This past weekend, I went to a movie theater for the first time in a few months.  Before the coming attractions rolled, there appeared on the screen a public service announcement in which the American president, vice-president, and assorted A-list actors (Daniel Craig, Benicio Del Toro, and Steve Carrell) lectured us solemnly and earnestly on the imaginary problem of “non-consensual sex” on college campuses.

What  a truly remarkable spectacle.  One would think that these political and cultural figures were speaking of a topic critical to the survival of the human species, so serious and grave were the tones.  I began to think more and more about this little announcement as I left the theater, and how incredible it was that the head of state and vice president of the world’s most powerful nation actually had taken the time and effort to advise the public—with all the other varied issues on their agendas—about a problem that was entirely imaginary.

Even I, jaded with long experience with American male groveling before the altar of feminine frivolity, was taken aback.  I could hardly believe it.  But I should have known better.  This is America, after all: where no effort is spared and no flight of fancy left unindulged to cater to female hysteria.

There are antecedents for such behavior from national leaders.  Delusion is of old date.  In 1597, King James I of England published a treatise, in the form of a Socratic dialogue, called Daemonologie.  Although we may chuckle today in smug superiority at James’s credulity, witchcraft was no laughing matter in the sixteenth century.  Thousands of men and women were persecuted—many horrifically so—for a “problem” that was entirely imaginary.  James’s book delves into the subjects of necromancy, ghosts, demons, and witchcraft with great enthusiasm, and makes his case that demonology not only exists, but that not believing in these sinister bugbears is itself a sin.

Has human nature advanced at all since 1597?  Or have we only shifted our prejudices and delusions from witchcraft to other fantasies, like “rape culture”?  I wonder what our remote descendants will make of our delusions, and whether they will scratch their heads at our belief in imaginary rapes, just as we scratch our heads at James’s devils, demons, and fairies.


James I’s delusions in the service of power

James I was an intelligent and educated man.  How could he allow himself to be sucked in to such delusions as belief in witchcraft and demons?  The answer to this question lies in an understanding of human nature and the requirements of power.  He was a king, and kings need to keep their thrones.  Human nature needs obsessions and fixations, in the same way that a dog needs to gnaw on bones; and systems of power and control thrive on creating and maintaining imaginary evils, so that their populations can be kept in a permanent state of turmoil.  An uneasy population is a compliant one.  Public service announcements in James’s day were a bit different from what we see now, but the purpose was still the same:  to whip up the public into a frenzy about an imaginary problem, so that they become more compliant and open to suggestion.  It is a tactic as old as government itself.

The alleged “problem” of endemic “rape” across the country is entirely imaginary.  Many authoritative studies have shown that crime of all types has been in steady decline for years.  Yet, these feminist apostles of doom continue to trumpet the approach of the Apocalypse.  Yet there are darker forces at work under the surface.  It is often forgotten that such Cassandras serve a useful purpose for the forces that hold the reins of power in America:  (1) they help to enforce cultural orthodoxy, and identify dissenting voices for persecution, and (2) they permit the power structure to solidify and perpetuate its hold on the population.  America’s rulers find it useful to deflect attention away from the real problems of society (vast income inequality, declining wages, sexual repression, masculinization of women, mediocre education and services, etc.) onto imaginary problems.  In such ways can the greed and theft of the American oligarchy be perpetuated at home and abroad.

I know a very sincere man who was infuriated by the public service announcement.  He asked how it was possible for men of obvious intelligence to believe such nonsense, and to permit themselves to make statements in the service of such stupidities.  It is an important question, but  a naïve one.  These political figures and big actors in question don’t really ask themselves whether they “believe” in rape culture or not, in the same way that a courtier of James I in 1600 would not have paused to reflect meaningfully on the “truth” of witches’s Sabbaths.  These are cynical, amoral people, who care only about their own positions.

Ultimately, it is not a question that concerns them.  What matters to them is power.  Feminism is the dominant religion of the day, and they must—if they want to work—toe the party line.  They know what they need to do in order to keep their salaries flowing, to get reelected, to keep their hold on their audience, and to maintain their thrones.  That is as far as the thinking goes.  On some subliminal level, of course, I think they convince themselves of the truth of their delusions.  Reason can justify any weakness or vice.  White knighting and mangina behavior is an expression of subservience to power.  It is the ultimate form of degradation.  And this is why I have more scorn and hostility to feminism’s male supplicators than to feminism itself.

In Europe’s religious wars of the sixteenth century, a principle emerged which summarizes the necessity of doctrinal orthodoxy among a ruler’s subjects:  cuius regio, eius religio.  This Latin phrase may be translated as:  whose region, his religion.  It was meant to convey the idea that the population under the control of a certain prince should accept that prince’s religious doctrine, or else they should move elsewhere.  In the modern era, princes find it useful to adhere to the same principle:  subscribe to my doctrine, or else.  In America, the prevailing religion is feminism, and the message conveyed the entirety of the culture is:  you’d better toe the line, and believe in its demonology, or you are going to be persecuted.  Not to believe is itself a sin.

There are other reasons, of course, for the propagation of the fake “rape culture.”  Some of these reasons have much to do with the idiosyncrasies of American society.  American is a society steeped in fear:  historically, fear of Indians, slaves, communism, terrorism, drugs, etc.  Our society is a sexually repressive one, compared with most others, and for a repressed person, there is a perverse cruelty in denying sexual satisfaction to someone else.  Most of the strident advocates of the “rape culture” (and their loyal league of manginas and white knights) are abnormal men and women.  Miserable and repressed themselves, they wish to make everyone else just as miserable.  There is also delight in being an accuser—it confers power and status, and is a form of attention-whoring.

Goering Eating

Goering at Nuremberg:  understanding the requirements of power

So the requirements of power dovetail with the perversities and attention-whoring of “rape culture” advocates.  It makes for a toxic mix.  I remember reading a comment that Hermann Goering once made to one of his interviewers during his incarceration at the Nuremburg war crimes trials.  The interviewer, a psychologist, asked him how he and his henchmen were able to seize and maintain control of the German government for so long.  Goering chuckled and said, with his unique mix of brutal cynicism and charm, “It’s easy, really.  If you want to control people, all you have to do is make them believe they are under attack from someone or something.  Then you can do whatever you want.”

I think James I would have agreed with this.

Read More:  Then They Came For Us