Massachusetts Democrat Gov. Maura Healey, a lesbian who claims to be Catholic, signed legislation this week liberalizing abortion while surrounded by progressive women celebrating the right to murder their healthy babies up till birth. To conservatives who rightly regard late-term abortion as the killing of a viable child, the scene was grotesque. It also illustrated a political asymmetry conservatives rarely discuss. Endless ink has been spilled and countless podcasts recorded about the radicalization of young men on the Right. Almost nobody in conservative media wants to address the equally serious radicalization of young women toward the progressive Left.
Love you, Auron, but I think this is precisely where we keep losing young men.
Nothing fundamental is going to change as long as we continue telling them that their proper response to grave injustice is to be patient and wait for constitutional processes to work themselves out. Roughly 63 million unborn children were killed in the United States since Roe, while generations of men who believed those children were human beings were effectively told that protecting them meant voting every two years, donating to the right candidates, and waiting for the courts. They've been emasculated - as was I.
We should at least be willing to ask what that does to men.
It reminds me of something Martin Luther King Jr. actually wrote in Letter from Birmingham Jail. I am no MLK devotee, but his criticism of the white moderate is difficult to dismiss simply because of its author. King complained about the man who was "more devoted to 'order' than to justice," who agreed with the goal but rejected direct action, and who continually counseled the oppressed to wait for "a more convenient season."
That argument ought to make conservatives uncomfortable.
I am 67 years old. I once worked on Capitol Hill as a Senior Legislative Assistant for two conservative members of Congress. I believed deeply in this process. But I think we should consider what we are communicating to young men when our answer to nearly every political and moral crisis is some variation of vote, hope, and cope.
We tell them to become strong men. Protectors. Men willing to sacrifice themselves for their wives, children, churches, and neighbors. Then, when they conclude that something monstrous is happening around them, we tell them that their moral agency must remain confined to processes established by the very political order that permits it.
Eventually some of them are going to stop listening.
And here is the problem conservatives particularly need to confront: the Constitution does not guarantee conservative outcomes. Never has and never will.
An AOC presidency would be perfectly constitutional. A Congress dominated by Marxists could be perfectly constitutional. A Supreme Court populated by Muslim judges hostile to Christianity, traditional morality, and everything conservatives have spent generations defending would be perfectly constitutional. If the voters elect them, the Senate confirms them, and the prescribed procedures are followed, the Constitution has done exactly what it was designed to do.
That is why "but the Constitution" cannot be the end of our political reasoning.
If our response to young men watching their civilization change around them is simply to tell them to wait, vote harder, and trust the process, we should not be surprised when they eventually conclude that the process itself is incapable of answering the moral questions they are asking. Sideline themselves because their elders or political leaders kept them on the sidelines.
And if we refuse even to discuss what legitimate political action might exist beyond "vote, hope, and cope," someone else eventually will.
I am increasingly concerned that we are not going to like who that someone else is.
I listen to most of Auron’s show, and there are moments when I think he gets remarkably close to naming the proverbial elephant in the room, but he still cannot quite cross the line that I believe must eventually be crossed: what if the system itself is the problem? The evidence is everywhere.
The current Marxist/Muslim political coalition does not necessarily have to overthrow the Constitution to fundamentally transform America. Win the presidency, win Congress, appoint enough Supreme Court justices, and much of what conservatives fear could be accomplished through perfectly ordinary constitutional processes.
That is the problem we eventually have to confront. If our political opponents can use the constitutional system exactly as designed to create a country fundamentally opposed to everything we believe America should be, repeatedly saying we must “restore the Constitution” does not answer the problem.
Auron gets closer to confronting this than almost any commentator I listen to. I keep hoping he eventually follows the argument all the way to its conclusion.
I think Auron has been fairly explicit about "peoples make constitutions, constitutions don't make peoples" and "Starship troopers is republican, not fascist", which should give you some idea of his views about universal enfranchisement. I think his policy preferences should be fairly self-evident from this commentary.
That’s why I commend Auron for being one of the few commentators who at least gets his toe to the line. But after listening to as many of his shows and consuming as much of his other content as I have, I have yet to hear even a cautious version of this: “Perhaps it is time to reconsider the system itself, and if the system is incapable of protecting the things we believe government exists to protect, perhaps it needs to be replaced.”
Now, it is entirely possible that I missed him saying something like that. I concede that. But from what I have heard and read, I haven’t encountered it - yet.
Consider the difference on the Left. Imagine a conservative equivalent of the DSA, or even the more cautious AOC. These are people are Marxist revolutionaries willing to advocate enormous structural changes while continuing to operate through constitutional mechanisms. They understand something conservatives seem reluctant to acknowledge: constitutional procedure does not necessarily produce conservative outcomes. It can be used for conservative policies and Marxist policies. If Marxists can acquire the votes, win the elections, appoint the judges and enact their program within the existing constitutional framework, they can be extraordinarily radical without being unconstitutional.
That creates a profound asymmetry. The Left is willing to ask, “How radically can we transform the country using this Constitutional system?” Conservatives continue asking, “How can we restore the proper interpretation of this system?” One side treats the Constitution largely as an instrument. The other often treats it as the boundary of permissible political imagination.
And I simply do not see much evidence, within my lifetime, that the second approach can reverse what has happened. I can't even list 10 culturally or economic conservative victories in my lifetime - just rearguard actions.
I was born in the 1950s. I watched the beginnings of this transformation as a child, and later as I mentions, I worked on Capitol Hill as a senior legislative assistant for two conservative members of Congress. I have watched conservative politicians win elections, appoint judges, control Congress, occupy the White House and promise repeatedly to restore their version of constitutional government. Yet the larger cultural and political trajectory has continued in essentially one direction.
Nor are we going back to the America of my childhood. Whatever one thinks about Hart-Celler, Reagan-era compromises or subsequent immigration policy, the country is now profoundly multicultural and politically fragmented. The social consensus within which mid-century constitutional conservatism operated no longer exists. That fact has to become part of our political thinking rather than something we quietly hope another election will reverse.
So my argument is not that Auron needs to endorse my solution, whether that means a new governing agreement, secession, abolition and replacement of the present order, or something I haven’t considered. I am asking for something prior to all of those questions: the freedom to boldly and unapologetically question the system itself. Our organic law, the Declaration of Independence codifies that right to the people, not a government they might establish.
Maybe the Constitution remains the best possible framework. Fine. Make that case. But it should have to make its case against alternatives rather than being granted immunity from examination simply because conservatives inherited an emotional attachment to it. I don't know you personally, so that comment is not directed at you, it's a 50 year observation of the conservative world.
That is where I think Auron occupies an unusually important position. He already sees much of the problem and is willing to say things most conservative commentators will not. I applaud him. No one from my Boomer generation will do what he does. And that is precisely why I keep listening to him - with hope.
But at some point we have to move from cryptically “fairly explicit” to actually "explicit." If the political machinery itself is contributing to the outcome, then eventually someone has to be willing to say so plainly and ask whether repairing the machinery is enough, or whether we need to build something better.
My experience tells me we have to build something better.
Feminism is the greatest single disaster to befall western civilization in the past 80 years or so.. From it stems every evil and is at the foundation of about every problem we face today. Feminism is of course, a rebranding of Marxist principles, which explains why it is so deadly, more so because it has been renamed to confuse the naïve and ill informed in our society.
Compounding all of this is “conservatism“ and “conservatives“ in the modern era, who do not know what it is they’re trying to conserve because they have no core principles, virtues, or values that they are willing to fight for, much less die for if necessary. All a “conservative“ is conserving in this era is the leftist position that was staked out some 30 years ago, then through their patience and efforts instituted into law some 20 years ago. “Conservatives” are incapable of fighting back.
What we need is a new type of principles and and a cause which has to be centered on Christian nationalism and principles of Constitutionally limited government and America First. The real leadership there is yet to emerge. One of the greatest leaders that we had was Charlie Kirk. That’s why they murdered him. Until we start fighting back, progressivism will continue its inexorable march to victory.
Birth control brain. Hormonal birth control in adolescence results in a thinned prefrontal cortex resulting in reduced impulse control, reduced capacity for emotional regulation, and reduced decision making faculty. It also results in structural malformation in the amygdala and hippocampus which are responsible for fear regulation, stress response, and memory consolidation. Women who were exposed to birth control during neurological development are effectively brain damaged.
Not ready to hand but most AIs will be forthcoming with it (though they will assert that there is no study demonstrating a causal connection between HBC and political radicalization, that is my own hypothesis). Just query the AI for the effects of hormonal birth control on neurological development when taken in adolescence and young adulthood and go from there.
To be balanced, the white women being ripped on are the ones who've captured the popular media and academia. Few are ripping on a mother of three kids in suburban Ohio.
Love you, Auron, but I think this is precisely where we keep losing young men.
Nothing fundamental is going to change as long as we continue telling them that their proper response to grave injustice is to be patient and wait for constitutional processes to work themselves out. Roughly 63 million unborn children were killed in the United States since Roe, while generations of men who believed those children were human beings were effectively told that protecting them meant voting every two years, donating to the right candidates, and waiting for the courts. They've been emasculated - as was I.
We should at least be willing to ask what that does to men.
It reminds me of something Martin Luther King Jr. actually wrote in Letter from Birmingham Jail. I am no MLK devotee, but his criticism of the white moderate is difficult to dismiss simply because of its author. King complained about the man who was "more devoted to 'order' than to justice," who agreed with the goal but rejected direct action, and who continually counseled the oppressed to wait for "a more convenient season."
That argument ought to make conservatives uncomfortable.
I am 67 years old. I once worked on Capitol Hill as a Senior Legislative Assistant for two conservative members of Congress. I believed deeply in this process. But I think we should consider what we are communicating to young men when our answer to nearly every political and moral crisis is some variation of vote, hope, and cope.
We tell them to become strong men. Protectors. Men willing to sacrifice themselves for their wives, children, churches, and neighbors. Then, when they conclude that something monstrous is happening around them, we tell them that their moral agency must remain confined to processes established by the very political order that permits it.
Eventually some of them are going to stop listening.
And here is the problem conservatives particularly need to confront: the Constitution does not guarantee conservative outcomes. Never has and never will.
An AOC presidency would be perfectly constitutional. A Congress dominated by Marxists could be perfectly constitutional. A Supreme Court populated by Muslim judges hostile to Christianity, traditional morality, and everything conservatives have spent generations defending would be perfectly constitutional. If the voters elect them, the Senate confirms them, and the prescribed procedures are followed, the Constitution has done exactly what it was designed to do.
That is why "but the Constitution" cannot be the end of our political reasoning.
If our response to young men watching their civilization change around them is simply to tell them to wait, vote harder, and trust the process, we should not be surprised when they eventually conclude that the process itself is incapable of answering the moral questions they are asking. Sideline themselves because their elders or political leaders kept them on the sidelines.
And if we refuse even to discuss what legitimate political action might exist beyond "vote, hope, and cope," someone else eventually will.
I am increasingly concerned that we are not going to like who that someone else is.
I don't think Auron would disagree with the bulk of your argument, and that was the point of the article.
I listen to most of Auron’s show, and there are moments when I think he gets remarkably close to naming the proverbial elephant in the room, but he still cannot quite cross the line that I believe must eventually be crossed: what if the system itself is the problem? The evidence is everywhere.
The current Marxist/Muslim political coalition does not necessarily have to overthrow the Constitution to fundamentally transform America. Win the presidency, win Congress, appoint enough Supreme Court justices, and much of what conservatives fear could be accomplished through perfectly ordinary constitutional processes.
That is the problem we eventually have to confront. If our political opponents can use the constitutional system exactly as designed to create a country fundamentally opposed to everything we believe America should be, repeatedly saying we must “restore the Constitution” does not answer the problem.
Auron gets closer to confronting this than almost any commentator I listen to. I keep hoping he eventually follows the argument all the way to its conclusion.
I think Auron has been fairly explicit about "peoples make constitutions, constitutions don't make peoples" and "Starship troopers is republican, not fascist", which should give you some idea of his views about universal enfranchisement. I think his policy preferences should be fairly self-evident from this commentary.
That’s why I commend Auron for being one of the few commentators who at least gets his toe to the line. But after listening to as many of his shows and consuming as much of his other content as I have, I have yet to hear even a cautious version of this: “Perhaps it is time to reconsider the system itself, and if the system is incapable of protecting the things we believe government exists to protect, perhaps it needs to be replaced.”
Now, it is entirely possible that I missed him saying something like that. I concede that. But from what I have heard and read, I haven’t encountered it - yet.
Consider the difference on the Left. Imagine a conservative equivalent of the DSA, or even the more cautious AOC. These are people are Marxist revolutionaries willing to advocate enormous structural changes while continuing to operate through constitutional mechanisms. They understand something conservatives seem reluctant to acknowledge: constitutional procedure does not necessarily produce conservative outcomes. It can be used for conservative policies and Marxist policies. If Marxists can acquire the votes, win the elections, appoint the judges and enact their program within the existing constitutional framework, they can be extraordinarily radical without being unconstitutional.
That creates a profound asymmetry. The Left is willing to ask, “How radically can we transform the country using this Constitutional system?” Conservatives continue asking, “How can we restore the proper interpretation of this system?” One side treats the Constitution largely as an instrument. The other often treats it as the boundary of permissible political imagination.
And I simply do not see much evidence, within my lifetime, that the second approach can reverse what has happened. I can't even list 10 culturally or economic conservative victories in my lifetime - just rearguard actions.
I was born in the 1950s. I watched the beginnings of this transformation as a child, and later as I mentions, I worked on Capitol Hill as a senior legislative assistant for two conservative members of Congress. I have watched conservative politicians win elections, appoint judges, control Congress, occupy the White House and promise repeatedly to restore their version of constitutional government. Yet the larger cultural and political trajectory has continued in essentially one direction.
Nor are we going back to the America of my childhood. Whatever one thinks about Hart-Celler, Reagan-era compromises or subsequent immigration policy, the country is now profoundly multicultural and politically fragmented. The social consensus within which mid-century constitutional conservatism operated no longer exists. That fact has to become part of our political thinking rather than something we quietly hope another election will reverse.
So my argument is not that Auron needs to endorse my solution, whether that means a new governing agreement, secession, abolition and replacement of the present order, or something I haven’t considered. I am asking for something prior to all of those questions: the freedom to boldly and unapologetically question the system itself. Our organic law, the Declaration of Independence codifies that right to the people, not a government they might establish.
Maybe the Constitution remains the best possible framework. Fine. Make that case. But it should have to make its case against alternatives rather than being granted immunity from examination simply because conservatives inherited an emotional attachment to it. I don't know you personally, so that comment is not directed at you, it's a 50 year observation of the conservative world.
That is where I think Auron occupies an unusually important position. He already sees much of the problem and is willing to say things most conservative commentators will not. I applaud him. No one from my Boomer generation will do what he does. And that is precisely why I keep listening to him - with hope.
But at some point we have to move from cryptically “fairly explicit” to actually "explicit." If the political machinery itself is contributing to the outcome, then eventually someone has to be willing to say so plainly and ask whether repairing the machinery is enough, or whether we need to build something better.
My experience tells me we have to build something better.
Well said
Feminism is the greatest single disaster to befall western civilization in the past 80 years or so.. From it stems every evil and is at the foundation of about every problem we face today. Feminism is of course, a rebranding of Marxist principles, which explains why it is so deadly, more so because it has been renamed to confuse the naïve and ill informed in our society.
Compounding all of this is “conservatism“ and “conservatives“ in the modern era, who do not know what it is they’re trying to conserve because they have no core principles, virtues, or values that they are willing to fight for, much less die for if necessary. All a “conservative“ is conserving in this era is the leftist position that was staked out some 30 years ago, then through their patience and efforts instituted into law some 20 years ago. “Conservatives” are incapable of fighting back.
What we need is a new type of principles and and a cause which has to be centered on Christian nationalism and principles of Constitutionally limited government and America First. The real leadership there is yet to emerge. One of the greatest leaders that we had was Charlie Kirk. That’s why they murdered him. Until we start fighting back, progressivism will continue its inexorable march to victory.
Birth control brain. Hormonal birth control in adolescence results in a thinned prefrontal cortex resulting in reduced impulse control, reduced capacity for emotional regulation, and reduced decision making faculty. It also results in structural malformation in the amygdala and hippocampus which are responsible for fear regulation, stress response, and memory consolidation. Women who were exposed to birth control during neurological development are effectively brain damaged.
Do you have any links for studies on this?
Not ready to hand but most AIs will be forthcoming with it (though they will assert that there is no study demonstrating a causal connection between HBC and political radicalization, that is my own hypothesis). Just query the AI for the effects of hormonal birth control on neurological development when taken in adolescence and young adulthood and go from there.
To be balanced, the white women being ripped on are the ones who've captured the popular media and academia. Few are ripping on a mother of three kids in suburban Ohio.
“Marriage changes voting behavior dramatically. Married women are far more likely to vote Republican and hold traditional views on family and gender.”
Hmmmm…Perhaps to a certain extent.
But it may also be the case that conservative women are more likely to get married in the first place.
Check out my March 19 article “The Politicization of the White Liberal Woman”
Can’t upset a fickle voting block.
Unfortunately if your solution is to vote and trust the process, this low-t approach has proved to not work. It is truly Lucy with the football.
Feminism is the most violent and destructive to percolate out of the Enlightenment. If it doesn’t end, we almost certainly will.