The Criminalization of Masculinity, Part 2 of 2

/25 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

Prof. Baskerville’s website; contains links to podcasts, reviews and his other work.

Domestic Violence

It is well established that men and women commit violent acts in the home in roughly equal numbers, and that an intact family is the safest environment for both women and children. Such facts have not prevented feminists from whipping up public hysteria over “domestic violence,” for which men are presumed to be exclusively responsible. Indeed, terms like “violence against women” and “male violence” are beginning to appear even in government documents. Here again we see the quasi-Marxist assignment of criminal guilt to categories of people rather than the individuals who commit particular illegal acts.

Such violence need not be violent: criticizing, name calling and denying money are now officially listed as forms of domestic violence. The only possible purpose of such verbal inflation, as Baskerville points out, is to target men who have not committed any violent assault. This is one reason statistics on domestic violence cannot be trusted. There is another: they are based not on convictions or even formal charges, but on “reports.” Because domestic violence is now a multi-billion dollar a year industry, interest groups and government agencies have strong incentives to manufacture false accusations and exaggerate incidents.

In practice, accusations of domestic violence are usually made to secure advantages in divorce and custody disputes. Feminist literature complains not that violent husbands are avoiding conviction, but that accused fathers sometimes retain access to their children. After all, when husbands are convicted of criminally assaulting their wives, they get locked up and no question of custody arises. It becomes an issue in divorce cases only because accusations do not have to be proven. Read more

The Criminalization of Masculinity, Part 1 of 2

/12 Comments/in , /by

The New Politics of Sex:
The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Government Power (pdf download; Amazon)
By Stephen Baskerville
Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2017

For half a century, conservatives have been putting their readers to sleep with denunciations of the sexual revolution as a kind of anarchic free-for-all where men’s sexual impulses are gratified at the expense of women’s long-term well-being. But, as I have explained at length elsewhere, the current hook-up scene is no chaos of random coupling; it is a Darwinian competition between women for the attentions of a relatively small number of men. This mating system’s predictable output—possibly its intended output—is a large number of disappointed young women ripe for a message of resentment and revenge upon the opposite sex.

Power abhors a vacuum, and breakdowns of order prove no more than brief transitional phases leading to controls more oppressive than the restraints initially cast off. The sexual revolution did not usher in prolonged anarchy; it replaced a voluntary system of self-control according to principles equally applicable to all with the bureaucratically enforced “empowerment” of one sex at the expense of the other. Thanks to recent headlines, it is finally beginning to dawn on even the dimmest conservatives that the sexual revolution has not “liberated male sexuality,” but subjected men to an arbitrary and hostile regime from which none of them is safe.

There is nothing “ironic” about the cheek-by-jowl existence of a casual sex scene and a bureaucracy dedicated to punishing the men who participate in it: the former acts as a necessary feeder for the latter. The proof is that no feminist has ever encouraged young women behave in ways which would prevent their getting hurt in the first place. Feminists find the hook-up scene far too useful to shut down.

The failure of conservatives to understand the nature of the new sexual regime has, as Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College, demonstrates in the book under review, made them into its unwitting accomplices. Indeed, the new sexual-bureaucratic despotism could not have been constructed without their active participation. Back in the 1970s when the movement was getting started, feminists wrote tracts advocating the abolition of marriage—and, of course, they got nowhere. Eventually they realized they could quietly redefine fornication as rape and easily stampede naive conservatives into a campaign to punish the “rapists.”

Extremist ideologies break out of the margins to assume power when they create a new politics that existing elites fail to understand, or when they can deceive enough of the elites into believing that their agenda is compatible with existing values. This is usually accomplished not by the most extreme ideologues but by those who manage to co-opt, appropriate and distort the respectable values of the mainstream and use them to camouflage their innovations.

Feminism has been wildly successful because it learned how to exploit “the natural concern of every society to protect and provide for women and children.” Read more

Review of “The Bent Pyramid” By Tito Perdue

/13 Comments/in , /by

The Bent Pyramid
By Tito Perdue
Arktos Media, 2018
128 Pages

Audio version of this review:

Isolated high on Old Hag Mountain in North Carolina lies an enormous library and research institute known as The Ark. The Ark is peopled with elitist, reactionary, revolutionary-minded scholars, scientists, and rich eccentrics, each fascinating in his own idiosyncratic way. Among them there’s a chemist, a botanist, a “well-known and highly controversial historian and litterateur,” a youthful mathematics prodigy, a brilliant if depressive astrophysicist, a French neo-Jungian psychologist, two bioengineers, two Latin translators, a former professor with doctorates in more than one of the social sciences, a Triassic paleontologist, an ophthalmologist with a penchant for Plato, and quite a few others.

These “geniuses or near geniuses” dwell far from the madding mob of degenerates that occupy anti-White multiracial America. They are “people devoted heart and soul to excelsior things.”

When, for instance, the newly arrived ophthalmologist (divorced, recently retired at 57, and world-weary) is asked why he wishes to spend his remaining years haunting the magnificent library, he answers simply:

“I want to think. I want to think, and then I want to die.”

The Ark is indeed a place to think, a place to dream, to engineer technological marvels and discover scientific wonders; a place to write great works and translate newly-discovered ancient texts. It is a haven for those who long to instaurate Western Civilisation and turn the world around.

“To think is to be blamed,” however. And for the thought criminals who inhabit The Ark—White, traditional, heterosexual males—to think is to be persecuted. Read more

Al Jazeera on Israel Lobby USA

/3 Comments/in /by

TOQlive Announcement

/10 Comments/in /by


The Occidental Quarterly is starting a new monthly video show featuring James Edwards of The Political Cesspool fame interviewing various figures associated with TOQ, beginning with editor Kevin MacDonald. Shows will air live the first Sunday of every month for 90 minutes, including 30 minutes for audience questions. Shows will begin at 8 PM Eastern, 5 PM Pacific, beginning this Sunday, November 4. The link for livestreaming is here. Shows will be permanently archived on the website.

The chat will be on, so at Q&A time ask some short questions. People who post in the chat feature must wait one minute after posting to post again.

Interviews will discuss and the ideas and background of the writers who contribute to TOQ. Viewers will get an up-close-and-personal look into these writers and their ideas, as well as their intellectual journeys and the obstacles they have had to overcome. There will also be commentary on the wider worlds of politics and culture on which they are conversant.

Mission Statement for TOQlive

An important goal of TOOlive is to promote new subscriptions and donations to TOQ. Information on subscriptions and donations can be found by clicking  here.

TOQlive aims to raise awareness of The Occidental Quarterly. As is well known, there is a wide-ranging attempt to de-platform people and media associated with the dissident right. Important voices have been bounced off Twitter and Facebook; or they have had the numbers of their followers capped or they have been shadow-banned. Financial service firms like PayPal and credit card processing companies have refused to service dissident-right media sites. This has had an oftentimes crippling effect on subscriptions and donations, including TOQ.

Given all the de-platforming and cutting off financial services by the powers that be, it’s more important than ever to raise awareness of TOQ and provide it with a firmer foundation. The editor, Kevin MacDonald, is an emeritus professor of psychology who is well aware of the pall of political correctness that has descended over the academic world. Entire academic fields are dominated by cultural Marxist ideas, and there is active policing of the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Professors either conform to these ideas or they suffer the consequences in terms of lost grants, lost publishing opportunities, and not being promoted or given tenure.

In this environment, there is a crying need for an academic journal that eschews political correctness and champions the free exchange of ideas. We can’t let them win by shutting out our ideas on race and on the ethnic interests of Whites.

Video allows for a much more personal way of communicating than the printed word. So even though the rigorous demands of written prose are essential for developing a rigorous intellectual foundation, it is also important for readers to get to know the human side of these writers. To see them as fellow humans. To understand where they came from and how they got to where they are intellectually. That is the mission of TOQlive.

Appendix to Huddersfield Horrorshow: The Observer Obfuscates

/27 Comments/in /by

Go to Huddersfield Horrorshow.

The Observer is the Sunday edition of the Guardian. It published an editorial on the Huddersfield Horrorshow stating that the “victims of the horrific events in Huddersfield and other cities are not best served by a polarised debate on race.” It then proceeded to obfuscate in typical lying liberal fashion (“obfuscate” is from the Latin obfuscare, meaning “to make dark”). Here is some of what the Observer said, with my responses:

No words can do justice to the horrific abuse perpetrated by a gang of 20 men in Huddersfield, believed to be Britain’s single biggest grooming prosecution. The men plied vulnerable girls as young as 11, including those in care and with learning disabilities, with alcohol and drugs in order to sexually abuse them. The abuse included men raping intoxicated girls while others watched, sexual abuse with a drinks bottle and gang rape by men using plastic bags as condoms.

There is an understandable urge to react out of raw anger. Yet the most important question we can ask as a society — calmly, rationally — is how to prevent this sort of abuse from happening again. (The Observer view on dealing with child-grooming gangs, 21st October 2018)

In fact, the most important question for the Observer is how to conceal the truth and how to evade responsibility for its own role in these horrors. The Observer is still using the euphemistic term “child-grooming gangs” when the proper term is “child-rape gangs.” And it’s impossible to “prevent this sort of abuse from happening again,” because Britain contains millions of non-White men steeped in “the Patriarchy” that reigns supreme in Third-World bastions of “rape-culture” like Pakistan. The Observer has fully supported mass immigration and wants millions more non-Whites to enrich Britain with their rape-culture and misogyny. Read more

Huddersfield Horrorshow: Another Non-White Rape-Gang in Brave New Britain

/17 Comments/in , , /by

Like Friedrich Nietzsche, George Orwell is often and unfairly thought to have no sense of humour. But there’s a lot of humour amid the horror of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Take the scene in which a group of workers at the Ministry of Truth conduct a “Two Minutes Hate” against thought-crime and then worship Big Brother with “a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!… B-B!’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second.”

The Ministry of Mendacity

Does the juxtaposition of “B-B” with “Ministry of Truth” remind you of anything? It should, because Orwell was satirizing the B.B.C., where he worked on propaganda for part of the Second World War. In Orwell’s novel, the Ministry of Truth was dedicated to lying and to the suppression of inconvenient reality. That’s why it was full of memory holes, “large oblong slits protected by wire grating” that “existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor.” Memory holes exist to destroy memory, not preserve it, as the novel’s hero, Winston Smith, sees in a torture-chamber at the Ministry of Love. His torturer O’Brien shows him a photograph proving the evil and corruption of the governing ideology:

“It exists!” he cried.
“No,” said O’Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O’Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O’Brien turned away from the wall.
“Ashes,” he said. “Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.”
“But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.”
“I do not remember it,” said O’Brien. (Op. cit., Part 3, ch. 2)

That’s how the BBC really behaves in the twenty-first century. When reporting restrictions were lifted at the end of Britain’s latest vibrant rape-gang trial, the BBC held the story up briefly before the eyes of the British public, just as O’Brien held a truthful photograph up before the eyes of Winston Smith. Then the BBC imitated O’Brien and dropped the story down the memory hole: in a day, it had vanished from news-bulletins. As far as the BBC is now concerned: “It does not exist. It never existed.”

A few of the vibrant rapists behind the Huddersfield Horrorshow

Read more