Thursday, 30 September 2010
A reader asked me to respond to the following article:
So I did...
Thomas Fleming seems to think that men in contemporary western societies should grit their teeth and defend women like males did in earlier, pre-feminist eras, setting them on pedestals and turning a blind eye to their iniquitous conduct. He fails to see that this is not only morally unreasonable, it is also wholly impracticable. Since the late fifties, sixties or seventies (depending on which feminist school you prefer), women have actively rejected conventional males in favor of thugs, deadbeats and sociopaths, along with other ‘cuties’ like violent criminals and swaggering plutocrats. The result is a large rump of sexually and reproductively disenfranchised middle-class males in most Anglosphere societies. These males have followed all the advice given to them by parents, schools, professors and the feminist media and ended up in the living death of involuntary celibacy (or the even worse fate of post-divorce male penury). And still Fleming expects men to view Anglo-American women as Disney princesses above all reproach, as did the bourgeois class in the nineteenth century. Is this man serious? The REAL question American men are asking in ever increasing numbers is: “WHY should I defer to women when all it leads to is false harassment charges, female contempt, involuntary celibacy and, if I’m luck, an icky divorce which leaves me in a trailer-park paying for kids I never see!”
What Fleming fails to grasp is that any complex society is an engine. If one or more components fail, the engine won’t work. Judeo-Christianity is an illogical hotchpotch of competing positions, some of which led directly to the Marxism that most American conservatives claim to excoriate. However, the ancient Hebrews DID realize that monogamy sustains civilization by giving nearly all males a genetic stake in society. This is especially important for the conceptual class, whose cognitive contributions are essential if any advanced culture is to flourish. It is crucial to civilization that genes for intelligence and deferred gratification are maintained in viable quotas, for those qualities ‘oil the wheels’ of civilization, as it were. This is why advanced nations encourage immigration only by cognitive elites – scientists, architects, engineers and other high IQ ‘betas’, seldom criminals or unskilled workers. Unfortunately, unfettered female sexuality prefers layabouts, thugs and sociopaths, leading not only to a sharp decline in collective intelligence and social capital but also a crisis of confidence among middle class males. Are they supposed to maintain their old deference for women, when this results only in female contempt and sexual failure? Are they supposed to lay down their lives for women who despise the very air they breathe? Well, since the feminist/sexual revolution that is EXACTLY what they have been asked to do and frankly, they just aren’t listening any more. In sum, feminism has sabotaged monogamy, THE vital heart of our social engine. All the other components are struggling, as might be expected. Yet Fleming persists in believing that one part of the engine should continue to work as it has always done for no benefit whatsoever, though the rest of the engine does not work at all.
To hell with that! Women cannot shirk their monogamous responsibilities and expect men to respect them on the old terms. In reality, men will only sacrifice for women if there is some genetic payback. Men on the Titanic only sacrificed themselves because their own female kin – sisters, wives and daughters – were in the lifeboats. There is no reason for men to sacrifice themselves when they have no female kin (the lot of a good many pan-Anglosphere males) and most other women actively despise them. The men’s movement has arisen because singleness permits male objectivity on the issue of women. As Camille Paglia once wrote, ‘female beauty is the world’s most potent drug’. Once the promise of sex and beauty is removed, however, men can afford to see women as they really are: grasping, hypocritical, selfish. With many more men single, childless and divorced, there is simply no REASON for widespread male self-delusion or chivalry. Men are now free to rationally criticize women without fear of censure or rebuke, since they are disenfranchised in all senses, anyway… hence, the Men’s Movement. Another interesting expression of this ‘new objectivity’ is a healthy tendency to take women to task for racism, fascism and other forms of intolerance. Until very recently, a ‘blind eye’ was habitually turned to these unlovely female traits – but no longer.
In conclusion, Fleming is suffering from a particularly virulent case of Pedestal Syndrome, a sickness that afflicts many pan-Anglosphere conservatives. Since Anglo-Saxon culture is puritanical and repressive, it reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings while idolizing women as ‘owners’ of sex. This is what renders Anglo-American conservatives so ineffectual in the face of misandrist Anglo feminism; they reflexively defend what they profess to attack, reminiscent of British psychiatrist R D Laing’s concept of the ‘Double Bind’. The reader who has followed me this far can surely see Fleming’s tired formulations as abetting and advancing feminism by vilifying men and idealizing women – in short, defending the puritan cancer that is presently rotting Anglo-Saxon civilization from the inside out. In his warped Anglo-puritan perspective, the female can jettison ALL social responsibilities to men, while men are expected to discharge ALL their traditional duties to women without genetic, social or economic benefit. I wish him luck with that.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Male Singleness and the Rise of the Men's Movement (or, the Fringe Benefits of Sexual Disenfranchisement)
Why has the pan-Anglosphere men's movement exploded into life in recent years? Even in the late Twentieth Century, the movement was fairly marginalized, with a mere handful of male writers daring to criticize feminism.
Since about 2007, all that has changed. We have made the Internet our own, creating a potent network of blogs, sites and fora in every digital arena. We have made some legal gains (consider the limited anonymity granted to the accused in British rape cases). Many female journalists in the pan-Anglosphere press express increasing concern about the decline of masculine chivalry and the rise of Game, MRA activism and foreign dating sites.
Obviously, the Internet has had a major role in this explosion. The pan-Anglosphere 'mainstream' media reflexively project a feminist, matriarchal perspective since (as we all know) Anglo-Saxon culture is implicitly feminist, anyway. The Internet therefore represents a natural medium for counter hegemonic masculinist initiatives - indeed, perhaps the sole avenue. And of course, the 'mainstream' media are atomizing or declining, further strengthening the masculinist agenda.
A new, iconoclastic spirit is abroad. After hating on men for the past thirty years, Anglo-American women are suddenly waking up to the fact that American men don't like them very much. This explains their shrill denunciation of foreign dating sites, Game, activism, the escort industry and other dynamic masculine responses to their casual misandry. American men are saying: "Ok, Anglobitch - if you hate men, that's fine. I'll just jet off to Russia, Venezuela or Thailand to find a woman who likes men - and thinner, prettier and sexier than you, to boot."
The oddest thing about this is the Anglobitch response - when Anglo-American women have directly engineered these outcomes. Freed by singleness from any need to delude themselves about women, American men have addressed their issues with typical dynamic candor. Their reward is a cacophony of abuse from the entitled Anglobitch and her 'mainstream' media apologists, still steeped in infantile subjectivity and mouthing the same tired, feminist mantras: 'You can't handle a strong woman'; 'men are trapped in the past'; 'women know what they want'; 'men just want an unpaid house-servant'; and so on.
However, another factor is at work in this great masculine awakening, not just the expansion of the Internet and its infinite capacity for democratic, rational discourse. With various national modulations, the Anglosphere has witnessed the steady decline of stable, monogamous relationships since the mid-Seventies. Today, over 50% percent of American marriages fail and ever-increasing numbers of singletons of both sexes proliferate. In some American urban centers, most people are now single and unattached. In the UK, a third of households are now headed by single people, something unthinkable only a generation ago.
Interestingly, the men's movement has burgeoned in accord with this demographic shift. This surely relates to the fact that - without close female kin - many Anglo males can now view western women with a clear, objective eye. When men have wives, partners or daughters, they cannot afford this ruthless objectivity; they have too much personal investment in their female kin. But now, with ever more males living in isolation from females and without emotional links to them, they are free to analyze female insolence and entitlement for the first time.
Let us elaborate. When nearly all men had female partners and children, they had a biological incentive to ignore female privilege. After all, their own wives and daughters were the principal recipients of it. Once a large proportion of men no longer had wives or daughters, however, chivalry instantly lost its ulterior biological incentive. Consequently men began to see women in their true light, as state-sponsored tyrants and pedestal princesses. This, I would aver, is the major reason for the recent rise of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement. When one's wife and daughters are safe in the lifeboats, chivalry makes sense; when one has no wife or daughters, it makes no sense whatsoever. Thus the men's movement represents a conceptual revolution comparable to the European Enlightenment, with the same profound implications.
Many more men are asking: "why should I continue apologizing for women? What's in it for me?" When men are single and childless, the answer is simply this: nothing. Gender objectivity is the privilege of the single, never the sexually enfranchised. Hence, the recent explosion of single men has facilitated a heightened objectivity concerning gender-relations and, ultimately, the rise of the men's movement. I think this a very profound and overlooked fact, and one that might be manipulated to further our cause in the fullness of time. It also explains the middle-class, hyper-rational ethos of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement, since such objective self-awareness always defines the educated and intelligent, never sentimental dullards. Calls for female draft registration and an end to to pro-female educational and legal discrimination all spring from the same source: unfettered objectivity.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
I know a number of my readers hail from Mexico, that dark, virile land of exotic ruins and glittering mysteries. I recently reread a book I first encountered over twenty years ago, namely Gary Jennings' Aztec. This wonderful novel sheds much light on the Anglobitch Thesis, exposing the repressive dysfunction at the heart of Anglo-Saxon culture and its ultimate, tragic expression in misandrist feminism. Jennings spent over ten years in Mexico researching his peerless novel, even going so far as to learn the esoteric art of Aztec picture writing and Nahuatl, the ancient language of the region. This intense immersion in Aztec culture bore fruit in a book that shows us a sophisticated world of trade, warfare and statecraft entirely free of Anglo-Saxon - indeed, western - repression, and its attendant misandry.
The fictional narrator is a certain Mixtli, the son of skilled artisans who by judgment and good fortune rises into the mercantile class and then, for a brief time before the Spanish conquest, the Aztec nobility. His autobiographical account is full of extraordinary journeys and adventures in the three nations of the Nahuatl One World, not to mention the fascinating peoples of central America, including the Maya, with whom they trade.
The light that Aztec sheds on the Anglobitch Thesis is especially interesting. Aztec culture is gallant, manly and virile, without a trace of feminist misandry or female 'appeasement'. This 'masculine' civilization flourishes because Aztec culture is entirely free of sexual repression. Consequently, women have no intrinsic status in ancient Mexico, beyond their social birth-class. This shows us that feminism does not - indeed, can not - exist in a truly liberated culture. When sex has scarcity value it becomes a sacrament bestowed by women on males, thereby creating a misandrist climate that permits both the rise of feminism and the marginalization of men.
Wherever Mixtli travels, fresh young women are available for his sexual entertainment. Every inn on the road has an adjoining whore-house, just as it has beds, drinks and breakfast. A lissom whore is always available, served up like a glass of wine or a hearty meal, an uncomplaining body for men to enjoy. Sickly Anglo repression is utterly absent from the Aztec world - and with it, misandrist feminism of the odious Anglo variety.
The foregoing illustrates the intimate relationship between sexual repression and feminism. In repressed cultures, female status automatically rises as 'givers' of sex, while male are denigrated for being sexualized beings. Misandrist feminism arises from these imbalanced conditions, then the rabid misandry that defines the contemporary Anglosphere. Indeed, Pan-Anglosphere civilization with its sickly 'homosociality', endemic misandry and rampant 'woman worship' exemplifies the dangers of repression like no other.
Recently, the British press has been bleating abuse against international soccer players Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney for enjoying the services of prostitutes. This hypocritical, hysterical opprobrium highlights the repressive puritanism that still characterizes the Anglo-American world. If virile young males want casual sex, so what? They are merely expressing the healthy instincts of youth. True to their subliminal puritan agenda, however, the British press reflexively excoriate Rooney and Crouch as depraved monsters for merely acting as normal young males. Despite its boisterous rhetoric, Anglo culture inheres to a puritanical ethos that decries healthy sexual appetites as 'sick' and 'sinful', demonizing all males by default. Observe everywhere the results: male educational failure (despite superior intelligence), soaring male suicide rates, the 'feminization' of Anglo intellectual life, and much else besides.
The contrast with Mixtli's world of boundless masculine liberation is searing and absolute. In Aztec society, men enjoy complete liberation and women have no power; in the contemporary Anglosphere, men are erotically suppressed and women have all the power. Clearly, feminism will flourish wherever male sexual freedom is absent, which is why our Anglosphere nurtures the most misandrist brand of feminism of all. And so the Anglobitch Thesis is confirmed yet again, in all its particulars.
Lord Rookh Kshatriya, Revered Speaker of the Anglobitch Thesis