Watched a Netflix fairy-story movie at the weekend (Damsel) which was fun except that, as so often nowadays, it was misandristic.
All the good characters were female, even the dragon. The men were all useless or worse: a greedy king; a father who sold his daughter for gold. Prince Charming? Treacherous little bustard.
You see the same thing in current fiction, including most of what’s on offer via Kindle Unlimited. It's as if all books were now required to be based on the mantra "the source of all evil is men."
I bet that if you looked at all the PhDs exploring culture and gender, over the last ten years, less than 1% (in fact, probably none) have even mentioned the concept of misandry, in other than dismissive terms.
No wonder men are increasingly disidentified with the male role – some to the point of wanting to switch sex altogether.
I have a theory, but you may not like it, as it has overtones of conspiracy. Promoting resentment is a key ingredient to bringing about GMR.* The proletariat's been done, so male-female relations are now a more potent area for destabilisation activism. Keep telling everyone that men are oppressive, toxic, etc. Eventually the sexes will hate each other sufficiently to generate societal breakdown and revolution (probably followed by authoritarian collectivism).
Why did the cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) and his disciples encourage people to have as much sex as possible, as a route to 'liberation'? (Feminists could argue – but mostly don't – that promoting casual sex was in men's interests more than women's.) It's possible that the now-normal serial dumping, including of pregnant women, has made men more hated than loved, and that this is what's behind the current disturbing level of misandry, in novels and movies. It's also possible that this end result was, in some sense, intentional.
Perhaps Marcuse foresaw that the resulting breakdown in the 'pact' between the sexes would destabilise Western society, in a way that would suit Marxist interests.
* GMR = the glorious Marxist revolution
07 July 2025
04 July 2025
Death to ... er, Glastonbury?!
Glastonbury and the BBC are basically like academia. Unashamedly biased, and having little time but much contempt for non-leftists.
Every now and then something egregious hits the headlines. (The latest: pop group calls for "death to IDF", and BBC@Glastonbury broadcasts it without censoring.) The Right's response these days? Fight fire with fire. If the Left already suppresses what it dislikes by use of aggressive policing, we should do it too. Invade academia with neutrality commissars! Fire the head of the BBC! Ban Glastonbury!
In spite of such occasional eruptions of outrage against the BBC, or universities, the whole 'liberal' regime rumbles on. Water off a duck's butt.
Trying to impose neutrality on leftist middle-class institutions seems pointless. A better approach would be to let them become gradually marginalised, by withdrawing state support.
Pop acts trying to make it are always going to be tempted to use a bit of controversy as a way of getting attention. I remember the fuss about the Sex Pistols' number one hit God Save the Queen, which the BBC banned, making the song seem even more exciting.
It's a shame the choice of controversy is biased: calling for death to the IDF is apparently controversial in the 'right' way, while the same call for the PLO isn't. A bit of balance slash pluralism slash neutrality would be nice, when it comes to hate speech that passes the censors.
And how did poor Keir Starmer get to be on a par with "Reform, transphobia, selling arms, gammons, justifying genocide, JK Rowling, and Nigel f***ing Farage", in liberals' current list of approved hate objects?
Every now and then something egregious hits the headlines. (The latest: pop group calls for "death to IDF", and BBC@Glastonbury broadcasts it without censoring.) The Right's response these days? Fight fire with fire. If the Left already suppresses what it dislikes by use of aggressive policing, we should do it too. Invade academia with neutrality commissars! Fire the head of the BBC! Ban Glastonbury!
In spite of such occasional eruptions of outrage against the BBC, or universities, the whole 'liberal' regime rumbles on. Water off a duck's butt.
Trying to impose neutrality on leftist middle-class institutions seems pointless. A better approach would be to let them become gradually marginalised, by withdrawing state support.
Pop acts trying to make it are always going to be tempted to use a bit of controversy as a way of getting attention. I remember the fuss about the Sex Pistols' number one hit God Save the Queen, which the BBC banned, making the song seem even more exciting.
It's a shame the choice of controversy is biased: calling for death to the IDF is apparently controversial in the 'right' way, while the same call for the PLO isn't. A bit of balance slash pluralism slash neutrality would be nice, when it comes to hate speech that passes the censors.
And how did poor Keir Starmer get to be on a par with "Reform, transphobia, selling arms, gammons, justifying genocide, JK Rowling, and Nigel f***ing Farage", in liberals' current list of approved hate objects?
02 July 2025
fiddling while the country burns
Pointless rebranding of the dot in 'gov.uk', costing half a million quid. In my view it's a manifestation of a theme of mediocracy (a.k.a. cultural Marxism) which I highlighted in the Mediocracy book: giving primacy to appearance rather than substance. It's part of the whole denial-of-objectivity, denial-of-reality thing.
According to Stanford's online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, post-structuralist (i.e. cultural-Marxist) philosopher Jean Baudrillard
The pointless-rebranding phenomenon got going under John Major, and hit a peak under Tony Blair. Perhaps it isn't quite as intense as it was back then, but it has never really gone away.
The elites may be dimly aware that there is a serious problem looming re the relationship between the governors and the governed. It seems they haven't the ghost of an idea what to do about it — except they're certain it must not involve any 'lurch to the right' or 'populism'. Meanwhile, best just go on fiddling with presentation and style!
Power-mad and Hypocritical is now available in paperback.
In a mediocracy ... social consensus is the only criterion of reality. Since society sees what is presented rather than what is behind the image, appearance becomes more important than substance. (p.32)They're dropping the crown from the logo. This fits with the prevailing anti-class ideology. It seems a shame, however, to lose the tiny nod to monarchy, part of Britain's identity. My guess would be that most voters, if given any say in the matter, would choose to keep it. But as usual, it isn't about what people want but about what's considered ideologically correct.
According to Stanford's online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, post-structuralist (i.e. cultural-Marxist) philosopher Jean Baudrillard
suggests that truth and reality are illusions, and that people should respect appearance, and give up the quest for truth and reality.Truth doesn't matter, or it isn't real, or there's no such thing as objectivity, etc. So forget about the economy, or immigration, or the rise of censorship. Those things may not even be real. Just fiddle with logos and corporate IDs.
The pointless-rebranding phenomenon got going under John Major, and hit a peak under Tony Blair. Perhaps it isn't quite as intense as it was back then, but it has never really gone away.
The elites may be dimly aware that there is a serious problem looming re the relationship between the governors and the governed. It seems they haven't the ghost of an idea what to do about it — except they're certain it must not involve any 'lurch to the right' or 'populism'. Meanwhile, best just go on fiddling with presentation and style!
Power-mad and Hypocritical is now available in paperback.
30 June 2025
votes for babies
The Guardian has an article arguing that babies should have the vote. Well, all children. In other words, no age restriction. As soon as you leave the womb, you're allowed to help choose which party should rule the country for the next four years.
It's easy to mock, but I don't object to the principle. The problem comes in practice: the most popular version of the scheme involves proxy votes, and I don't believe in proxy votes. There's already too much contracting-out going on in modern politics. Would a person be able to get ten votes rather than one, by having ten children?
But my main problem with the suggestion is the claim there's evidence that ...
One of the problems of modern democracy is surely that electorates are already too large: there's too many voters. No one feels they have sufficient power to make a difference simply through voting; hence we get voter apathy — also caused by the fact that there isn't enough genuine choice on offer.
I suggest drastically restricting voter numbers. Ensure that each person privileged to vote feels there's a really important decision at stake. How about this: allocate, by lottery, seven (yes, seven) votes in each electoral district to people who want to be considered for the role (including precocious 9-year-olds and other interested children). For a week, this team of seven people would consult with the political candidates, and with one another. Ideally, they also engage with other residents of the district, via social media or in person. At the end, they each vote anonymously for their preferred candidate.
Might help to concentrate the mind, and make people feel something important was at stake.
It's easy to mock, but I don't object to the principle. The problem comes in practice: the most popular version of the scheme involves proxy votes, and I don't believe in proxy votes. There's already too much contracting-out going on in modern politics. Would a person be able to get ten votes rather than one, by having ten children?
But my main problem with the suggestion is the claim there's evidence that ...
... larger electorates produce better decisions.I don't see how it would be possible to get objective data to support that claim. Who is going to judge that a decision is 'better'?
One of the problems of modern democracy is surely that electorates are already too large: there's too many voters. No one feels they have sufficient power to make a difference simply through voting; hence we get voter apathy — also caused by the fact that there isn't enough genuine choice on offer.
I suggest drastically restricting voter numbers. Ensure that each person privileged to vote feels there's a really important decision at stake. How about this: allocate, by lottery, seven (yes, seven) votes in each electoral district to people who want to be considered for the role (including precocious 9-year-olds and other interested children). For a week, this team of seven people would consult with the political candidates, and with one another. Ideally, they also engage with other residents of the district, via social media or in person. At the end, they each vote anonymously for their preferred candidate.
Might help to concentrate the mind, and make people feel something important was at stake.
27 June 2025
central banking: the end is nigh?
Crazy like a fox. Donald Trump is certainly shaking things up, more than any Western politician in recent history. His ultimate objectives aren't always apparent from the theatrics. But perhaps a degree of camouflage is necessary for a political leader who is deeply counter-cultural (in the new sense of that word; that is to say, who's in opposition to the il-liberal hegemony).
One area where it's hard to know what he's really aiming at is the Federal Reserve. If his goal is to retain the Fed with all its powers, but have it controlled by politicians, then I'm dubious about whether this will benefit America. But what if he's really trying to float the idea of Fed abolition?
It's so radical that it would be ludicrous to imagine a member of the US government even thinking about it, if that member weren't President Trump.
Milton Friedman thought you didn't need central banks. If he was right, then the Fed should be seen as simply part of the elite establishment that restricts our freedom of action but isn't itself subject to democratic control.
Certainly if any nation is going to take the lead in bringing the era of central banking to an end, it's going to be the USA.
More about abolishing the Fed in a Reason article by Brian Doherty.
One area where it's hard to know what he's really aiming at is the Federal Reserve. If his goal is to retain the Fed with all its powers, but have it controlled by politicians, then I'm dubious about whether this will benefit America. But what if he's really trying to float the idea of Fed abolition?
It's so radical that it would be ludicrous to imagine a member of the US government even thinking about it, if that member weren't President Trump.
Milton Friedman thought you didn't need central banks. If he was right, then the Fed should be seen as simply part of the elite establishment that restricts our freedom of action but isn't itself subject to democratic control.
Certainly if any nation is going to take the lead in bringing the era of central banking to an end, it's going to be the USA.
More about abolishing the Fed in a Reason article by Brian Doherty.
26 June 2025
Down with skool!
Labour needs to cut spending if we're to avoid government debt rising to America's disturbing level of >100% of GDP.
Cutting benefits is controversial, for good reasons. If people plan ahead on the basis of available benefits, sudden unexpected cuts will cause suffering.
It's no good complaining that some of them are 'scroungers'. At least the individuals concerned are benefiting from whatever handouts they choose to take up.
On the other hand, there's sure to be plenty of expenditure within the state education system that's not benefiting anyone, and probably causing harm. Why isn't this up for discussion? Because the teaching profession has too much power. It's part of the state apparatus, but it’s not under democratic control.
Buttressed by Marxist-inspired ideology, the education profession has become a law unto itself. See for example what the NEU, Europe’s largest education union, are saying about the supposedly urgent need to 'decolonise'.
Read more about Marxist ideology in
Power-Mad & Hypocritical.
Cutting benefits is controversial, for good reasons. If people plan ahead on the basis of available benefits, sudden unexpected cuts will cause suffering.
It's no good complaining that some of them are 'scroungers'. At least the individuals concerned are benefiting from whatever handouts they choose to take up.
On the other hand, there's sure to be plenty of expenditure within the state education system that's not benefiting anyone, and probably causing harm. Why isn't this up for discussion? Because the teaching profession has too much power. It's part of the state apparatus, but it’s not under democratic control.
Buttressed by Marxist-inspired ideology, the education profession has become a law unto itself. See for example what the NEU, Europe’s largest education union, are saying about the supposedly urgent need to 'decolonise'.
Read more about Marxist ideology in
Power-Mad & Hypocritical.
09 June 2025
POWER-mad & hypo-CRITICAL
My colleague Christine Fulcher and I have now published our analysis of cultural Marxism (a.k.a. 'Critical Theory') as a book, available from Amazon. Ebook only for now. Paperback on the way.
We hope buyers will leave a brief review on Amazon. Number of reviews seems to be the key figure in determining whether a dissident publication receives attention, more so than average score.
Busy people may wish to leave an ultra-short review.
For example:
Review: "Seems OK" Title: "Seems OK"
When we last looked, Amazon wasn't allowing ratings without a review, at least not for books. But reviews can apparently be as short as you like.
Amazon UK
Amazon US
Revenue from sales of this book supports the work of Oxford Forum.
We hope buyers will leave a brief review on Amazon. Number of reviews seems to be the key figure in determining whether a dissident publication receives attention, more so than average score.
Busy people may wish to leave an ultra-short review.
For example:
Review: "Seems OK" Title: "Seems OK"
When we last looked, Amazon wasn't allowing ratings without a review, at least not for books. But reviews can apparently be as short as you like.
Amazon UK
Amazon US
Revenue from sales of this book supports the work of Oxford Forum.
09 April 2025
reality vs. the elites
The Brexit and Trump revolutions have exposed a curious feature of politics in the West. We have seen a political class who, rather than simply doing their jobs, have become ever more preoccupied with the idea of making things better for 'the many', at the expense of 'the privileged few'. Yet it turns out that, rather than becoming more representative of the population as a whole, the political class has become less so. Their preoccupations, many of them informed by the political theory they were taught at university, have turned out to be largely irrelevant to the concerns of the average voter. Conversely, what does concern voters has been largely ignored by them.
The phenomenon of politician-voter divergence highlights a possible defect in human psychology.
Many economists — and some other academics — have been turning away from the narrow model of self-interest that has been the basis of economic theory, and towards the idea that humans are altruistic, as well as selfish. We all know we can feel better when we have done someone a good turn, so altruism is clearly a drive that any theory of behaviour must take account of.
What most altruism researchers have ignored, however, is the likelihood that what a person derives satisfaction from is not the improvement of another person's position as such, but the belief or feeling that they have improved that person's position.
In one-to-one interactions, the potential for divergence between belief and actuality tends not to matter. If I smugly believe I have made things better for someone, but have actually made things worse, the chances are I will soon have my mistake pointed out to me.
On the other hand, in situations where a group of people are machinating to 'improve' things for another group with whom they do not interact directly, the probability of chronic divergence can be quite high. People can spend years kidding themselves they are making things better for others, all the while feeling virtuous and morally superior; meanwhile things are getting no better for the targets of their 'benevolence', and are getting worse for everyone else.
In a democracy there is, in theory, a mechanism for (eventually) removing from power a political group whose beliefs have diverged too far from reality. However, we know that the mechanics of representative democracy are far from perfect. Major divergences between voter preferences and the actions of the political class can continue for decades before finally being brought back into correspondence.
If during the period of divergence, alternative viewpoints were suppressed or even demonised, the process of readjustment can have short-term explosive and extremist effects — rather like a boiler that has been prevented from having regular releases of pressure.
In an academic context, there are no corresponding corrective mechanisms, either in the short term or the long term. Academics are in a position, collectively, to define 'truth' and so to become effectively immune to criticism. As an organised group, they can persist indefinitely with a theoretical system that falsely claims to identify what is in people's best interests — whether those people are the population as a whole, or specific groups targeted as deserving special treatment.
The academics' theoretical system can be expanded, becoming ever more grandiose and forbidding, so that in the end it is near-immune to attacks by anyone outside academia. It cannot be criticised in detail without enormous effort, which few have sufficient incentive to undertake. In any case, there is always the defence of 'virtue', allowing academics to denounce their critics as selfish, uncaring, oppressive or worse.
Contrary to the supposed academic ideal of openness — difficult to maintain in the face of the kind of emotive moralising that seems to be increasingly de rigueur — the academic class can ensure, by means of a process of careful selection and suppression, that no critics exist on the inside either.
update about forthcoming book
Slight change of plan.
The 12 tropes of cultural Marxism will be preceded by an introductory critique of 'Critical Theory', entitled:
which is currently inthe final stages of preparation.
We expect to publish 12 tropes as a sequel to this, later in the year.
The phenomenon of politician-voter divergence highlights a possible defect in human psychology.
Many economists — and some other academics — have been turning away from the narrow model of self-interest that has been the basis of economic theory, and towards the idea that humans are altruistic, as well as selfish. We all know we can feel better when we have done someone a good turn, so altruism is clearly a drive that any theory of behaviour must take account of.
What most altruism researchers have ignored, however, is the likelihood that what a person derives satisfaction from is not the improvement of another person's position as such, but the belief or feeling that they have improved that person's position.
In one-to-one interactions, the potential for divergence between belief and actuality tends not to matter. If I smugly believe I have made things better for someone, but have actually made things worse, the chances are I will soon have my mistake pointed out to me.
On the other hand, in situations where a group of people are machinating to 'improve' things for another group with whom they do not interact directly, the probability of chronic divergence can be quite high. People can spend years kidding themselves they are making things better for others, all the while feeling virtuous and morally superior; meanwhile things are getting no better for the targets of their 'benevolence', and are getting worse for everyone else.
In a democracy there is, in theory, a mechanism for (eventually) removing from power a political group whose beliefs have diverged too far from reality. However, we know that the mechanics of representative democracy are far from perfect. Major divergences between voter preferences and the actions of the political class can continue for decades before finally being brought back into correspondence.
If during the period of divergence, alternative viewpoints were suppressed or even demonised, the process of readjustment can have short-term explosive and extremist effects — rather like a boiler that has been prevented from having regular releases of pressure.
In an academic context, there are no corresponding corrective mechanisms, either in the short term or the long term. Academics are in a position, collectively, to define 'truth' and so to become effectively immune to criticism. As an organised group, they can persist indefinitely with a theoretical system that falsely claims to identify what is in people's best interests — whether those people are the population as a whole, or specific groups targeted as deserving special treatment.
The academics' theoretical system can be expanded, becoming ever more grandiose and forbidding, so that in the end it is near-immune to attacks by anyone outside academia. It cannot be criticised in detail without enormous effort, which few have sufficient incentive to undertake. In any case, there is always the defence of 'virtue', allowing academics to denounce their critics as selfish, uncaring, oppressive or worse.
Contrary to the supposed academic ideal of openness — difficult to maintain in the face of the kind of emotive moralising that seems to be increasingly de rigueur — the academic class can ensure, by means of a process of careful selection and suppression, that no critics exist on the inside either.
* * * * *
update about forthcoming book
Slight change of plan.
The 12 tropes of cultural Marxism will be preceded by an introductory critique of 'Critical Theory', entitled:
Power-Mad and Hypo-Critical:
Why humanities professors
love cultural Marxism
Why humanities professors
love cultural Marxism
which is currently in
We expect to publish 12 tropes as a sequel to this, later in the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)