How Cultural Marxism Exploits Femininity

Today we have forgotten that up until the industrial revolution, with the exception of seafarers, military personnel and the like, most people’s employment was pursued in their own homes. Blacksmiths and farriers had their forges and anvils in sheds out back. Doctors, midwives and lawyers had their offices attached to their homes. Seamstresses, tailors, pharmacists and barkeepers had their retail establishments on the first floor, and lived in apartments on the second floor. Most people, outside of the minority who lived in cities, raised most of their own food, either on common land (as in the UK) or upon part of their homestead (as in the US).

In this sort of environment, men were as much a part of the home and the raising of children as were women. And yes, men and women both owned their own businesses, often pursuing more than one line of work within their own domicile. And they shared in the work of making sure adequate food was provided through winter.

It is only with the industrial revolution that this ended. There were many phases to forcing people out of their homes and into first factories and then offices, ranging from mandating the use of national currency for the payment of taxes in America to the Enclosure Acts in the UK. But the final analysis saw first men, and then increasingly women, removed from their home pursuits.

If you travel around America and visit the untold thousands of parks and monuments to our war dead and other heroes, and then dig into the history of those parks and memorials you will find something really interesting that has fallen into the memory hole. Specifically, you will find that at a certain point in our history, especially when men first left the home, these celebrations of our heritage and improvements in our living environment were overwhelmingly commissioned by … women. Women of these same eras founded hospitals, centers for artistic performance, schools and much more.

These women of our past assured that curriculum materials in schools were wholesome, that our public spaces were uplifting, that our children had a positive connection to our ancestors, that our arts were celebrated and that the integrity of our racial spaces was protected. They created the social glue within our communities that kept our children safe and made our families resilient in the face of hardship. We owe these women a great deal, because especially in the early days of the industrial revolution when men were merged into an artificial culture of employeeism and were worked to death so they had no time or energy, it is these very women who lobbied for safety in the factories that were killing 30,000 men a year, and who also picked up the slack in childcare created by men working outside the home.

Looking at the voting habits of women today, voting habits that endanger the very heritage they celebrated, at first it seems contradictory. But it is only contradictory if you look at it from a purely political perspective.

Although there are exceptions, because just as with men, women are not equal, overall women are the guardians of the status quo. The status quo of the public spaces of 1840 was strongly rooted in classical tradition. The public status quo of today is rooted in Cultural Marxism. And this is why we see such a dramatic shift between the culturally uplifting work of our great grandmothers and the culturally destructive work of too many of our daughters.

To be sure, phenomena of this type are far more complex and nuanced than I just described, with numerous other influences and individual responses. As with all other responses, there is a Bell curve describing how women react to any given status quo, which will set the location of the center of that curve. Where individual women fall on the curve is greatly affected by factors such as marital status, whether or not they have children, their intelligence and their openness to consideration of reality outside of the dominant narratives, etc.

We, that is, men who consciously claim our European origin and both wish and work for the continuation of our people and culture, are a tiny minority of white men. At one time, when the dominant governments supported such ideas, such men were not uncommon. But just as with women, our response to norms lies on a curve. The difference between men and women in this regard is that the percentage of men who will assume the risk of walking away from the center is larger.

And this is no surprise. Men claim and expand the homestead while the women defend it. Men create the status quo, and women defend it. This is not at all a fault of women, but is rather a very valuable attribute creating long-term social stability under ordinary conditions.

The only problem with this arrangement is that for over 100 years our very best men have stood aside and allowed our status quo to be defined by media moguls, globalists, bankers, communist academics and sell-out politicians. And they have defined it in a fashion contrary to the wellbeing of our posterity. Our great challenge is to first expand the range that women deem sensible to defend, and ultimately reclaim our place as the men who define the status quo.

Although there are natural sexual divisions of roles that we ignore at our peril, we want and need the energy of our women within the movement. Our women have served as inspirational muses and confidants for millennia, but as I have also noted, most importantly they have provided the social glue that makes a community resilient.

We have a hard road ahead of us, so we will need to build that community. And one of our tasks is the identification, recruitment and welcoming of those women who, like us, will walk away from the center of the curve to create a promising future for our posterity.