Put On Your Tin-Foil Hat Kids Because It's Time to Talk About the Illuminati – er, the Patriarchy!

Put On Your Tin-Foil hat Kids Because It's Time to Talk About the Illuminati – er, the Patriarchy!

My claim that neo-progressivism is a religion may puzzle some people. It's nosecret that a majority of neo-progressives are atheists or 'spiritual but not religious.' How, then, can they be said to be following a religion? Neo-progressives, as largely atheists, do not claim to believe in a God. Then again, neither do Buddhists, and most would say that Buddhism is in fact a religion. A basic tenet of religions is the presence of a creed, which is an 'I believe' statement, typically based in ideas that are neither provable nor disprovable. Examples of this are belief in a God, which can't be proven or disproven scientifically.

Social Justice Warriors almost universally assert that there exists a shadowy systematic oppressive system that allows men (usually white) to dominate society at the expense of women. According to this view, the evidence for patriarchy includes the largely debunked wage gap, the existence of a glass or marble ceiling politics, the presence of misogynist stereotypes that promote violence against women in movies and video games, and, of course, plenty of claims that whenever some great evil happens in the world it is women who suffer more than men, even when that claim is itself purely nonsense.

Pretty sure this guy is the Supreme Leader of the Patriarchy

As an institution, the patriarchy in the West must be shadowy and unsubstantial, as obviously there isn't a formal organization of patriarchs in the United States. Yet the claims made suggest patriarchy is practically an institutionalized system in the West. Apparently, according to Jessica Valenti, there are 'patriarchal superstructures' in the West that lead to women committing suicide. The concept of a social superstructure is rooted in Marxist theory, which is itself known for its claims that are paranoia built atop misunderstandings of social conditions. Marxism is not remotely concerned with individual needs and instead is the philosophical source of modern collectivist theory.

According to those who believe in the patriarchy, whether they are intersectional feminists or non-feminists who believe in the patriarchy, women and minorities are a class who are subject to special forms of oppression that members of the 'power majority' are simply not subject to. Examples include racism, sexism, as well as other forms of discrimination. Since, it is claimed, people who are not members of the identity-majority don't possess political and economic power they are subject to special forms of oppression that members of the majority are simply not subject to. How the majority is defined is rather critical for this idea to work. I've always wondered how those who shout about the 99% square their belief in a system of oppression that includes white men square that with belief with a belief in a system that simply isn't capable of oppressing these same people. Some commentators refer to this as the Oppression Olympics. 

I wonder if the high jump is banned in the Oppression Olympics for being ableist.

Of course, my denial of this concept means that I'll be labeled an MRA or a part of Stormfront or some such nonsense. I'm none of those things. But that isn't the point: anyone who denies the existence of the patriarchy is reduced to an Other. Authoritarian systems have historically relied on the existence of an Other to really work. A simple look at any regime and you'll see an Other. In the Soviet Union (that bastion of Marxist achievement) the Other were capitalists and westerners. In Mexico during the Mexican civil war, Catholics were the Other. Today, the thought leaders in the neo-progressive movement are attempting to turn those who disagree with them into bigots, and in some cases have had those who disagree with them removed from jobs and had their writings taken out of stores.

I could go on and on. I'll come back to this topic at some point, but for now it is sufficient to say that the evidence in favor of the patriarchy existing don't add up. The supporting myths are demonstrably not true, yet they permeate the entirety of social science courses in the university system today. One wonders why the biggest offenders in the social sciences aren't moved out of the social science departments and instead moved into theology programs. I'd suggest merging them into philosophy programs but philosophy is rooted in logical deduction and critical thinking, which apparently are misogynist. I wish I were kidding.