Western Civilization Depends on Men and Masculinity

Posted on October 22, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

For centuries, men built and defended Western civilization — from its farms and cities to its laws, its art, and its moral order. But in just a few generations, that foundation has been shaken. Masculinity, once honored as the engine of strength, protection, and leadership, is now treated as a social problem. The very qualities that sustained families, communities, and nations are being redefined as “toxic.” Today, masculinity itself is treated as something to be “reformed” or “re-educated.”

What happened? How did the very qualities that built the modern world become objects of suspicion and ridicule?

The truth is simpler: Western civilization depends on men and masculinity — and it cannot survive without them.

The Quiet War on Manhood

Since the mid-20th century, Western culture has undergone an ideological shift that redefined traditional masculinity as something outdated, even dangerous. The cultural shifts of the 1960s promised liberation but gradually replaced personal responsibility and family order with self-gratification and state dependence. Where strong families once formed the backbone of the West, an alliance of ideological radicalism and excessive consumerism has turned both men and women into disconnected individuals — easier to manipulate, easier to control.

This erosion of masculine identity didn’t happen by accident. It was shaped through decades of social conditioning that cast male authority as oppressive, fatherhood as optional, and discipline as cruelty. In recent years, even government agencies have launched programs to ‘redefine’ masculinity, echoing language once confined to activist circles. The result is a culture where men are encouraged to suppress their natural instincts — their drive to lead, protect, and provide — in favor of emotional conformity. The modern man is expected to apologize for being male.

That truth — the structural bias against authentic masculinity — became the foundation for my book, The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization. Written not in resentment, but in plain clarity, it exposes how systems once meant to protect families and society have been twisted by new gender politics.

The Vanishing Father

The collapse of fatherhood lies at the heart of this crisis. A century ago, the father served as the moral and practical anchor of the household. Today, millions of boys grow up without one. The results are measurable: higher rates of crime, depression, and academic failure.

Without fathers, young men struggle to define what strength, honor, and leadership even mean. The vacuum is filled by media caricatures — the bumbling sitcom dad, the toxic aggressor, or the passive nice guy who never offends anyone.

It’s no coincidence that as male leadership has declined, so has family stability. When men are removed from their natural roles, the entire social structure weakens. Feminist academics and bureaucrats claimed this would “liberate” women. Instead, it left both sexes adrift — men deprived of a clear sense of purpose, and women burdened with expectations that conflict with their natural strengths.

From Strength to Shame

Modern education and media condition young men to doubt traits that were once honored — assertiveness, risk-taking, competitiveness, and stoicism. The ideal of the strong, self-reliant man has been replaced with the sensitive conformist who fears giving offense more than failing his responsibilities.

null

This inversion of values has consequences far beyond gender. A society that discourages strength and rewards compliance eventually loses its ability to defend itself — morally, culturally, and even militarily.

Civilizations rise when men are encouraged to lead; they fall when men are shamed for doing so.

The Spartan Mindset

What does authentic masculinity look like today? It’s not about wealth, dominance, or bravado. True manhood begins with integrity — the courage to face reality, take responsibility, and act according to principle, even when it’s unpopular.

The ancient Spartans understood this. They didn’t chase comfort or approval; they pursued mastery over themselves. That’s the essence of the “Spartan mindset”: realism over optimism, truth over illusion. Modern culture tells men to “stay positive,” to avoid confrontation, and to seek validation. But strength is not built in comfort. A man becomes strong by facing hardship honestly — by learning discipline, self-control, and purpose in the face of adversity. When it comes down to optimism or pessimism, I always choose realism.

A Feminized Culture

Western civilization has become, in many ways, a feminized culture. Emotional comfort is prioritized over truth; feelings take precedence over facts. Public debate is now policed by fear of offense. The phrase “my rights don’t end where your feelings begin” has never been more relevant.
Even federally, in January 2025 the U.S. government declared it a matter of state policy that there are only two sexes and that gender ideology must be rejected — a formal backlash to decades of shifting norms around masculinity and gender.

This preference for sentiment over reason has spread through politics, media, and education. Policies are increasingly designed not for long-term stability but to appease emotion-driven constituencies and align with UN-style governance models that echo centralized planning. The result is widespread moral uncertainty and civic stagnation.

The Masculine Virtues We Lost

Courage, restraint, loyalty, and honor — these virtues once defined manhood. Today, they’re rarely taught in a school system dominated by new gender politics, let alone celebrated. Yet these are precisely the qualities that sustain a civilization. Masculinity, properly understood, is grounded not in domination but in responsibility — the duty to protect, provide, and uphold truth even when it’s costly. The decline of those virtues has produced generations of anxious, uncertain men — products of a system that rewards compliance over conviction.

In schools, boys are medicated for restlessness; in DEI workplaces, masculine ambition is branded as aggression; in media, masculinity is reduced to parody. It’s no wonder so many young men feel lost.

A culture that derides masculine virtue produces dependents, not leaders.

Reclaiming Balance

The solution isn’t a return to harshness or domination, as critics of ‘patriarchy’ often claim. What’s needed is balance — a renewed respect for the masculine and feminine as complementary forces, not rivals. Men and women are different by design, and that difference is the foundation of family and community life. Denying that truth has made both sexes less happy, less stable, and less fulfilled.

The West needs men who are strong without tyranny, disciplined without indifference, and honest without apology. The current generation of men have been denied what their ancestors took for granted — that freedom and civilization depend on masculinity, courage, responsibility, and the willingness to lead.

The Way Forward

It seems clear that the revival of authentic masculinity won’t come from a political culture dominated by new gender politics — so where should men look instead? The revival of masculinity begins in personal conduct. Every man can reclaim strength by mastering himself — by rejecting the passivity and self-pity our culture encourages. Masculinity isn’t harmful; it’s essential. The real harm lies in the ideology that teaches men to distrust their natural instincts.

When men rediscover purpose and principle, families heal, communities strengthen, and nations endure. The West was built by men unafraid to lead, to protect, and to speak the truth — and it will endure only if such men rise again. If Western civilization is to survive, it must once more honor, strengthen, and respect its men.

Mark Keenan is the author of The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization (recently updated) and Climate CO2 Hoax. A former UN technical expert, he writes on culture, law, science, and the ideological forces reshaping the modern West.

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.

Thank you.$5$10$50Other

2025 Could Be the Best Year to Try This StrategyThe Penny Hoarder

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

View & Add Comments (5)

Around the Web

The Neck and Shoulder Heating Pad is Taking Ashburn by StormVianys

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Edema is Not From Salty Food. Meet The Real Enemy of Swollen LegsRejuvaCare

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

Here’s What It Would Cost to Install a Stair Lift in Your HouseHomeBuddy

How Electric Nail Clippers Make Care Safer and EasierVianys

If You Drink Almond Milk Daily, This is What HappensWell Being For All

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Gutter Guards InstallationLeafFilter Partner

Md: Nerve Pain (Neuropathy) After 50 Comes Down to 1 ThingNeuropathyGuide

Here’s The Average Price Of a Water Treatment System In 2025HomeBuddy

How Much Does a New Roof Cost for a 1500 Sq. Ft. House?HomeBuddy

5 Companies That Send People Money When They’re Asked NicelyThe Penny Hoarder

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

FOLLOW US ON

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

Top Contributors

Last 7 Days

Last 30 Days

The Left Establishment will never forgive J.D. Vance forsaking it

Posted on October 22, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Ben Domenech has a very interesting take on Vice President Vance in an essay on The Transom.

[T]he truth is: They hate him because they view him as a traitor to their class, after they welcomed him with open arms.

He recounts the rapturous response Hillbilly Elegy received upon publication and the instant celebrity conferred upon Vance, in so small part because it satisfied a need of “people on the center left trying to make some sense of (or offer some dismissive explanation for) the Trump phenomenon.”

Vance went all-in (something he has done as Trump’s number two as well):

He went on Charlie Rose to call himself as a “a Never Trump guy,” wrote a piece for the The New York Times calling Trump “unfit” for the presidency, and joined Terry Gross on NPR to call Trump “noxious” and warn that he “is leading the white working class to a very dark place.” He even did the most humiliating thing you could do at that time in that position, which was cast a vote in 2016 for Evan McMullin. He’d proven which side he was on.

Domenech understands the potent social and economic lucre such a debut implies:

For someone without a sense of principle or political reality, all this would go to your head. You have the opportunity to be at the top echelon of elite voices, rake in the money on the speaking tours, and be a voice of constant Christian moralizing against the racist bigots from whence you came who just don’t know what’s good for them. Who would turn it down?

But as we all can see, Vance didn’t go for the immediate reward at hand. He saw Trump’s first term unfold and changed his mind about what works. Not just in public, but as someone drawn to politics.

The left hates this. They think insults matter more than policy, and that if you couldn’t stomach Trump’s tweets, it definitely makes you a hypocrite to say he’s doing good things, too. And deep down, they know Vance is really quite good at it. The vice president has an even better understanding of the elite world he had briefly navigated. Seeing its weak points fueled an even greater talent at making the case for the Trumpian policies he now supports. Today you’ll oftentimes find him arguing the case with those same media entities and figures who once welcomed him into the fold. His talent makes the shift all the more frustrating. So does his beard.

I have a longstanding belief that former lefties make for effective conservatives. They know the enemy, and they know why it is wrong. The late David Horowitz stands as a powerful example of someone who understood the evil the left does and effectively worked against it. The son of party member capital C Communists, he turned against the left when he experienced the ruthlessness of the Black Panthers, who murdered his friend because she knew too much. He got it: the Left is a racket.

I’ve known many other reformed leftist conservatives because I am one and we can usually spot each other.

I take it as a powerful sign that Vance went to Yale Law School, where he heard plenty of progressive political rhetoric, and when he got out into the real world, he saw that the theories didn’t work too well in practice. And he had the courage to admit he was wrong and and change his way of thinking, not to mention professional and social circles, and seek to help frustrate the aims of the world of the progressive intellectual, that he briefly inhabited.

Domenech concludes:

So when the left rails against Vance, understand that they do so from a position of deeply felt personal betrayal.

And the Left is now virtually feminized, as Helen Andrews reminds us, with consequent amplification of the impact of emotional betrayal.

Thomas Lifson

Communism isn’t Cool

Posted on October 21, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Woke little Communists who don’t believe in private property or profits protested to express their loathing of a system based on private property and profits.

This is what happens when you teach children that gender confusion is virtuous and logic or rationality represent toxic whiteness and masculinity.

Communism is your future, young snowflake leftists–and just remember: you wanted it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

Posted on October 21, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

It was the second time the Ninth Circuit — despite its reputation as a liberal bastion — overruled lower courts and allowed Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief; the first case was California.

National Public Radio reported:

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland – removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump Administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the majority wrote in their decision.

…

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Much had been made, earlier, of the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, to block the deployment. Liberal commentators relished in her grandiose declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The Ninth Circuit has since decided: it is, indeed, a nation of constitutional law, but not of rule by judges against law and order, or over the Constitution itself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

National Public Radio reported:

…

Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart

Justice Jackson Says “Blacks Are Disabled” [semi-satire]

Posted on October 20, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to support her contention that “gerrymandering congressional districts to ensure that there are more majority Black districts is constitutional. Mental ability statistics show that, as a race, Blacks have a lower IQ than any other race. The only way they can be fairly represented in Congress is if they can have districts where their mental disability is out-weighed by greater numbers of Black voters.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said “I have long held that the only way to end racial discrimination is to stop using race as a factor in determining a person’s rights in our society. The notion that every race should be equally represented in every school, profession, or activity is preposterous. Aptitudes and abilities are not equally distributed among humans. Using racial quotas to decide university admissions, job placements, or congressional districts violates the principle of treating each person equally. All must be free to choose their own course without anyone putting their thumb on the scale.”

Jackson countered saying “we already put a ‘thumb on the scale’ when our laws decree preferred parking spots and access ramps for the physically disabled. Why shouldn’t we put our thumb on the scale for the mentally disabled so there voices can be heard in Congress?”

Justice Clarence Thomas argued against racism, saying “I think my own life story makes the case that race may not be as decisive a determiner of our fate as Justice Jackson contends. It is one thing to ensure that opportunities are open to all comers to make the best of themselves. Would-be benefactors may choose to lend a hand, but the process should not be rigged to ensure that the incapable are saddled with responsibilities they cannot handle. Their inevitable failure does not well serve society or the misplaced person.”

John Semmens

Obamacare’s latest scandal is a $35 billion ghost story

Posted on October 20, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

The Democrats have named their price to end the government shutdown — an additional $350 billion for health care over the next decade. Critics say a big chunk of that money may go to ghosts.

At issue are the generous subsidies the Biden administration created for Affordable Care Act policies, sweeteners that are slated to expire in December. Making health care essentially free for millions of Americans, those policies have sent enrollment in Obamacare plans skyrocketing. But a recent study found they have also sparked a curious phenomenon: an estimated 12 million enrollees “without a single claim — no doctor visit, lab test, or prescription filled” in 2024.

The Paragon Health Institute study reports that this is triple the number of no-claim policyholders before the Biden sweeteners were put in place.

“Among those now eligible for zero-premium plans with low or no deductible,” the study found, “that number increased nearly sevenfold. … A whopping 40% of enrollees in fully subsidized plans had no claims in 2024. In 2024 alone, taxpayers sent at least $35 billion to insurers for people who paid no premiums and never used their plan,” the report said.

Although many analysts suspect that these numbers suggest widespread fraud, Democrats and the insurance industry argue that they reflect consumers taking advantage of affordable coverage. They warn that the expiration of Biden-era reforms will make policies far more expensive for more than 20 million Americans.

“If Congress fails to extend the health care tax credits, millions of Americans will face immediate and severe premium increases, leading many to forgo coverage altogether,” said Chris Bond, a spokesman for AHIP, the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry. “Congress must act as quickly as possible to protect Americans from this affordability crisis.”

As Democrats have made health care their line in the sand on the government shutdown, Biden-era expansions of Obamacare are receiving new attention as a symbol of both expanding access to health care and of spending run amok.

Critics say they underscore the findings of the Department of Government Efficiency, which has highlighted a lack of accountability in massive government spending programs at a time when the federal government is struggling to corral massive deficits and debt. They say the Biden sweeteners also illustrate how and why government spending keeps increasing: Once a subsidy is put in place, it is hard to take it away from voters.

Swollen rolls

The Obamacare expansion at issue came about through legislation and regulations during Biden’s term and was often cast as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, the scope of who was eligible for subsidies was broadened to households with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line — making a family of four earning up to $160,000 eligible for subsidized plans. Also, increased subsidies made Obamacare free for those with incomes between 100% and 150% of the poverty line, and longer enrollment periods were introduced.

The cost for this, on the other hand, is borne by taxpayers.

“Biden’s COVID credits didn’t reduce health care costs — they just shifted them to taxpayers while padding insurer and enrollment intermediary profits,” Paragon President Brian Blase said.

Like all gigantic markets and massive government programs, the Affordable Care Act and what people pay each month have become a very complicated thing, varying by age, state, plan level, and other factors. But the figures for the Obamacare “reference plan” (silver level) reveal what has happened since the COVID pandemic.

In 2021, when Biden was inaugurated, the basic plan cost an individual $27 a month if reported income was at or below the federal poverty line, which stood at around $14,500 a year. For those making 50% more, the “reference plan” cost $75 a month, and so on up to $152 a month for someone making more than $30,000. Those monthly payment figures were constant regardless of what the insurers charged, with taxpayers making up the difference.

Through legislation Biden pushed through by narrow majorities or via reconciliation, the amount someone would pay each month in the first two categories dropped to zero. And as Obamacare became essentially free, millions signed up — enrolling at rates the plan had never seen since its inception in 2013.

The overall figures reflect this explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, an average of 8.5 million people signed up for a subsidized Obamacare policy each year, and in none of those years did the figure equal 9 million, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2021, however, the subsidized total topped 10 million, and by 2024 it had nearly doubled to 19.5 million, CMS figures show.

“It’s all counterintuitive that when enrollment isn’t being publicized, no one is out beating the bushes to get people enrolled like we had in the early years of Obamacare,” said Ed Haislmaier, a health care expert at the Heritage Foundation. “Amazing that a product’s sales would go through the roof when nobody was talking about it.”

Some analysts believe the numbers indicate rampant fraud. Blase claimed in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that the expansion has created an explosion of phantom patients — including 6.4 million of them so far in 2025. “The problem isn’t real people with coverage they don’t use — it’s fraudulent sign-ups who never should have been subsidized,” he wrote.

Haislmaier agreed. “We don’t have an exact number for how many people might be fake. I don’t think anyone does,” he said. “What we do have is a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of data points, and a lot of information about how the markets have always operated to suggest there is massive fraud here.”

We’re sending billions of dollars to insurance companies for policies that people are unaware they’re enrolled in and do not use,” he posted.

On the other side are Democrats who make strange political bedfellows of the insurance industry. Some who traditionally oppose big business, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), insist these recent subsidies must continue, preferably permanently. For them, Obamacare more than doubling — from 11.4 million to more than 24 million between 2020 and today — is a success sign of government-run health care.

Warren compared ending the subsidies to taking health care away from people.

“Still waiting to find out how Trump and Republicans think cutting health insurance for 15 million Americans makes America healthy again,” she posted on Sept. 15.

Polls suggest support for government-subsidized health care is a partisan issue. Last November, Gallup reported that “90% of Democrats say that the federal government is responsible for American health care coverage, while 65% of Independents hold the same view. Although only 32% of Republicans share that opinion.” Another survey found that among those receiving subsidies, people who voted for Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than two to one.

Insurers say the Paragon study was flawed and accused the think tank of misunderstanding how insurance works. It’s not unusual for homeowners or car insurance policyholders to go years without filing a claim, and the same could be true with health care, they say. According to the industry and Democrats, the ballooning numbers reflect a thriving market in which many more Americans are enjoying health care coverage, as stated in a rebuttal released by AHIP in August.

Republicans want to let the subsidies expire. Democrats want to make them permanent.

Of course, that leaves some wiggle room, such as extending the subsidies for another year or some set period of time, a kicking-the-can option long favored by Congress.

Whatever the outcome, large subsidies that have always been part of Obamacare will continue. For all the hue and cry about rising costs, the elimination of Biden-era sweeteners would simply return the system to the way it was operating before 2021, Kalisz said.

“It’s crony math, a kind of corporate welfare,” she told RealClearInvestigations. “Why are the insurers now making it seem like all the subsidies are going away? It’s a form of scaring and spooking the public.”

James Varney, The Blaze

Who or What Will Finally End Hamas?

Posted on October 20, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Hamas is an irredeemable terrorist cartel that subverts Gaza, uses civilians as shields, and must be dismantled and barred from power before any genuine peace can begin.

Hamas was born and exists to kill Jews, seek the destruction of Israel, and, to some extent, overthrow or subvert pro-Western Arab governments. Period.

Hamas was willing to execute its Palestinian Authority rivals, cancel all elections after its first and only victory, hold kangaroo death courts to murder dissidents, and steal hundreds of billions of dollars in Western and international relief. It has already violated the ceasefire, attacking and killing Israelis, and now claims it has “lost” the remains of Israeli hostages, whom it likely murdered (and thus does not want more physical evidence of their barbarity).

For those ends, it diverted billions of dollars from the people of Gaza to build a vast subterranean labyrinth of military headquarters and arsenals. It expropriated hospitals, mosques, and schools for use as tunnel entries and exits, using expendable civilian shields to protect its rich terrorist hierarchy. Hamas always counted on plenty of collateral damage to sway the Western left to become active enablers of its murderous causes—in a way, it is also stone silent on other “occupied land” and “refugees,” from the recent ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan and Nigeria to the long-standing illegal occupations of Northern Cyprus and swaths of the Congo.

Hamas will never give up power, despite the fact that its ruling elite is all but wiped out, thousands of its foot soldiers are dead, and it is now loathed by most nations of the Middle East. The subtext of every negotiation over the future of Gaza is that almost every Arab regime privately wants the U.S. or Israel to eliminate Hamas. It is likely more popular at American college campuses.

One, anyone with Hamas ties, formal or informal, should be prohibited from entering the U.S. and the EU and their Western allies.

Two, because Hamas has already been branded a terrorist organization for the past 28 years, U.S. campuses should finally be warned that student participation in pro-terrorist demonstrations championing Hamas would be equivalent to rapid expulsion. Businesses, NGOs, and fronts that empower Hamas should be warned that they will be debanked, fined, and prosecuted. In the West, Hamas should be further rebranded as a pariah no different from ISIS.

Three, no sanctions should be lifted from Iran until the end of its nuclear program is verified, and it ceases all funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. The quickest way for the bankrupt theocracy to implode is to keep it under sanctions and embargoes while it shorts its own people in stealthy attempts to fund its terrorist tentacles—a suicidal trajectory that alone might lead the Iranian street or military to turn on the theocracy.

There are three entities who bear the responsibility to end Hamas under the new peace accords: the moderate Arab regimes of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, and perhaps Turkey, along with the U.S. and Israel. All of them wish Hamas to vanish as much as they fear doing so themselves. So while it is far-fetched that the three forces would act in concert to finish off Hamas, it is incumbent upon them not to prevent any of the others from crushing Hamas at its first sign of regrouping to doom the peace.

In practical terms, that reality likely means that Israel must finish off Hamas, with full U.S. support—and tacit Arab acquiescence. But key to the present ceasefire and possible peace is a comprehensive plan to anticipate Hamas’s return to terrorism.

Hamas’s entire underground complex must be destroyed as a prerequisite for any rebuilding of Gaza. The tunnels should be blown up, collapsed, and filled with the rubble of the war Hamas precipitated.

Victor Davis Hanson

Taking Stock of No Kings Events

Posted on October 20, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Like many Americans, I watched with interest as the “No Kings” spectacle unfolded. It was rather like a box of Monty Python’s chocolates. I had no idea what I was going to get, but I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to like it much. In this, at least, I was not disappointed.

So, what, exactly, did this crunchy frog of a “No Kings” thing accomplish? We haven’t had any kings since the day we declared our independence. And before I had my coffee made this morning, I was deeply concerned, so I checked. Turns out, we still don’t. So, apparently, the protests were quite successful in helping us dodge the bullet. (Well, we still have Stephen King, but, undesirable as that may be, let’s not worry about that, at least for now.)

From the after-action reports that I’m seeing from around the country, indications are that, for the most part, grayer heads prevailed among the protesters to the tune of 80% or 90% in some cities. Based on appearances, the protest organizers must have raided every bingo hall they could find in every reliably leftist city in the country. (That might explain the one group shuffling around the Colorado state capitol that was reportedly chanting, “B27.”) I suppose many viewed it as a last fling for the Woodstock generation.

Eric Florack, PJ Media

No Totalitarians

Posted on October 19, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Leftist Democrats are not against tyranny. They are against the loss of their own power to rule over others. They do not want individual rights; they want despotism where THEY control schools, media, culture and the outcome of elections. They want one-Party rule–their Party. Notice how their protests do not call for a Constitutional Bill of Rights. They do not call for private property, free markets, low taxes, free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms or freedom of choice in health care and education. They call for complete control over every single area of our lives. Worse than most kings, leftists demand totalitarian dictatorship. They falsely portray President Trump as a monarch while offering us a fusion of Hitler, Sharia Law and Stalin as their alternative. It’s a spectacular display of ignorance and arrogance to watch these fools scream for freedom while (whenever in power) practicing its complete annihilation.

How pitiful to be so lacking in principles, ideology, any kind of practical program (other than Communism), or lacking any inspirational idea, slogan or leader that all you can come up with is: “No Kings.” Of course, if an entire multi-billion dollar industry we still reverently label “journalism” drools and fawns over you like you’re the greatest geniuses in the history of the galaxy, I suppose you might think you’re on to something big.

Poor ignorant little totalitarians. They think they are so enlightened, sophisticated and smart–and they desperately hope everyone watching them thinks so, too. They are the architects of their own destruction–and our own, if we don’t keep fighting their petty little emotions which they mistake for principles.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Watch Out for the Crazies this Weekend

Posted on October 19, 2025 by theartfuldilettante

Did you hear that we marched against “kings” this weekend? Yes, who knows how many reminded us that they hate kings, dictators, authoritarians, and anything that rhymes with Trump. Yes, anything that rhymes with Trump.

At the same time, please forgive some of us if we think that this bunch of marchers is just a little crazy, as Sasha Stone told us:

“If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

“Do you have any idea how crazy you are?”

“You mean the nature of this conversation?”

“I mean the nature of you.”

So goes an exchange in No Country for Old Men, but it’s a conversation the Democrats might have with themselves as they gather for yet another protest after ten years of them. If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Protests are meant to be the voices of the unheard. Yet these protests are the voices of those who never shut up. Not for one minute, not for ten years, and all of us have had to endure them like being trapped inside Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory with hundreds of thousands of Veruca Salts.

What are their No Kings protests anyway? What have they been since 2016? What are they trying to say? Is it like the ex who smashes all the dishes in the kitchen when her husband tries to leave? I won’t be ignored, DONALD.

What’s the point of it? To what end now? Of what use was the rule?

The voices of the unheard? More like the side that had everything. All the media, all the institutions, all the culture, and for a time, all of the government. The people had only Trump.

They had him and elected him. The other side lost the election and lost it badly. The man they claim to be a king, or dictator, or whatever other word you speak of, was the one who won the popular vote, carried 40 states, and 80-something percent of counties. Did I tell you that he got the US Senate and House?

What’s the point of marching against a king that we don’t have? Well, there is no point in these marches other than that we hate Trump and we hate him more than ever.

So, the marches will pass until the next time we march again. The media will tell us that millions marched and that this is some kind of movement. The real movement is the people going on with their normal lives and watching their kids play high school football or cheer Ohtani hitting three home runs.

Silvio Canto, Jr., American Thinker

THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE

Keeper of the Flame of the Enlightenment

Western Civilization Depends on Men and Masculinity

The Vanishing Father

The Spartan Mindset

A Feminized Culture

The Masculine Virtues We Lost

Reclaiming Balance

The Way Forward

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Around the Web

FOLLOW US ON

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

Trending Topics

Trending

Most Read

Top Contributors

Last 7 Days

Last 30 Days

The Left Establishment will never forgive J.D. Vance forsaking it

Communism isn’t Cool

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

Justice Jackson Says “Blacks Are Disabled” [semi-satire]

Obamacare’s latest scandal is a $35 billion ghost story

Who or What Will Finally End Hamas?

Taking Stock of No Kings Events

No Totalitarians

Watch Out for the Crazies this Weekend