By Peter Wright and Paul Elam
All parties, all sorts and conditions of politicians, from the fashionable and Conservative west-end philanthropist to the Radical working-men’s clubbite, seem (or seemed until lately) to have come to an unanimous conclusion on one point – to wit, that the female sex is grievously groaning under the weight of male oppression.”
– E. Belfort Bax, (1907)1
Our two party political system increasingly reveals itself to be a staged battle, inspiring about the same credibility as professional wrestling. Democrats and Republicans allegedly square off on either side of a deep philosophical divide and battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. It is family values vs progressive ideals, religious edicts vs personal autonomy, secure borders vs open inclusion and multiculturalism vs national identity.
It is actually dozens of seemingly opposing ideals, impassioned voters on either side of the fence, setting off increasing media fireworks as we get closer to completing each election cycle.
Yet, as we see right before our eyes, our political practices and policies play vastly different than campaign issues would make it appear. The servants we elect wage the same wars, maintain the same extralegal prisons, bail out the same corrupt Wall Street players, cater to the same corporate interests and infringe equally on our Constitutional protections.
What we have pre-election is the Great American Psychodrama; a Dog and Pony Show that distracts us from the post-election reality that an agenda more powerful than Dem vs Pub is actually calling the shots on our governance.
We have a one party system. Republicrats vs Republicrats; a political mafia who sends front men out to “represent” respective sides of a philosophical battle that exists only in the minds of voters.
It allows politicians to run on platforms like “hope” and “change,” with their biggest challenge being the maintaining of a straight face.
This is the perfect environment for modern sexual politics as well.
This is hardly a surprise to most men’s advocates. Many are already aware that there are two different brands of politicians in today’s world when it comes to gender issues: Knights and Troubadours. Just like Dems and Pubs, they ostensibly appear to be on opposing teams. That façade falls apart quickly, though, when you realize they answer to the same master; they are simple stage props used interchangeably by the same production company.
They are owned and operated by Gynocentrism, Inc. Their marching are women first and most often women only. They appear on the surface to be at odds but chivalry is the glue that binds them together. Everything they say and do comes back to women first every time.
Let’s take a look at their approach to perpetuating gynocentric privilege for women through different styles of chivalry.
In the chivalric tradition knights are viewed as damsel savers. They are the protectors of womankind and the hero of ladies. We first saw them emerge all the way back to medieval politics where, for instance, Jean II Le Maingre – marshal of France and a knight renowned for his military skill – instituted The “Enterprise of the Green Shield with the White Lady,” a chivalric order that gathered a team of knights to defend women’s honor from male brutality. Inspired by the ideal of courtly love, the stated purpose of the order was to guard and defend the honor, estate, goods, reputation, fame and praise of all ladies.
Alternatively, the troubadour politician has long been a permanent fixture in western politics, and has his roots in chivalric knighthood. He is the singer of sooth songs to female voters. He’s the one who proudly waxes that women can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels.
This aristocratic crooner emerged in the troubadour revolution of France and Germany. But unlike the chivalric knights who aggressively rescues damsels, the troubadour makes stock and trade of awaiting counsel from his female superiors.
Medieval literature is rich with stories of such men seeking direction from women, the latter having an endless list of tasks for the troubadour to fulfill before his gynocentric credentials are confirmed. A famous example is Ulrich von Liechtenstein, a German troubadour (minnesinger) who wrote the autobiographical manual “The Servicing of Ladies.” Von Liechtenstein’s modus operandi, like that of all troubadours, was to put himself before a lady and ask to be directed.
And then to strut around like a banty rooster, high on his own achievements and hopeful for a pat on the head or even access to the holy of holies.
Has anything changed? Nope. We still see the smugly sacrificing heroics of the alleged right and the sycophancy of the alleged left. We see both as they posture themselves as the advocates for all womankind, throwing men and boys directly into the meat grinder of feminist governance with open abandon.
The knightly politician of today likewise offers to protect women from harm and insult, the benevolent patriarch.
The more sensitive, troubadour-like politician of today offers his to support all female issues and alleviates all female discomforts on instruction from women. He’s an archetypical feminist, SJW and sycophant.
The bottom line? What we live in today is essentially a gynarchy, defined as a political system governed by women or heavily in the interest of women. Some will protest that we don’t live in a gynarchy because most of the political leaders are male, but that would be a superficial conclusion. In her book What’s Right With Feminism Cassandra Langer gives a concise definition that accounts for the proxy role of male leaders: “Gynarchy refers to government by women, or women-centered government.”2
Gynarchy refers to any government advocating female interests, including any establishment of laws and bureaucracies that mostly benefit women, regardless of whether the advocates in question are male or female. Said differently the political system that women govern may actually be staffed by male servants called prime ministers, presidents, or politicians who work on behalf of the of women.3
We can hear the protesters already: But surely the United States has always been governed by and for the dominant patriarchal powers?
No, not according to some early observers.
One of them was cultural critic Max O’Rell who in 1903 observed;
“The government of the American people is not a Republic, it is not a monarchy: it is a gynarchy, a government by the women for the women, a sort of occult power behind the scenes that rules the country.” 4
What O’Rell saw in 1903 was that both sides of politics were serving as liegemen to the female populace – and nothing else.
The solution to this is simple and far from easy. All we need is a healthy percentage of the population, say one or two percent, to look past FOX NEWS and CNN programmed thinking; to look past their own biological impulse to save those who don’t need saving and to engage in a pragmatic, rational examination of modern sexual politics.
We need them to see that the so-called candidates they are so bitterly either defending or attacking are just the same whores wearing different clothing.
Mind you, this is not about right vs left, which is a much more tangible and credible divide.
In American elections there is no right and left, just the pandering to Americans acting like robots with emotion chips that have gone on the fritz.
Whether it is with Lilly Ledbetter, VAWA or any other legislation enjoying round bipartisan support, what Americans have is a single option two party system that gives voters the opportunity to feel warm and fuzzy as they destroy their sons while chanting “You GO Girl”
All it will take is a tenacious, indefatigable minority of people who will simply not allow the lies and the injustice to pass unchallenged.
 E. Belfort Bax, The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood (1907)
 Cassandra Langer, What’s Right With Feminism, iUniverse, (2001)
 Alison Tieman provides a historical example of slave leadership in her video When Slaves Ruled.
 The Philadelphia Record, quoting Max O’Rell’s 1903 comments on American women