A thought that I've considered for awhile, is that modern society is the tyranny of the few. The vast majority of people are opinionless sheep, swayed by the emotional arguments of those that have a vision or ability to convince them of a problem, real or not. This is the way the gay movement, who's population is at best 3% of the American public can convince 50%+ to vote with them. Even though, as I've learned reading here, homosexuality is, as I understand it, a hormone issue developed in the womb. Since the deviation from the norm isn't a mental disorder, a physical impairment (per se), or an outwardly obvious physical defect, homosexuality has been largely accepted for what it isn't, a normal lifestyle that needs special protection. As such, a small minority of people have pushed to grant exceptional rights to a smaller minority of people that infringes on other groups (mainly those with religious beliefs actually protected in the constitution). This same formula is applied to feminists who form a small subset of women who have metastasized their movement into the cancer we see today. People at large have bought into their "message" because they first made it politically incorrect to disagree with them (same as the gay rights movement).
In my opinion, it's going to take a group of men to do the same thing. The problem I see with this is that in order for liberalism/progressivism/feminism (LPF) to maintain it's hegemony over national discourse, they will keep finding new things to attack until there's nothing left and the population has either succumbed completely to their message, or the people who would rise up against them have been so marginalized or their thinking outlawed that it's not possible to rise up in peaceful manner
Which leads to the next logical step. Armed revolution will, by necessity, come sooner or later. LPF's can only take other people's money and assets for so long until no one they hate as anything left to take. When the time comes that demographically, they've convinced or bribed (through welfare transfer payments) enough classes (minorities, LPF's, white knights) and can't point to a bogeyman they'll have to actually govern their previously placated coalition which isn't governable without the bogeymen each group can be rallied against. At this point they'll fight themselves and real men will have an opening to return society to a sustainable mode of governance highlighted by the right to vote, only if you're maker (not a taker), or a defender (military). Allowing people who do not contribute to society to have a say in its management and governance was our first mistake, from whence all others came.
I like to think scenarios like the above are the kind of things men would discuss in the confines of the gentleman's clubs of old. I know that was long, but your thoughts on the subject are appreciated
In my opinion, it's going to take a group of men to do the same thing. The problem I see with this is that in order for liberalism/progressivism/feminism (LPF) to maintain it's hegemony over national discourse, they will keep finding new things to attack until there's nothing left and the population has either succumbed completely to their message, or the people who would rise up against them have been so marginalized or their thinking outlawed that it's not possible to rise up in peaceful manner
Which leads to the next logical step. Armed revolution will, by necessity, come sooner or later. LPF's can only take other people's money and assets for so long until no one they hate as anything left to take. When the time comes that demographically, they've convinced or bribed (through welfare transfer payments) enough classes (minorities, LPF's, white knights) and can't point to a bogeyman they'll have to actually govern their previously placated coalition which isn't governable without the bogeymen each group can be rallied against. At this point they'll fight themselves and real men will have an opening to return society to a sustainable mode of governance highlighted by the right to vote, only if you're maker (not a taker), or a defender (military). Allowing people who do not contribute to society to have a say in its management and governance was our first mistake, from whence all others came.
I like to think scenarios like the above are the kind of things men would discuss in the confines of the gentleman's clubs of old. I know that was long, but your thoughts on the subject are appreciated
