(First published April 22nd. 2023. Republished today to coincide with this news story.)
"Reminder to young men: do not marry. The laws governing marriage can destroy your life. There is no way to ensure your spouse won’t use the laws to take your kids. Use adoption or surrogacy, if you want children." - so said a prominent conservative influencer on Twitter recently.
This was shortly following his declaration that women should not become single parents, because single mothers inevitably destroy children, whereas single fathers do a stellar job. So, I replied to this man:
"And how does this square for the future of your daughters? They can’t expect to marry a man since men should stay single, yet can’t become single parents themselves, because they’ll ruin their kids?"
The "influencer" replied: "They should devote themselves to reforming the laws until it’s a good deal for men."
So, have you got that, ladies? No relationships or kids for you, instead, your sole social options are:
Now, critics may reasonably object, "oh, come on, that's just one guy. Nobody else thinks like that. It's not like this is some major social movement or anything."
To which I would say... oh really? Let's look a bit deeper...
First of all, let's identify the conservative influencer quoted above. He is Jeff Younger, and his story is, objectively, horrific, and in his particular case, it's not hard to see why and how he arrived at his current views. A brief summary of his story is as follows:
Mr. Younger married a little later in life, and he and his wife weren't able to start a family of their own, so they used the services of an egg donor, with the pregnancy fathered by Younger and carried by his wife, Anne Georgulas. Georgulas gave birth to fraternal twin boys, James and Jude. Not long afterwards, the marriage acrimoniously broke down, and it was at this point that Georgulas informed her estranged husband that five-year-old James was now a girl named Luna. Georgulas insisted that James' elementary school refer to him this way and began sending him to school in dresses.
Mr. Younger - a devout Christian - was appalled, and insisted that, when James was at his house, he went by his given name and wanted to wear boys' clothes - it was only at his mother's that "Luna" existed. Georgulas, however, insisted James wanted to be Luna and that he should be started on puberty blockers, leading to surgery, as soon as possible. Younger fought this in court for years, capturing the attention of the world's conservative media in the process, and, as of 2023, Georgulas now lives with the boys in "trans refuge" state, California. As yet, James has not been medically "transitioned".
So I think we can certainly all entirely understand why Younger is angry at the system that has allowed for this situation to develop. We can understand why many men are angry, and I am sadly all too familiar with the brutal laws that can see innocent men and loving fathers ripped out of their children's lives for good (I have supported several male friends who have gone through such things, and for anyone undergoing such a situation, I always recommend this book, which countless men attest is an invaluable resource).
Yet to imagine the solution to this situation is to cut women out of family life altogether, is obviously absurd (it's just as bad as the extremist feminists who use the abusive behaviour of a minority of men to judge and penalise all males). Not just absurd, though, but sinister, too, because there is far more support for this particular "reproductive model" than one might imagine.
Elon Musk, currently one of the world's most famous and talked-about men, has fathered a total of 10 children with four different women. He is not in a relationship with any of these women, and one was explicitly named as a surrogate. Meanwhile, whilst he was in an on-off tryst with the mother of one of his children, he also found the time to produce twins with a colleague at work. Musk and this woman were not in a romantic relationship and the twins were conceived via IVF.
So Elon Musk, as a single man, is the father of ten children (nine living), without being in a relationship with any of the mothers, because his money has given him the opportunity to support women to function as surrogates (sometimes tacitly and sometimes explicitly): to produce children for him.
This same exact model has been replicated by another very famous, widely talked about man: Andrew Tate. Mr. Tate is the father of "at least ten" children with multiple different women, none of whom he appears to be in a relationship with. So, just like Musk, Tate has been able to use his money to enable him, as a single man, to have a large family, by effectively paying off women to rent out their wombs.
If we look more closely into Mr. Tate's predilections in this general area, we see that he is a vigorous supporter of "trans women", openly suggesting that "hot" trans women are far preferable sexual partners to "ugly" biological women. Here is Tate, instructing his followers that opting for an "ugly" biological woman over a "hot" trans one, is "gay".
Tate makes sure to really emphasise the point: that, in effect, men often make better women than women do, because they can look so much "hotter" with the right cosmetic surgery etc, whereas so many real women are "ugly" (he compares them to the Incredible Hulk).
He then asks his followers to "imagine a trans woman who looks like Megan Fox", which means we must ask ourselves: out of all the "hot" women out there, why has he picked this particular one as an illustrative example?
It's because Megan Fox IS a trans woman, as she herself has confirmed. Andrew "in the club" Tate knows this - that's why she's the example he used. He's mocking his followers - the covert message is: "oh, you say you don't like trans women, but you all fancy Megan Fox, and she is one!".
So, to be clear: there's a specific "family" model being pushed, covertly or explicitly, by the above three very prominent people (Jeff Younger, Elon Musk, Andrew Tate), and the model is this - men should have purely transactional relationships with women, renting their reproductive faculties to produce children, but for relationships and sex, men should look to "trans women" instead, who are not only "hotter" than real women - won't lose their figure during pregnancy, etc. - but they also can't "divorce rape" you by stealing your children, because your children are not their children. Your children have been produced as a business arrangement with a woman you are not in a relationship with. Plus, the "trans woman" can't cheat on you, get pregnant, and pass the baby off as yours, since she isn't an actual biological woman.
If you think this sounds fantastical and obscene and the stuff of particularly dystopian science fiction, well, you're right... but it's also nothing new and represents the reproductive model the "elite" have been using for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
As I have detailed before, it has been common practice in wealthy, socially ambitious families for centuries to bring up some of their sons as "castratos" - that is, boys who are (barbarically and painfully) castrated as children, so they never go through male puberty, and can, as a result, be convincingly passed off as "women" in adulthood - especially now, with so many advances in hormone treatments and surgery (prior to modern feminising interventions, adult castratos were much more obvious).
The social benefits of bringing up sons this way is that they can be offered up as public facing "wives" to the elite, who don't believe in conventional family arrangements. Many ruling class dynasties believe - just as the ancient Greeks did - that "women are for duty, boys are for fun". That is to say, women are used merely as incubators to fulfil ones duties to sire the next generation, whereas recreational sex is reserved for other males. You will note there are relentless question marks over the true genders of the spouses of powerful men (Michelle "Michael" Obama being an obvious example), and this is because many of these "wives" are indeed males - castratos - whilst any children appearing to be conceived by the union, have been acquired through some form of surrogacy (it's said the Queen Mother was created this way - that her father's "wife" was not the QM's biological parent, but rather, one of the household's servants was).
So that's how things have been for the "elites" for hundreds of years, and bearing that fact in mind, here's a question for all diligent consumers of modern, popular culture: a society where women are enslaved as reproductive assets, rent-a-wombs with no real rights, and are just there to produce offspring for moneyed men, what does that remind you of?
Handmaid's Tale, anyone?
There is a reason that show has risen to such prolific prominence, churning out series after series, with the production a perennial talking point at all office water coolers everywhere - it's because it's intended as powerful predictive programming. That's what all big-budget, star-studded productions are, especially when they're as enduring and successful as The Handmaid's Tale is.
So, consider this: what if there is a covert encoded message in The Handmaid's Tale: that the real reason the wealthy wives of the commanders in The Handmaid's Tale can't have children, is not that they're infertile women - it's that they're castrated men. Hence, the families enslave fertile lower class women to reproduce for them - just as the ruling elites have covertly been doing for centuries. It's just now, we're being prepped for it going more mainstream.
Note that our society, just as is reflected in The Handmaid's Tale (and other predictive programming vehicle, Children of Men), is hurtling headlong into a future where many women are infertile. Ever since the government's "new medicine" was rolled out, fertility has "inexplicably" plummeted in all heavily injected countries, with miscarriages, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths way up. This mirrors The Handmaid's Tale exactly, where it's not just conceiving that women have a problem with, but having a healthy, live birth. Hence, women who can achieve this in the near-barren dystopia of Gilead, are in high demand.
Conversely, in our current culture, as the cost of living crisis intensifies, and AI gallops forward at an unnerving pace, women are in less and less demand everywhere else, as white-collar sectors that mainly employ women are disproportionately disadvantaged by advances in AI, whereas blue-collar industries with a large female base, such as retail and hospitality, are collapsing.
So are we hurtling headlong into a Handmaid's future, where the most valuable commodity women have to offer in order to make ends meet.... is their wombs?
This, unfortunately, is not as implausible as it might seem, and exactly what author Mary Harrington warned about in her recent book, "Feminism Against Progress". The description for her book reads, "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."
As cultural winds shift rapidly, women's social roles are transforming at an extremely accelerated pace, and, as such, we must keep a close eye on so-called "influencers" and the social seeds they are sewing, in terms of what women should expect going forward.
I follow on Twitter an interesting character named Layah Heilpern, where she has over half a million followers. This glamorous young lady is a friend to the stars, regularly chatting with Andrew Tate and even Piers Morgan, and frequently espouses her "traditional" views to her audience.
"Married women shouldn't be going to the club," (unmarried, never-married) Heilpern declares.
Predictably, this declaration got a lot of support from people who consider themselves "traditional" or "conservative", and I was branded a feminist extremist for challenging it, pointing out that restricting women from public places based on their marital status sounds remarkably Talibanesque.
To illustrate my point, I invited Heilpern and her disciples to follow this declaration (that married women shouldn't go to clubs) through to its logical conclusion: after all, why would one suggest that married women shouldn't go to clubs (but single ones can)? The insinuation is obviously that married women might be tempted to cheat on their husbands in a club. Yet, the chances of an affair developing in a room full of strangers who are only in the same place for a fleeting few hours, are remarkably slim. Almost no affairs start that way. Affairs are far more likely to develop - as almost all of them do - via work.
Why is it such a a cliche for spouses to run off with secretaries? Because the workplace presents the right conditions for an affair to develop - seeing the same person day in, day out where attraction and romance can escalate over time. One night in a club doesn't offer this, or anything remotely close to it.
So, if married women shouldn't go to clubs because there's a (very slim) possibility they might start an affair, surely they shouldn't go to work either, where the chances of an affair developing are much higher?
That's the logical conclusion of Heilpern's remarks. If married women shouldn't go to clubs, they shouldn't go to work, or indeed ANY public places where they might be alone with men they are not married to, either.
Just as The Taliban says.
People may have thought I was being hyperbolic by comparing Heilpern's rhetoric to The Taliban, but I'm not. Taking her slightly sanitised public declarations through to their logical conclusions, shows what she's really calling for - and, not incidentally, she is a big fan, friend and supporter of Andrew Tate, a fundamentalist Muslim who has stated "ISIS are the real Muslims", and who already practises a form of polygamy (which Islam allows for) in his personal life. It's all connected.
More recently, Ms. Heilpern has declared that:
"Instagram is a dating app. Unless you're using it for business you should delete it once you're married."
Cue the usual fawning and rapturous applause from the played people she's aiming this message at, who completely fail to see how they're being baited and manipulated.
Instagram is obviously not a dating app (if it was, you wouldn't have to qualify, "unless you're using it for business". Can you use Tinder for business? Well, I guess the Tinder Swindler can, but generally speaking, no). Heilpern obviously knows this. So, what she's really calling for is an acute form of coercive control, wherein married people (she means married women) are cut off from the outside world, from social connection and friends (social media being the main way people stay in touch these days) - she is inferring that using social media once you're married is haram, because you should be under the total authority and control of your husband
Her adoring disciples may claim that's not what she's saying, but I can assure you: it is. She's baiting you with seemingly "reasonable" sounding rhetoric (that you shouldn't use dating apps once you're married) to thinly veneer what she's really saying (that you should be cut off from all social and leisure opportunities upon marriage and completely controlled by your husband).
Please note, again, how The Handmaid's Tale evolved. Serena Joy wasn't always an ultra-oppressed house-prisoner not even allowed to read a book - on the contrary, prior to the formation of Gilead, she actually wrote them, and toured the nation's colleges, promoting the benefits of traditional values and "domestic feminism". Serena Joy was a big "influencer" of her day too, and wasn't she just being reasonable, simply objecting to the destructive excesses of fourth-wave feminism and calling for a return to something less extreme?
No, she wasn't. That's what she said to hook an audience and gain their support. Once her "cool young conservative influencer" veneer had done its job, the mask slipped and the truth was revealed.
We have several of our own "Serena Joys" right now. Layah Heilpern is one, and so is Louise Perry. Mary Harrington, who I mentioned earlier, is another one. You may not know all these names as yet, but you soon will. They're spearheading a prodigious socio-cultural revolution - just like Andrew Tate and Elon Musk are too - and, like all such revolutions strategised and coordinated by the elites, it's not one that's going to be in our interests.
We must be very careful - eternally vigilant, as always - as much of what these people say, especially the more scholarly ones like Perry and Harrington, sounds eminently reasonable. We may be inclined to agree with much of it (and I do, as I said in my essay on Perry), But we can never take the messages of highly-publicised social change agents at face value, because whenever these people do or say anything, there's always two reasons for it: 1) the reason given to the public to make it palatable, and 2) the real reason.
Perry, Harrington, Heilpern and their ilk have glossy PR fronts which enable them to claim they "just care about women" and want what's best for them: But that's merely the bait to reel us in. It's not the real reason. They're warriors in a brutal cultural war, and they are not combatants on our side - they are the time-honoured Trojan horses - wolves in sheep's clothing.
Please be clear that all the current discord between men and women, between liberals and conservatives, has all been meticulously manipulated over decades by the ruling classes. They are the ones who brought into place family-devastating policies to ensure many marriages would fall apart and many parents would be alienated from children. It's all planned for obvious reasons - to destroy the family (as subversive social forces have always aimed to do) and turn human beings into commodities and relationships into transactions.
That's what they want, and seeing the signs now, and exposing this truly diabolical agenda for what it is, is the very best chance we have of stopping it.
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Substack (where you can also join my mailing list)
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.