A. You stop it being a liberal society.

At the moment, the military psychological weapons arsenal that is the mainstream press is going all-out calling for severe and uncompromising censorship on free speech. Unconvincingly trussed up as concern for "grieving families" and "people's mental health", the agenda is tediously transparent - stop people challenging obvious establishment psy-ops and fake news (such as the Nicola Bulley case) by banning said challenging opinions from existing. All for your safety, of course (which has long since been the tyrannical dictator's mantra of choice).

The obvious problem the establishment is going to face with forcing harsh censorship laws into place is that these are entirely at odds with the values of a liberal democratic society, which prizes free speech, personal liberty, and the right to think and opine as we choose. You simply cannot use the apparatus of the state to strictly limit and control the flow of information in any society purporting to be liberal.

That is why we are on the precipice of a metamorphic social and cultural revolution, transforming us from ultra-liberal, permissive and (quote unquote) "progressive" - into exactly the opposite.

Behold some of the sensationalist headlines currently saturating the news:

"I lived for years in a sexually liberated lesbian commune, but only found true peace and equality when I married a man and became a devoted mother" (link)

"Marco Pierre White's troubled son converts to Islam to stay off heroin: CBB star turned to Allah in jail." (link)

"Four teenage asylum seekers arrested after girl, 15, allegedly raped at school in Dover." (link)

What all these headlines are purporting to tell us is that our free, liberated, liberal society, is not working. That smashing the patriarchy and becoming independent has not made women happy: that becoming secular and atheist and enjoying rowdy nightlife has not made men happy: and that liberalised attitudes to mixed-sex schooling has not made children happy.

There is certainly some truth in all these statements, and the liberal revolution of the 1960s was concocted by the same devious social engineers, who knew very well what pitfalls it would have, that are concocting the conservative revolution now. The political and sexual revolutions of the 1960s were not in the least bit organic or grassroots - they were just cleverly made to look that way, using actors and liars - CIA-controlled change agents, and other high-grade media mind-control weapons, to dramatically shift the public mood - just as is happening again now.

For instance, UK writer, activist, and change agent, Louise Perry (who I've written about before), has shared a video of seemingly bloodied teenage girls, captioned, "schoolgirls protesting in Dover again as Afghan teenage boys put in their school had allegedly attacked a girl. The girl is apparently too scared to go back to the school. The girls then go on to say assembly's were held telling them how to dress having Afghans in the school!"

Perry writes, "What on earth did authorities think was going to happen? Single young men from one of the world's most conservative sexual cultures arriving in a society at the other end of the scale and just left to their own devices. These girls are raging and they're right to be."

What on earth did authorities think was going to happen? This. Exactly this. Those who strategise massive global events such as tidal waves of immigration from hardliner conservative countries into ultra-liberal ones know exactly what is going to happen - that's why they've done it.

The social strategists are forging a cultural revolution and, as for all successful revolutions, they need revolutionaries. Young males from ultra-patriarchal societies are being shipped in by the boatload and hurled into foreign cultures they have no hope of integrating into, in order to act as explosive social bombs that destroy the fabric of many of our most beloved social ideals - such as, mixed-schooling as safe and optimal, and the idea that girls should be able to freely mix with boys.

That idea is to be scrapped over here, just as it has been in all fundamentalist Islamic (and many other fundamentalist) countries. In Afghanistan, where many of these refugee boys come from, girls are removed from school at the age of ten, and then effectively confined to the house for the rest of their lives. They are not allowed to work, go to public parks, or even leave the house without a male chaperone.

This approach to women is not at all uncommon in extremist regimes, nor without considerable precedent historically. If this can happen in Afghanistan in 2023, there's no reason it can't happen here, too - including and especially when we are importing thousands of males from Afghanistan and similar regimes into our own country.

Concurrently, mythical persecuted hero du jour, Andrew Tate, who is on course for jubilant vindication and release from jail in a few weeks time (as he himself confirms, this supposed unjustified stint in prison is a necessary part of the hero's journey), is a fundamentalist Muslim, who believes that ISIS are the real Muslims, and that men should practice polygamy. It has recently been revealed that Tate himself has at least ten children.

Andrew Tate (who is, to qualify once again, a fundamentalist Muslim) is accused by teachers up and down the country of "radicalising" teenage boys - these are teenage boys attending the same schools where boys from fundamentalist Islamic countries are also attending, and already so radicalised.

Meanwhile, the howls of despair from girls attending these schools are particularly amplified right now, but have been rapidly gathering pace for the last few years, as was detailed so harrowingly on the "Everyone's Invited" website. This website - promoted by the offspring of a Hollywood celebrity - features tens of thousands of anonymous accounts from girls (and some boys) all over the UK, documenting the endless barrage of harassment, assault, and worse they were having to endure in schools - state and private alike. Teenage boys have become so "predatory", the girls allege, that even female teachers don't feel safe around them.

And now, apparently as a result of the very patriarchal teachings of Andrew Tate, boys are beginning to refuse to be taught by female teachers altogether.

In tandem with this, there has been some very high-profile anti-feminist agitprop published by self-described feminists recently, slamming modern feminism as outdated and dangerous, and that what women really need is a return to traditional values. One such book was "The Case Against The Sexual Revolution", by the earlier mentioned Louise Perry, which I reviewed here. A new one, to be published next month - and that has already enjoyed lengthy, uncritical coverage in the newspapers - is 'Feminism Against Progress' (yes, against), by Mary Harrington.

And wouldn't you just know it - Louise Perry is already starry-eyed with her gushing endorsements over Mary Harrington's book.

It's a big club...

To be clear (and as you'll see if you read my review of Perry's book), I agree with a lot of what she's saying.

But the question is, as always - why this, why now? What's her real agenda, because it certainly is not a purely altruistic desire to help women.

Likewise for Mary Harrington. The descriptor for her book reads:

"In Feminism Against Progress, Mary Harrington argues that the industrial-era faith in progress is turning against all but a tiny elite of women. Women’s liberation was less the result of human moral progress than an effect of the material consequences of the Industrial Revolution. We’ve now left the industrial era for the age of AI, biotech and all-pervasive computing. As a result, technology is liberating us from natural limits and embodied sex differences. Although this shift benefits a small class of successful professional women, it also makes it easier to commodify women’s bodies, human intimacy and female reproductive abilities.

This is a stark warning against a dystopian future whereby poor women become little more than convenient sources of body parts to be harvested and wombs to be rented by the rich. Progress has now stopped benefiting the majority of women, and only a feminism that is sceptical of it can truly defend female interests in the 21st century."

And I agree with all that - absolutely. I detailed in my article on the real origins of the sexual revolution why it was never about helping women - and that it hasn't (women have got progressively unhappier every decade since the 1970s and now are unhappier than they have ever been).

The point is - why is this being exposed on the world stage now (when far less high-profile people have been saying it for decades)? Why are young and inexperienced writers (Louise Perry is just 30 and this was her first book) getting such bombastic media attention and uncritical appraisal for opining on this subject now (when even just ten years ago, they would have been absolutely pilloried)?

To qualify the answer, we must look at this in the wider social context, and examine the other cultural themes that are rapidly gathering visibility and volume, as explored in this article. There are many signposts clearly pointing to where we're likely going, including that the much-despised (and achingly liberal) Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has recently stepped down, and a frontrunner in the bid to replace her is Kate Forbes. Mrs. Forbes is a devout Christian who opposes sex before marriage and the idea of children born out of wedlock. Not incidentally, sex outside of marriage has also recently been banned in Indonesia - ostensibly a democratic country.

Meanwhile, we currently have, at a conservative estimate, 140,000 asylum seekers in the UK, who are disproportionately composed of young single males from extremist Islamic countries. More are coming over every week.

It would take years of intensive and specialised support to convince all of these men to abandon their faith, culture and beliefs and to seamlessly integrate into liberal UK society instead. No such support is provided, so, of course, they bring their beliefs with them, leading to the spate of harassment and assault on girls and women from these men, in schools and other public places where the sexes mix freely.

Many of these males come from cultures which believe women should only leave the house when covered head to toe and with a male chaperone. Anything less than this and they are considered whores - thus, fair game.

Girls from liberal backgrounds, with liberal beliefs about dress and how the sexes should interact, simply are not safe around these kind of males, and there is no way of making them safe - other than either deporting the males (and we know that's not happening), or adopting the same strict sex segregation that exists in the countries these males are from. That is the real endgame with all this, and with all the anti-feminism screeds getting high-profile media attention: that liberalism is a failed experiment, so we must return to ultra-repressive extremes of conservatism. All for your safety, of course.

And crucially, once we have become an ultra-strict religious caliphate (basically like The Handmaid's Tale, but with hijabs instead of hoods - and incidentally, according to the Bible, Christian women are supposed to cover their hair too, so the hijab is not inherently Muslim), then the state can easily brutally repress free speech, because, of course, that's what the state does in any ultra-repressive regime.

We are currently an occupied nation, and have been successfully invaded once again, as the UK has been many times throughout history. The invaders are strategically deployed up and down the country and are currently awaiting orders. Social and cultural tensions are going to be pushed to absolute boiling point - already, see how livid (and rightly so) people are about what is happening to girls in the nation's schools - and then it will all boil over into all-out civil war - just as the social engineers desire. Ordo ab chao (order out of chaos), remember?

Liberalism has a lot of flaws. I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a liberal (not a modern one, anyway). But it does prize some absolutely fundamental and inalienable human rights, such as the right to speak freely, the equality of opportunity, and the legal and civic protection to pursue the kinds of lives we choose, free from state-imposed religious dogma (and I would count 'Covid' as a religion in this regard, it being a key part of priming the public for ultra-conservatism - after all, there was a time in the very recent past, in the ostensibly liberal UK, where casual sex was illegal and you were expected to cover your face in public).

So, deeply flawed as modern liberalism is - and it certainly is - there are still many foundational principles of real, classical liberalism that are well worth standing up for - because the alternative, that we could so easily sleepwalk into, is unfathomably worse.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.