Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

A Capitalist analyzes the toxic combination of Communism and Feminism

A Capitalist analyzes the toxic combination of Communism and Feminism

I recently shared some dialog between San Diego citizen activists regarding the roles of social and fiscal conservatism in deciding “tea party” agenda items.

Author and “Manosphere” pundit Aaron Clarey (Captain Capitalism) recently offered his very independent perspective, Why Communism Killed the American Muse.  It highlights the point made in the earlier piece, which is that single family homes result in budget-busting government dependency.

American manosphere

Whatever your origins, you are a communist that wants to destroy the US.  You envy its economic wealth, you envy it’s economic production, you hate how it’s dominant and #1, and it really grinds your gears they did it by letting people be free and do what they want.  You know you can’t take on the US militarily, so how do you bring about its demise efficiently, effectively and cheaply?

Well if you look at the .. charts you’ll see two bottlenecks or weak spots than can bring the whole thing down.

You target the wife/women or the family.  PREFERABLY the wife/women because that’s the first bottleneck before a family is created.

And now your are starting to see why feminism, The Manosphere and economics are related.  Since the majority of this country’s (an any other free country’s) economic production is based on a man’s desire to live a happy life by getting married and (sometimes) having children, if you can destroy the quality and caliber of women, let alone the incentive to get married or have children, you can destroy the economic productive capacity of the United States, and thus the country itself. Thus, you see that feminism really isn’t about “helping women.”  It is nothing more than an thinly veiled economic and political attack against the US, freedom and capitalism.  This is why I call it “Killing the American Muse.”

Clarey then defines “Muse”, which indicates someone possessing a supportive and inspiration role, and compares this to feminists:

Of course, if you look at what feminism has done and intends to do to our women, you can see it is in COMPLETE opposition to these qualities and traits. You are not supposed to support the man. You are not to help him out. He is the enemy. He is your oppressor, you are not a team. You will co-lead. He will compromise. You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend! … I’m a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl.

Clarey is a frequent guest on CANTO TALK, a dynamic show featuring discussion on culture and current events. The role of men and marriage was a recent topic of discussion with Rick Johnson, author, and founder of BETTER DADS.

Johnson offers a slightly different view, which compliments Clarey’s points: Expectations Make the Man

Unfortunately, our culture not only has low expectations for males, it seems to revel in trying to destroy masculinity. We expect boys to act more like girls. In Unleashing Courageous Faith, Paul Coughlin comments on what our culture does to boys, “Boys are being gunned down by manliness gone bad and by those who do not accept or appreciate it. Our culture tells young boys that traditional masculinity is bad, that men are stupid and deserve to be the object of disdain, contempt, and ridicule. Then we expect them to grow up and exemplify honor, integrity, and valor.” Just watch nearly any television sitcom or commercial if you doubt that statement.

The combination of elevating gender feminism and denigrating healthy masculinity have proved toxic to personal responsibility, fiscal independence, and common sense that are foundations of a healthy economy and functional, non-statist government.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Feminism is a circular firing squad. The sexual liberation (my body, my self) drek undermines the woman. Once a man can get it without buying a ring, women lose control over men.

The gov’t must stop supporting welfare moms. Also, porn is not a first-amendment right, and should be severely limited.

As it has manifested itself in the 21st century, Feminism has become a misogynist dream. Sure part of the feminist segment is lost, but the remainder are exactly what a misogynist is looking for.

Interesting article. I don’t agree with a lot of it. I’m single and female and self employed. I work very hard at my job. I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion (not getting into that aspect of it here), I don’t like marriage being redefined, civil unions, fine, but calling gay marriage “marriage”, I don’t agree with.

Does this make me a “feminist”? I don’t know, I’m still in the process of finding a husband, the guys I’ve dated are way too overbearing, and have a problem with women working. I like men opening the door for me, etc, I lived in TX for a while, the men I worked with, and the one I dated there, absolute gentlemen, treated women like women and respected my work at the same time, didn’t act like the biggest compliment they could pay me was “you’re as tough as a man”. When I moved to the East Coast, the liberal man I dated, jerk, a complete jerk, not interested in a long term relationship, so yes, part of the article is true, while other parts are not.

Will I still work once I have kids? I don’t know, it depends, my kids will come first, but I still need a salary along with my future husband’s, or he could stay at home, I have several friends who are in this scenario.

Feminism to me is whatever decision a woman make concerning her life, her career, allowing her to decide, while my social views are not along those of Sarah Palin, I consider Sarah Palin a feminist, just as I did Hillary — although I don’t like or respect hillary at anywhere near the level I did before, but Hillary was a strong advocate for women’s voices, look up her speech in China when she was the first lady.
I also consider Laura Bush a feminist, a southern belle yes, but a strong lady who lived her life as she chose.

To me it appears progressives have been successful, although its shifting now, have defined “feminism” as reproductive women’s rights. To me this is not true, there are many pro-life women I consider feminists as well, Michelle Bachmann, Palin, etc etc. My advice to conservatives, you need to have more women speak for conservatism, when you have white males talk about abortion, I cannot describe how that has the effect of making conservatives seem anti-women, aka what Todd Akin, Murdock, even Huckabee. But Palin, bachmann, etc etc speaking of women’s issues has so much more weight, because of Sarah Palin and the disgusting way her little baby Trig was treated, I was able to see just how anti-women, and anti-choice demonsrats really are, they only like their point of view respected, no one else.

    Valerie in reply to alex. | January 5, 2013 at 11:06 am

    There’s a lot I disagree with in this article, mainly because I think the explanation is too complicated. I get the point that socialist policies are as pernicious as if they had been put together by an enemy, but I think there’s a hazard in making the characterization.

    The hazard come in mischaracterizing a person of good will as an enemy. When you do that, you fail to recognize the appeal in their arguments, and lose a big segment of your audience, along with a bunch of potential allies.

    The simple fact from my point of view is that feminism won overwhelmingly in this country because it was a matter of simple justice that nearly everybody agreed with. In Texas, the ERA passed because married women like my mother and aunts didn’t want banks denying them and their husbands loans because “she’ll just get pregnant and quit working.” In Texas, the ERA passed because of fake big shots at banks screwing over young families. After that, normal people went back to their lives and lost interest. The remnants of the feminist movement aren’t there to correct any existing injustice.

    Alex, I’ll offer you one bit of stray advice: if you marry and have kids, do not make the mistake of sacrificing too much of your career for your family. If you want to take a few years off, your children will indeed benefit, but don’t expect real gratitude for this from your husband. Be sure to have a plan for re-entering the workforce cheerfully, and for greater profit.

      alex in reply to Valerie. | January 5, 2013 at 11:33 am

      Valerie, thanks, you echoed a lot of what I was trying to say as well and frankly what I’ve heard from my mom and sisters. I think people think just because women want more say in decision making and more control of destiny, it automatically means they don’t want to be married and revile men. Women love men who respect them.

      My sisters married later in life (late 30s), are very happily married now, all 3 sisters just had kids a few years back. Their husbands are very strong men, but they loved their wives because they are strong women. And that is exactly what I’m looking for in my future husband, who I have no doubt I will find. Fortunately, my sisters and I all have a mom growing up made sure we completely respected our dad, even though it was pretty much my mom who ran the entire household, but at the same time both my parents made sure us girls were strong independent thinking and hard working. My parents have been married for over 50 years now, my sisters I see being married to the same men they adore, they too are very strong willed and independent, does that make them “feminists”, yes, in my book it does, but that doesn’t make them like the rather lunatics like what Gloria Steinum has unfortunately become.

      I agree with you, the article is though provoking, but I don’t agree with a lot of it, its boxing in a way of thinking which I don’t think is completely true.

      I don’t necessarily agree with Valerie on this post or others, but she has my sympathy for the drive-by thumbs-down’s from Real Conservatives™ whose big mouths drive away independent voters.

      Akin-Mourdock 2016!

      Purity! Purity! Purity1

Toss in racism and you get the mix that has led to today’s open vilification of our Constitution because it was written by white men.

“You are not supposed to support the man. You are not to help him out. He is the enemy. He is your oppressor, you are not a team. You will co-lead. He will compromise. You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend! … I’m a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl”
OMG- it was never so clear to me! Listing these qualities above, and watching how Obama leads…..Barack Obama is truly our first feminist president! You go grrrrl!!!!

I live my life in a socially conservative way. And I believe in liberty. It is not my place to coerce you into living your social life in the way that I do. It is not your place to coerce me either. If entitlements and transfers were not part of the equation, there would not be a financial incentive for us to restrict each other’s social liberty. The problem is that the system has evolved encroachments on private property such that the collective can grab private property for any purpose it wants. The collective has moved toward mitigating individual bad choices by using other people’s property to salve the wound.

Sure, if we all had great families there would be fewer problems. But we don’t. None of us are angels. The system cannot be structured to work only if we are all angels. It must be structured to work when we are devils.

To me, there must be some iron-clad recognition of individual property rights. You cannot take my money except for a small list of things: police, fire, courts, national defense, food inspection, etc.

Free will giving is where it is at. If you cannot not persuade people to aid a cause financially of their own free will then maybe it is not worth doing.

    JerryB in reply to jeffrey. | January 5, 2013 at 11:30 am

    It must be structured to work when we are devils.

    Good luck with that. What happens when 51% think they have a right to your wallet? Welcome to Amerika!

    To me, there must be some iron-clad recognition of individual property rights.

    Funny, the Constitution used serve that purpose.

    Back to the article: Women have the means to tame men, and men need women for this. The “liberated” woman gives up the means.

I recently opened a card from my dad. Inside was a picture of him and my mom on their recent 63rd wedding anniversary.

My dad exemplifies the masculine. He is not the macho masculine person constantly portrayed in video games, movies, cable TV and he is not the slouch couch potato who spends his days in dirty clothes drinking beer and burping to impress his friends. He was never gay or bisexual or addicted to sexual perversion.

My dad is a godly man who began working at a very young age to provide for himself and his family. My dad often worked two jobs – one FT another PT to make ends meet. He with my mom raised four kids. Today they have twenty grandkids.

My dad served as a deacon in our church for many years. He also served our Chicago suburban community as a village trustee and then later as the village mayor. He has always been hospitable inviting people over to our house every Sunday after church for dinner.

My dad is steadfast, honorable, generous and good. He loves my mom. When he is gone (he has colon cancer now) God help us.

My dad IS the masculine.

byondpolitics | January 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm

This article is overly simplistic and demeaning.

I thought Captain Capitalism’s essay was enlightening. The women posting above — Alex and Valerie — must not have read it?!! The good Captain’s piece is not about “the liberal guy you dated who disrespected you” etc. etc. It’s about the feminist destruction of the economic model of America. Man up, ladies!! Do your homework!

legalizehazing | January 5, 2013 at 1:31 pm

We all know society tries hard to remove boys’ balls. Better Dads nails that. And yes Independent women destroy traditional American values. Sorry, you do. Not that it’s intentional, a lot of guys have partially removed balls. You ladies are impressive too. Destroying our traditional values I think is terrible. But I also think people can make different things work.

In a civil society women are going to gain some power, changing roles and that’s just that. Not that what’s happening today is natural. As Better Dad points out there’s a lot of top down cultural dictation from hollywood and academia. .. media

SoCA Conservative Mom | January 5, 2013 at 1:46 pm

The women who lead the sexual revolution and fight for reproductive rights are usually lauded as heroes, but over time they will be seen as enemies to women and family, it has already started. They fought for equality, but what women got was the expectation of being the perfect mother, wife, homemaker, sexual partner while having a fascinating and successful career, perfect marriage, and busy social life. Having it “all” is a big lie.

I was as the park yesterday and overheard a conversation where a woman was lamenting that she works all day, and after work and on weekends she’s cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and attending to their children. She commented that when she got home the day before (Thursday) from work, there were baby bottles, beer bottles, diapers, dirty clothes, etc. all over the house. Seems her husband was drinking beer and playing video games all day while taking care of their baby. She would be happy when her husband went back to work on Monday, because at least the house wouldn’t be a mess when she got home. She said, “[drinking all day and playing video games] was fun before we got married and had kids, but now?”

There are several things wrong with this picture, only one of which is that the husband thinks it’s appropriate to drink and play video games all day while taking care of a baby.

What she is really unhappy about is her lot in life. She is unhappy that she has a full time career, and takes care of the home and children when not working. Her husband continues the life he had prior to being married and having a children. Many women feel the same way and are just starting to realize they got a raw deal out of the sexual revolution.

[…] » A Capitalist analyzes the toxic combination of Communism and Feminism – Le·gal In·sur·re… […]

1. I’ve posted previously that identity politics is a natural fit for some on the Left: deliberately or not, identity groups can be discussed using Marxist class terminology.

2. Yes, the Left long has pursued hidden agendas which would fail if proposed candidly. Yes, some of these agendas can fairly be described as sinister.

3. The last few decades have brought technological, economic, and political changes. Some of these changes have brought prosperity; others have brought dislocations. Various groups have asserted a fuller measure of economic, civic, and political power than they had before.

4. Obama carried the women’s, Asian, Hispanic, gay, and black vote.

5. Rhetorical appeal: Please explain, and don’t whine about Commies. I know about Commies. My parents fled the Communists.

6. Explain why the conservative or Republican messages, as formulated by word and deed, failed to reach every single group which Obama wound up winning.

    Bruno Lesky in reply to gs. | January 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    OK. I will. (If memory serves me, I basically agree with most of what you post.)

    Did you read this (link below)? It suggests an upside re: your point #6. A better understanding before exposition. And deed. If any patriot is up for it.

      1. Thanks, Bruno. Afaic I’ve been played for a sucker since 1988 by people who called themselves conservatives. As long-stifled frustration comes to the surface, I’m not inclined to mince words. Hopefully I won’t forfeit your goodwill or get myself banned here.

      2. Williamson had fallen off my radar screen and the loss is obviously mine. Suggest you put this on the tip line.

      3. Kevin writes more intelligently, ably, cogently, and constructively than I dream of doing, and I endorse his message. It is consistent with what Newt said on Meet the Press last month.

        Bruno Lesky in reply to gs. | January 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm

        Thanks. I’m looking for the Newt on Meet the Press clip … no luck yet. Newt — often finds the more relevant — and interesting — level of abstraction.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 5, 2013 at 4:17 pm

This is a problematic thread . Not only is it too simplistic , it has hijacked many premises. For instance there was no particular social aspect of the emergent T P other than tax. As a poster here wrote – the local group fell apart when social & piety issues kept being pushed on to others.

We all have personal lives outside of the system. In western nations these are still our responsibility . It is always a mix of circumstance & our choices – many of them bad . But it is what it is.

If we were to really look at our immediate forebears , we will find life was no bed of roses. Marriage & family & making a living was existential not about choices.

In regards to women , America allowed them a vote rather late in the game . Perhaps that is of relevance. It sure was strange .

“In regards to women , America allowed them a vote rather late in the game . ”

Utter twaddle. It took far less time from the founding of the USA to women voting than it took Great Britain, for example.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Crawford. | January 5, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    Not a comparison when Queen Elizabeth the first had THE only vote in 1500+.

    Plus Britain never claimed to be a free Republic – it is a Monarchy. It does not have a Constitition . However related Constitutional Monarchies like NZ beat America by 27 years .

    Admittedly the Maori gals had terrifying tattoos & could hurl a lawmaker man across the volcanic hissing ravine.

    I am thinking you would never see a mushy article about NZ women being muses . They is force man!