About feminism, will feminism remain in power? I pointed out before that public interest in feminism is in decline. Therefore the effectiveness of feminism is in decline as well, but its fall from power will take longer, as it depends largely not so much on what the people want but on the extent to which feminists own and control power in all sectors of the social hierarchy. In so-called democratic societies, the power of and control by an ideology needs buy-in by the general public to be maintained. Without a critical mass of the public providing that buy-in, the ideology loses its foundation. Whether that foundation grew from the grass roots — as was with feminism for example the case in the U.K. and the U.S. — or was imposed by government edict (e.g.: Canada) makes little difference.
In a totalitarian system, the fall from power will take longer. The more democratic a society is, the shorter the interval for which a ruling ideology can maintain itself without the foundation of public interest. For that reason, once it rises to power, it is of course one of the aims of any dominating ideology to attain totalitarian control. Therefore, even though an ideology originally grew from the grass roots, ultimately, the longer it has been in totalitarian control, the more likely it is to become the driver of a totalitarian system by subverting all sectors of the democratic society it comes to rule. That is inevitable and the cause of all democracies throughout history having evolved into autocratic or totalitarian systems, all of them, without exception. The normal state of social existence is not democracy but autocracy or dictatorship through chiliastic socialism.
We have seen the fall from grace or from power of a few totalitarian systems in our life times (at least during my life). Japan’s Hirohito regime, the Hitler regime, and lately the USSR. It can be argued that China’s Maoist regime fell or is falling, but let’s not quibble over details of individual revolutions or power changes in any other fashion. The point is that without support by public interest, all ruling ideologies will fall from power.
Hardly any support through public interest for feminism is left, but the feminist regime has not yet toppled. It won’t topple, but it is declining, slowly, because of lack of replacements that were supplied out of public interest. Feminist rule is vanishing and will vanish completely through attrition. The question is what will take its place.
We now no longer have democratic regimes in place, but we do have systems of government throughout the world that are totalitarian and are increasingly becoming totalitarian. That is what feminism created. Feminism will not maintain the totalitarianism that was created. It can’t. There are not sufficient feminists to do it with, and the number of feminists is declining. Still, there are other ideologies that can and will, all depending with their success on the degree of buy-in by the public, the extent of public support that was created through propaganda and continuing indoctrination steered by the totalitarian systems that happen to be in control of, amongst other things, the education systems.
However, not even the education systems can keep on indoctrinating along feminist party-lines if the waning public support of the feminist ideology also produces fewer feminist teachers or teachers who willingly teach feminist dogma without truly believing it themselves.
There are contingency plans for maintaining totalitarian control, to enable those in power to maintain the totalitarian system of control that they used feminism for to establish. One of those is multiculturalism and the other is environmentalism. Those two ideologies and feminism are “the unholy trinity of deconstruction.”
To drive the point home, take the relative extents to which those three ideologies were promoted by the publishing industry over time. I wonder for how much longer Google Ngram will provide the honest truth about such things, but this is what it shows: http://tinyurl.com/c978sov
Keep in mind what the ngrams show. They do not show relative extents of power. Short of Milton Friedman, whose analysis and predictions are on the mark, I don’t know of anyone who has studied this objectively and in depth, but it seems clear to me how things went and where they are going.
“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”
—Milton and Rose Friedman
in ‘Free to Choose: A Personal Statement‘
We now have totalitarian systems ruled by bureaucracies. It may be that once a bureaucracy has absolute power, then it no longer needs any ideology to maintain itself, but what it does need is tax revenues. Ultimately, the bureaucracies will collapse or at least submit to authorities other than themselves, not so much when the taxpayers willingness to pay is exhausted but when the limit of their ability to pay is reached. That ultimate limit to power will quite possibly be reached within fewer than ten years.
One last illustration, trend-line comparisons that show not what people are supposed to think about (the ngrams do that) but the true extent of their interest in the three ideologies, in other words, how well they were indoctrinated to become concerned:
Note that there are seasonal variations in the trend lines that repeat their cycles, annually. Does anyone think that people’s interest in the three subjects shown in the graph change annually with the seasons, and that it does so spontaneously? Ask yourself who triggers those cycles and why the people’s interest in those topics predictably changes in intensity every year in the same months.