lashing out on the left and then on the right produces an endless succession of backlashes, without any accompanying coherent philosophy. And this is the problem with a no holds barred debate, if you can call invective part of a debate.
The article examines the underlying dynamics that bind and separate men and women, and the ability of the latter to manipulate their opposites. It introduces the term Cultural Marxism, which so influences politics today. The whole civil rights movement which invited in the fellow traveller, Women’s Liberation, was based on the neo Marxist philosophy (cultural Marxism) coming out of the Frankfurt School of the early 1930s. The Emile Pankhurst and the suffragettes of twenty to thirty years earlier, though militant, was primarily concerned about obtaining voting rights for women.
People like Herbert Marcuse popularised Cultural Marxism, creating the foundations of the modern leftist narrative, which extended far beyond a single issue cause like feminism.
Picking up a head of steam, it became infused with the far broader state of mind (I suppose you could call it) of political correctness, a strain of utopian oxycodone designed to soothe away even the faintest grasp on reality. Those meaningless slogans ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ have spawned a swamp full of human rights designed to usurp any sense of national autonomy, any sense of personal responsibility, creating a false sense of personal identity. This was never the intent of women’s suffrage, though it was implicit in the civil rights movement.
As a result our education system and our MSM and our bureaucracies and our churches have dedicated themselves to the slow-burn process of social engineering, otherwise known as indoctrination, to the extent that our thoughts are not our own; are actions work in concert with the introduced loopy ideas and we become too befuddled to generate an effective counter narrative.
A conservative counter narrative is desperately needed. Nevertheless it requires perseverance, an effort to become well informed and a readiness to respond to conservative articles, and even an incentive to engage in a bit of blogging oneself: the conservative voice has to be heard to survive.