We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
In an emasculated society, men acting like men will seem extreme. If men are routinely demonized, more is at stake than just a growing cultural skirmish between sexes. Is patriarchalism a bad thing? Of course not. But if a politicized society must virtue-signal by indignantly labeling someone a criminal extremist, a dad with children has become the target. He is labeled worse than a delinquent – he is a danger. More extreme than a terrorist.
What about the guy who’s a single unmarried bachelor? Visiting manosphere websites makes him enemy number one in the UK. Officially. In the government policy documents. Thus the true threats to national security, or the actual problems, are now conveniently disregarded by the government whose job it is to protect the people from evil.
Writes Nathan Pinkoski:
“Western governments have picked up the wrong weapons to strike at Islamism and have unsurprisingly failed to hit their target. Since 9/11, many have associated Islamism with terrorism and reduced the former to the latter. This has led to a mistaken view that responding to Islamism means simply adopting tighter anti-terrorism measures. But since the problem concerns the spread of an ideology that may or may not resort to violence, these measures are inadequate to address the actual problem:
the imposition of an Islamist civilizational alternative that erases the Western and American way of life.
"Islamists can, will, and do use nonviolent techniques to gain political control over local communities and governments. Anti-terrorism measures do little to counteract that threat.
"The first strategic failure is to fight Islamism by anti-terrorism alone; the second failure is to fight Islamism by substantive neutrality alone. This approach treats all ideologies opposed to constitutional government the same. Government leaders often speak in neutral, unclear language about “extremism” or threats to “liberal democracy.” To give content to these anti-extremist programs, they end up focusing on the psychology of extremists, extrapolating a list of behaviors, attitudes, or dispositions that could affect nearly anyone and betray their own progressive ideological slant.
"The British have been caught in this cycle for years. In the first place, their “neutrality” is a fiction, since their motivations have mainly been to show they are not guilty of any anti-Muslim sentiment. In that spirit of signaling their friendliness to Islam, the Conservative Government tried to adopt substantively neutral language to address the problem of extremism. As expected, its vagueness satisfied few. Following their electoral defeat in 2024, the new Labour Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, ordered a review of anti-extremist policy.
"The UK government now defines extremism in terms of behaviors that include “spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories” and participating in “an online subculture called the ‘manosphere.’”
--James 2:12
GK Chesterton on adultery:
"The revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a yoke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being, as it is, a yoke consistently imposed by all lovers on themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black and white contradiction in two words - ‘free-love' - as if a lover ever had been, or ever could be, free.
"It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-favored grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. ...
Opinion by Lau Vegys:
America's problems aren't fixable with patriotic sentiment. They're mathematical realities that don't care about your flag-waving.
The national debt recently hit $37 trillion. By 2033—the same year Social Security's trust fund runs dry—we're looking at debt exceeding $50 trillion. Interest payments alone will consume nearly half of all tax revenue.
At that point, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to print tens of trillions of dollars to bail out the Treasury. The resulting inflation will make the early 1980s look like a picnic.
And of course, as I mentioned in a recent piece, whether it's $37 trillion now or $50 trillion in about eight years, the headline number is just the tip of the iceberg.
Add it all up—Medicare, Social Security, federal pensions, and other off-the-books promises—and the real financial hole the U.S. government faces is closer to $150 trillion. That’s nearly $1 million per taxpayer.
The Guardian reports that 15,000 Afghans were relocated to the UK in a secret scheme, while Breitbart reported that nearly 24,000 Afghans were brought in, with the British government earmarking £7 billion to secretly house and import them.
The UK taxpayer has no choice but to pay up, while government transparency was lacking.
Whether all these Afghans were vetted remains unknown. Given the reputation of the UK along with many Western countries, the vetting process for migrants is nearly nonexistent, and highly questionable in this case in particular.
Also, in the spring of 2023, while Rishi Sunak was prime minister and many UK military families had no heat or hot water, the government continued to host illegal migrants in plush hotels, at the cost to taxpayers of $8.5 million USD a day and rising. And while homelessness was up over 27% in Britain, illegal, mostly Muslim migrants from the Middle East and Africa, were royally served in those plush hotels. Now it comes to light that in...
