Toxic Feminism Part Two: The Rebranding of the Democratic Party

In my prior article I defined “toxic feminism” as poisonous hybrid of feminine guile and masculine aggression whose goal is to replace the patriarchal order of society with a matriarchy. I also suggested that toxic feminism is the ideological lubricant for the recent wave of sex scandals exposing men in power, and that this sudden explosion of scandals may be a deliberate strategy of the Clinton/Soros “Purple Revolution.”

After further deliberation, I am convinced that it is orchestrated and is in fact the opening gambit in an audacious move by the Clintons to rebrand the Democratic Party and reassert their control over it – exploiting toxic feminism as a political weapon of mass destruction. I think the strategy is to use a continuing campaign of sex scandals to polarize the nation by gender and to unite women across the political spectrum on the theme that female leadership is the only solution to the sexually predatory nature of “toxic masculinity.”

My guess is that this strategy is the brainchild of Bill Clinton, whose long public journey through the valley of shame and disgrace over the Lewinsky scandal has on the one hand proved to him the potency of such scandals as a political weapon (in that special way that suffering refines perceptions), and has on the other hand immunized him from further significant harm (like the survivor of a deadly virus). Probably better than any other American, he also knows where all the skeletons are buried on the left, and is, with Hillary, deeply embittered by the betrayal of the pro-Sanders Hollywood and New York media elites, and other rebels in the Democrat Party whom they believe cost them the presidency.

The Clintons also command a vast army of “new feminists,” primed to wage cultural guerrilla warfare in pursuit of matriarchal power: zealots whose ethics are so compromised by their embrace of child-murder and the LGBT agenda that bearing false witness in furtherance of election fraud is easily justified. Wherever the sex scandal campaign lacks truthful victims (as I believe is the case in the Judge Roy Moore election), it can be supplemented by fraud which will be all the more readily accepted in the context of so many genuine sex-scandals.

Indeed, I suspect the sequence in which the sex scandals were triggered, Weinstein and Spacey first, then Moore, was intentional: they used the two notorious Hollywood serial abusers as “chum” to create a feeding frenzy among the media sharks, then pushed Moore into the same water using fraud and misrepresentation to imply equivalency, knowing that McConnell and the GOP establishment would pile on. I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnell was actually in on it.

But this is much, much bigger than Judge Moore – it is the Clinton/Soros Purple Revolution to oust President Trump and restore the Clinton dynasty to control of the D.C. swamp. The sex scandal campaign is about the 2018 and 2020 elections and rebranding/retooling the Democrat Party for warfare in the Trump era. Judge Moore is just a dress rehearsal for the show to come.

Consider the political landscape under Trump from their perspective, which for Democrats is always about a few core constituencies. Trump’s MAGA economic strategy cost them blue-collar and union member support in the swing states during the 2016 election, and his amazing success in keeping his promises over the past year has presumably vastly strengthened his support among that demographic. Trump’s larger appeal to white men and populists, in part by highlighting the cultural consequences of liberal influences in the Black community (e.g. the tainting of the NFL by political correctness) has also borne much fruit. And his exceptionally strong support for Israel is winning over many American Jews.

So who’s left in the Democrat family to deliver victory at the polls? There’s the “gays,” of course, rich in resources but minuscule in numbers, and the Moslems and left-leaning Hispanics (though Trumps economic and family values agenda undoubtedly appeals strongly to both of those constituencies). That really leaves only women, the consistency that Hillary Clinton expected to carry her over the finish line in 2016.

The sex scandal campaign is the Clinton strategy for maximizing the women’s vote to offset Trump’s poaching from their other constituencies. But they get more out of it than that. First, they can punish their enemies, which is always high on their priority list: the media elites in Hollywood and New York will definitely suffer for their betrayal of the Clintons. Second, because they’re the Clintons, there’s always blackmail and extortion in play, and to the extent they control the orchestration of sex-scandals, the entire leftist male power bloc (libertines almost by definition) will be like puppets on their string. Third, and most significantly from a public policy standpoint, they will benefit both directly and indirectly by raising all boats on the toxic feminist tide, because, statistically speaking, the more women in political power of either party, the greater the government support for child murder and the destructive LGBT agenda.

From the Machiavellian perspective, the sex scandal campaign is truly brilliant political strategy – diabolical in fact. Its genius is that it simply unleashes an enormous untapped force of nature: womens’ pent-up frustration over their collective sexual objectification since the dawn of the sexual revolution – which is truly ironic since that same revolution established their political power as feminists. They liked the sense of personal empowerment that came with dismantling the patriarchy that once controlled and protected them (empowerment hinged largely on the legal “right” to end their unwanted pregnancies by killing their babies), but they have always chafed inwardly at the corollary effects of the concurrent porn culture that empowered all men (not just those in power) to justify self-centered sexual predation as a way of life.

Most people in our apostate society won’t recognize it, but this sex scandal phenomenon is a morality tale on the natural consequences of rejecting God’s guidance on sexuality, family and culture. There’s a good reason that both men and women were once subject to a Bible-based system in which men traded sexual freedom for control and women traded independence for security: it was the only way to channel human nature away from the destructive consequences of self-centeredness into the mutually beneficial family-centered structure that is the foundational prerequisite to healthy civilization.

The biblical model that served civilization so well for so very long is summarized in Ephesians, Chapter 5: the duty of a man is to protect and to cherish his wife above his own life. The duty of a women is to defer to first her father and then her husband, and to respect their authority as God’s provision for the security and happiness of herself and her children.

Another biblical passage perfectly captures the sex-scandal phenomenon and the Clintons’ strategy as it relates to these feminists: “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive…swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…For among them are those who creep into households and capture gullible women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1-7).

It might not be possible to put this Genie back in the bottle, and maybe it’s better that we can’t, because the chickens of the sexual revolution are finally coming home to roost in a way that provides the church a powerful “teachable moment” about the stability of gender-harmonized family-based society in contrast to the chaos of selfish individualism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.