By Agent131711 Just when you think things can’t possibly get any worse... Only one article in this series left to go, so it’s time to start showing everyone what is on deck. All of this technology w...

Great Overview of the Situation for Your Friends and Family I was a guest on the Palm & Pine Podcast and did a great soup-to-nuts overview of both the scam (illegitimacy & criminality) of “government...

Dear Subscribers, I am slamming and jamming on our upcoming book: Voluntaryism - How the Only “ISM” Fair for Everyone Leads to Harmony, Prosperity, and Good Karma for All! The goal is create the mos...

The voluntaryist alternative to government, media, and academia.

Great Overview of the Situation for Your Friends and Family I was a guest on the Palm & Pine Podcast and did a great soup-to-nuts overview of both the scam (illegitimacy & criminality) of “government...

Wendy McElroy _Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer._ On October 13, 2023, 15-year-old Owen Poirier was on a school bus with four other students, two girls and two boys, all of whom engaged in what was described as “talking, taking photos and…harmless albeit chaotic play.” Several hours later, one of the girls accused Poirier of touching her crotch – a claim which the surveillance camera did not seem to corroborate. Without allowing Poirier to defend himself or call his parents, the school interviewed the boy and suspended him; some accounts say the authorities expelled him. “I didn’t do this,” he told his parents. Facing a criminal investigation, however, the distraught Poirier committed suicide. According to one news report, “After Poirier’s death, the school’s superintendent wrote in an email that the educational institute ‘unequivocally’ did not find evidence of sexual assault, the Poirier family argued in court filings.” Owen Poirier’s story is typical in several ways. The accuser, usually female, is automatically believed even without real evidence. A cursory ‘investigation’ provides little if any due process to the accused. The consequences to the accused are life shattering. His family is devastated and will not recover. International Falsely Accused Day (IFAD) is an annual day of awareness that spotlights the devastating impact of false accusations on those accused, even if they are ultimately exonerated. People often lose their children, their jobs, their reputations, and can be driven to suicide. The desolation is especially absolute in accusations of child, sexual, or domestic abuse. And it hits men especially hard because they are usually the ones accused. Our victim-obsessed society turns a blind eye toward this particular type of suffering, perhaps because the majority of victims **are** male. We want to believe the ‘victim,’ but the victim is often predefined as female. It takes Herculean efforts for the profound pain of those falsely accused to be acknowledged on the same level as the pain of sexually abused women. Former teacher Lyn Crabtree launched IFAD – then called National False Accusation Day – in the UK in 2020 after her life and her husband’s were destroyed by allegations that later proved unfounded. They were dragged out of bed in the early hours by a police raid and arrested repeatedly thereafter – their reputations and careers were gutted. No official record indicates that the police or the press ever issued an apology or retraction when the Crabtrees were exonerated. What remains public are the accusations. September 9th was chosen as International Falsely Accused Day as a way to honor former schoolteacher and BBC broadcaster Simon Warr, who made headlines in 2012 after being accused of indecent sexual behavior toward three former male students: the 9th is his birthday. The charges were so flimsy and contradictory that the jury in Warr’s trial returned a unanimous non-guilty verdict after a few minutes of consideration. By this time, however, Warr had spent two years “on police bail;” that is, Warr was released from custody but he remained under active police investigation, with his behavior restricted. Once vindicated, he became an ardent activist on behalf of others falsely accused. The title of one of his articles captures Warr’s message: “The falsely accused can never get their lives back. False accusers are handsomely compensated but their victims get nothing.” The compensation received by accusers includes attention, sympathy, revenge, and monetary reparations. On September 8–9, 2023, IFAD went international. Global demonstrations occurred in the UK, the US, and 13 other nations. The event now encompasses more than 20 nations and a coalition of activist groups, including the Falsely Accused Network in the UK and the Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance based in the US. It has grown without government funding and with little media support – a true grassroots movement in response to an ignored global wrong. In the past, academics, media, activists, politicians, and legal systems have dismissed false accusations as a non-problem; that is, they were considered to be so rare as to be unworthy of attention. The issue refuses to die, however. In 2023, a survey entitled “False Allegations of Abuse Are a Global Problem, Women Most Often the Accusers” was issued by the Coalition to End Domestic Violence. A survey of eight nations found that the percentage of people polled who reported being victims of false accusations ranged from India at 19 per cent to Poland at four per cent, with the US in between at 10 per cent. Such data is difficult to quantify, of course, but such indications should also be difficult to ignore. A 2025 International False Accusation Survey conducted by YouGov asked over 5,000 men and women in Argentina, Australia, the UK, and the US if they have ever been falsely accused of abuse and found similarly high rates. Given continuing attention to the issue, the response to false accusations has evolved. The original ‘insignificance’ dismissal remains at one extreme with acknowledgement of the problem along with a demand that false accusations not be prosecuted at the other. The feminist organization End Violence Against Women International published a paper entitled “Raped, Then Jailed: The Risks of Prosecution for Falsely Reporting Sexual Assault.” It states, “In the US, prosecutors have an ethical responsibility to pursue charges only when (1) there is evidence to support the charges, and (2) prosecution is in the interest of the community they serve.” The paper goes on to ask about false accusers, “Is Prosecution Ever Appropriate?” The general drift of the answer is that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. By contrast, those who advocate for the victims of false accusations call for increased penalties. It is important, however, not to let discussion revolve around details of legislation rather than fundamental issues such as the bias in favor of complainants, which has led to a broken justice system. The #MeToo and Always Believe the Woman movements have attempted to transform American justice to serve their ideological ends, with some success. And the issue of false accusations has been a focal point. This makes sense. False accusations are a central aspect of Western civilization because, without them, Western jurisprudence as we know it – a defining institution of our society – would not exist. Western jurisprudence revolves around the fact that people lie (false accusation) and people are often mistaken (unfounded accusation). If accusers never lied or were never mistaken, then there would be no need for criminal trials beyond the function of sentencing, perhaps. If accusers never lied or were never mistaken, then every accusation would be an automatic guilty verdict for the accused. As it is, people frequently lie and frequently are mistaken. A staggering number of safeguards against false accusations are required to achieve justice in criminal trials. These safeguards constitute the most defining characteristics of Western jurisprudence; it is no exaggeration to say that criminal justice is organized around the pervasiveness of false accusations. The safeguards against false accusations include: * a presumption of innocence by which an accused is deemed not guilty, which logically translates into a presumption of doubt about the accuser; * proof beyond a reasonable doubt – the highest legal standard of proof – which means no logical uncertainty is left (informally stated, 90–99 per cent proof); * testimony under oath, with the threat of perjury and imprisonment for lying so that witnesses do not take oaths lightly; * the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses to test the truth and reliability of testimony; * the right to legal representation to ensure effective cross-examinations and the experienced weighing of evidence; * the right of an accused to remain silent, which the judge instructs the jury _not_ to view as an admission of guilt; * the right to a public trial with a transcript so that lies or mistakes can be revealed by observers or by future evidence; * a jury of the accused’s peers who are able to assess the credibility of witnesses and evidence. False accusations that occur outside of a criminal court – in the media, for example – have no similar safeguards. Such accusations ruin lives. They show the importance of adopting a fair and balanced approach rather than the salacious one so often used. Lamentably, however, these sort of false accusations are judged by standards that are the inverse of fair court procedure. They include: * a presumption of guilt by which an accused must prove his innocence, which can be impossible. Short of being filmed since birth, a man cannot prove he has never molested a woman; * a standard of proof so low that an accusation becomes true by being spoken; * no sworn testimony from an accuser, with no legal repercussions for lying; * no right of an accused to cross-examination; * no right to refute the accusation in a public forum; * silence and denial are the equivalence of guilt; * no right to a public defense. And whatever is broadcast by the media or other source is rarely retracted if proven to be incorrect; * no ‘jury’ of the accuser’s peers but, instead, supporters of the accuser. Traditional Western jurisprudence protects against false accusations without abandoning the search for truth; modern Western culture is victim-oriented and encourages false accusations, perhaps unintentionally. If “victim-oriented justice” is allowed to pervade the legal system, then traditional safeguards will fall away and become closer to those used in the media. This must not be allowed to happen. Defining aspects of justice, like due process, must not be replaced by “victim-centered” law in which the presumption of innocence is replaced with a presumption of guilt. The best protective barrier is awareness. This is what International False Awareness Day provides: Awareness. And a sense of hope. Lies and mistakes in the application of justice harm men, women, and children who deserve to grow up in a just society. On September 9, celebrate the better future offered by International Falsely Accused Day. This article was originally published by Brownstone Institute.

YouTube video by Shepard Thinks ... with Shepard the Voluntaryist

YouTube video by Intangir Voluntaryist

YouTube video by ANCAP VOLUNTARYIST

Wendy McElroy _Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer._ When and why did the word _gender_ displace the word _sex_? Gender refers to a person’s socially constructed identity of being male, female, or some other category, while sex refers to physical characteristics of male or female, such as chromosomes. Gender is a matter of a person’s self-perception; sex is a circumstance of birth. When did sex get pushed to the curb by gender? In his book The Man Who Invented Gender, Terry Goldie claims that the sexologist John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical Center (Baltimore) first used the word _gender_ in its modern meaning in 1955. Money pioneered the word to describe his famous John/Joan experiment that was conducted on a young boy named Bruce who’d lost his penis in an accident. To ‘prove’ Money’s theory that sexual identity was learned and not biological, Bruce’s parents raised him as a girl, complete with a surgically constructed vagina. The experiment failed. Bruce ultimately insisted on living as male, but he did not recover from the ordeal Money imposed on him, which he called torture. Bruce committed suicide in his 30s. By then, however, Money had declared for decades that John/Joan was a complete success; discussions of ‘gender identity’ abounded in ’60s medical journals and academia. By the ’70s and ’80s, feminists brought the term to the streets, with ‘gender’ describing a person’s self-defined sociocultural identity and ‘sex’ meaning biology. Then, the word wedged its way into government. In 1993, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaced ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ in its literature. In 2011, ‘sex’ returned to the FDA to mean biology while ‘gender’ meant “a person’s self-representation.” The term went global. Also in 1993, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) vaguely defined this aggression as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women.” Genderspeak became the language of elites, social justice activists, and the government, while average people still spoke of ‘sex’. But more than elitism lies behind the difference in words. By swapping in their own terms, elitists – especially professional feminists – grabbed the narrative on sexuality and politicized it to dismiss anyone who disagrees. Since the average male generally still uses biology to define his sexuality, he is an opponent; the average male is a living, breathing disagreement. The ideology of gender faces an obstacle, however. If people can argue effectively against gender, then the narrative is difficult to manage. Those who dissent must be intimidated into silence or otherwise marginalized. The main strategy is to condemn dissenters as hate-filled. If some people cannot be silenced, then their words or opinions can become hate crimes punishable by law. George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four__ is about a dystopian society of social control, which is maintained largely through restricting language. Since words are the foundation of thought, this means people cannot form thoughts, let alone articulate them. The villain of _Nineteen-Eighty-Four_ proclaims, “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” He concludes, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” Men’s health researcher James L Nuzzo highlights an attempt to perfect the language. “In recent years, use of the phrase ‘gender-based violence’ (or ‘gendered violence’) in the titles and abstracts of papers indexed in PubMed has increased noticeably. Between 2019 and 2025, the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) appeared in the titles or abstracts of 2,784 articles indexed in PubMed.” [Chart available here.] A typical definition of gender-related violence or gendered violence is “any form of physical or non-physical violence or abuse against a person or group of people because of biased or harmful beliefs about gender. It can include things that happen online and that use digital technology.” This definition is typical because it includes non-physical violence (discrimination) and abuse (words) that are motivated by non-specific ”biased or harmful beliefs about gender.” _Nineteen-Eighty-Four_ would refer to such non-physical violence as “crimethink,” with thought itself being an assault. Just as ‘sex’ is displaced by ‘gender,’ well-researched and comparatively clear terms such as ‘domestic violence’ are displaced by less-defined ones such as ‘gender-related violence.’ This achieves several goals. For one thing, the confusing definition becomes elastic. Almost any word or act can be stretched to qualify as ‘gender-related violence,’ especially since virtually everything in __ the politicized feminist universe is gender-related.__ But the most important purpose of swapping in the word _gender_ is to __ introduce a subtle but powerful bias that controls the narrative: it creates Genderspeak. The concept of gender comes directly from the twin ideologies of Social Constructionism and Gender Feminism. Social Constructionism tells us that male and female are learned forms of behavior (gender) rather than biology (sex). To this, Gender Feminism adds an ideological layer. Male and female are **patriarchal** learned behaviors: they are social concepts derived from white male capitalistic culture. Thus, approaching violence in a correctly gendered way means rejecting white male capitalism – the economic system that is said to vest power and wealth in the hands of white men at the expense of everyone else. To embrace gender is to reject white male culture and capitalism, with ‘the free market’ usually viewed as a synonym. Genderspeak is similar to Orwell’s Newspeak. Both are ambiguous speech that embeds ideology into the language so that every word perpetuates correcthink – officially approved thought. In Orwell’s dystopian world, Newspeak serves the ideological goals of Ingsoc – an abbreviation for English Socialism. It gradually replaces Oldspeak and becomes pivotal in defining politics and culture.__ Genderspeak has the same ideological goal. If you embed gender ideology into words, then you control how people think and how culture develops. The process goes something like this: > Embed new ideologically driven language when possible. For example, substitute the term ‘gendered violence’ for the more research-driven term ‘domestic violence.’ Eliminate ‘wrong’ words. In _Nineteen-Eighty-Four_ , salvageable literature was rewritten in Newspeak so that authors either disappeared or were reinterpreted to serve Ingsoc. Today, school texts are commonly reviewed to eliminate wrong words. ‘Improper’ ones like ‘Founding Fathers’ are changed to proper ones like ‘Framers.’ Change the meaning of words. In _Nineteen-Eighty-Four_ , the word ‘free’ is used only in the simple form of ‘my sweater is free of lint.’ The concept of freedom does not exist. The current usage of ‘diversity’ in Genderspeak is similar. It is a diversity that tolerates no deviation. Its conclusions are or can be mandated by law. Introduce doublethink. Doublethink is when someone accepts two contradictory ideas as being true. A modern example is students who attend ‘sensitivity training,’ which includes publicly ridiculing and humiliating whites and males because of their race and sex. This is sensitivity?Last of all, decry anyone who objects as a hater and oppressor: punish them. Precise wording provides the incredible benefit of letting people know what they are talking about. It is time to reclaim the richness of precise English… verb by verb, adjective by adjective. Words should not be propaganda that blocks thought – disagreement is no crime. And sex is reality, while gender is not. The concept and the word _gender_ should be abandoned by people who respect either accuracy or truth. This article was originally published by Brownstone Institute.

Wendy McElroy _Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer._ Democrats cannot answer “What is a woman?” so it is not surprising that they struggle to answer “What is a man?” But answer they must because the ‘young male vote’ could mean winning or losing the midterms. And, if Democrats persist in treating men in an insulting manner, they will lose and should lose. The question of how to connect with men arose in the 2024 presidential election because Democrats were desperate to draw on the ‘young male vote,’ which was skewing strongly toward Trump. Moreover, in 2024, only 58.3 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds were registered to vote compared to 80.5 per cent of those 65 to 74; unregistered young men were an untapped demographic, but only if __ they could be reached. About nine weeks before the 2024 election, culture columnist Claire Cain Miller warned Democrats in a _New York Times_ article entitled “Many Gen Z Men Feel Left Behind.” Miller explained, “Some see Trump as an answer” to the demonization of men by identity politics. “Men under 30 are much more likely to support Donald Trump than women their age. It’s a far bigger gender gap than in older generations.” The Democrats tried but badly failed to bridge this gap. And after the election? The post-analysis confirmed the rightward shift of young voters, especially young black and Latino men. The Harvard Kennedy Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation explains why. “I think the Democratic Party’s vision for men has been to be more like women. That’s really been the cultural message: you are not really supposed to embrace masculinity.” Instead, the post-analysis suggests sending men the political message “that you have control over your own circumstances and with enough work, you can rise above and lead your family.” But Democrats chose to double down on their defining issues, such as identity politics, transgender rights, abortion, hating Trump, and mandating wokeness – issues that were likely to alienate many if not most young men. Now it’s 2026, and it is ballot season _again;_ Democrats are desperate for the male vote _again_. This is especially true after the 192-page Democratic National Committee autopsy of the bungled 2024 presidential campaign was finally released in May 2026. The report states, “Harris saw dramatic drops in support among young Latino men and young Black men compared to Biden’s 2020 performance.” _Again_ , the recommendation is to shift from identity politics to directly engaging male voters on the basis of their concerns. But the DNC autopsy has a curious omission in its recommendation to engage with male voters: it says nothing about the best issues to discuss. Nothing. Perhaps they should have consulted the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB) that lists 12 issues that are paramount for many men. Consider a representative sampling of four issues from the ICMB list and compare ICMB’s findings in 2024 with my own research on the same issues in 2026. > Health. **2024** : According to (2021) World Data, the average US male lives 74.8 years; the average female, 80.2. **2026** : According to Worldometer, males live 77.39 years; females 82.23. The ratio is the same and, yet, women’s health is consistently better funded.Partner Abuse. Little seems to have changed. 2024 and 2026 both report one in four men are victims of domestic violence. Yet, compared to women, next to no shelters or services exist for men.Homelessness. **2024** : Of the nations that keep sex-specific data on homelessness, ICMB Research finds 76 per cent of the homeless are men. **2026** : Stats vary but recent estimates for the US place homeless males at 60 per cent of this population. Nevertheless, males are less likely to have access to shelters and services.Reproduction. 2024 and 2026 are identical. Men must legally support a biological child with no right to refuse the responsibility. Women can often terminate their pregnancies at will but men have no legal say in this matter either. The 12-item list is an opportunity for Democrats to gain male votes because – with the exception of one item – the Trump administration has not delivered fairness to men since 2024. But Democrats will never address the ICMB’s list of real male concerns because decades of their own anti-male policies are largely responsible for the problems list. Besides which, promoting fairness to men on issues like DV or reproduction would mean losing support among liberal women, who are still their base. Instead, the Democrats are pursuing a four-pronged strategy. First, there is the standard denigration of Trump. Recent headlines in the _New York Times_ and the _Daily Beast_ read respectively, “Trump’s UFC Event Comes as Backing of Young Men, Once a Strength, Wanes” and “CNN Data Guru Laughs at Trump’s Massive Poll Plunge.” The _Times_ article suggests that the male vote can be bought for the price of a wrestling match, which is insulting; the _Daily Beast_ one reveals a petty meanness, not principles or a concern for men’s issues. Second, the 2024 agonizing over “What is a man?” has returned to talk shows and campaign trails. The question is as absurd as “What is a woman?” and it makes the inquirer look like a fool, not a leader anyone would follow. Third, to directly engage males, the party is following Hillary Clinton’s advice on the party’s need to compete better in podcast and social media spaces. More and more liberal podcasts aimed at male voters are appearing, with the popular Smerconish Podcast being an example. The June 9, 2025 broadcast is described as “Michael [Smerconish] welcomes Ilyse Hogue, co-founder of the Speaking with American Men (SAM) Project, which aims to help the Democratic Party win back young male voters who are no longer aligning themselves with the party, many even becoming more conservative. These are younger men who feel ignored, ridiculed, left behind in education, the labor force, the dating pool, and other areas.” Democrats have made impressive inroads into podcasts and social media. Fourth, as another way to connect with young males, Democrats are running candidates for the midterms that are said to embody manhood. A _Los Angeles Times_ headline declares “Democrats put forward two styles of American masculinity” to fight what the _Atlantic_ calls “the modern politics of masculinity.” The first manly candidate both articles describe is Graham Platner, the controversial Democratic nominee for Senator in Maine. He is controversial for the Nazi Totenkopf tattoo he had to remove, as well as his profanity, communism, adultery, insults, physical, and emotional abuse of women. He is the Democratic version of the ‘toxic masculinity’ that liberals decry in Trump. Despite this or because of it, he allegedly appeals to male voters through his ultra-masculine, man-of-the-streets persona. To the _Wall Street Journal_ , Platner constitutes “the rise of the ‘dude-bro’ candidate.” The second supposedly manly candidate is James Talarico, the controversial Democratic nominee for Senator in Texas, He is controversial because he mixes a strange Christianity (“God is non-binary”) with an outspoken progressivism (“our trans community needs abortion care”). He is the Democratic answer to Charlie Kirk, who drew stadiums full of young people with his blend of religion and conservatism. Talarico is meant to have a similar appeal to progressive youth, especially young men. Back to reality. Platner and Talarico do not express masculinity. If Democrats believe they do, then they need to return to basics and re-ask “What is a woman? What is a man?” because their answers are borderline insane. If Democrats want to appeal to young male voters, then they should emulate the most effective strategy they have used so far: podcasts and social media. Smerconish addresses alienated young men with respect and understanding. He discusses their issues – the real ones like being “left behind in education, the labor force, the dating pool, and other areas.” It works. These are difficult issues to discuss if you are unwilling to admit the biological reality of two sexes or believe that pharmaceuticals will invent a magic potion to convert one to another in some kind of transhumanist fantasy. I doubt if Democrats have the self-awareness, however, to realize that the young men about whom they evince concern have been alienated by the identity politics with which liberals have beaten them senseless for decades. Democrats need to put down this club. Nothing less will be effective. This article was originally published by Brownstone Institute.