Saturday, 31 July 2010

Conservatism: the Perilous Flaw in Anglo-American Masculinism



'When the great fall, the less must lead' - Tolkien

A general distinction has arisen in pan-Anglosphere masculinism. The British wing of masculinism is strong on theory while the American wing is much stronger on practice. This is what we might expect, given the different intellectual traditions of the two nations. America’s great contribution to intellectual life is the pragmatist philosophical movement, while Britain is renowned for inventing things (computers and jet engines, for instance) but failing to capitalise on them. In short, Britain is theory-rich, practice-poor. The British theoretical approach seems very popular with Americans, who perhaps need some conceptual guidance for their practical efforts. However, I have noticed a key problem in the British ‘theoretical’ masculinist movement that may cause untold damage if it continues unchecked: knee-jerk adherence to 'conservatism'.

Certain masculinists are obsessed with trying to reprise traditional Anglo-Saxon values as an antidote to feminism. But – and this is the really, really important thing to grasp – in Anglo-Saxon countries, traditional values ARE the source of feminism. This is because ‘traditional’ Anglo culture is puritanical, demonizing all men as sexual beings. Because women are comparatively frigid and denatured, Anglo culture unthinkingly places them on pedestals, however they act. We see this endlessly played out in American court-rooms, where decent men are fleeced of their wealth and children by husband-beaters and adulteresses on a daily basis.

Anglo feminism is a fearful hybrid, crossing women’s rights with puritanical repression and producing women with vast power sans all responsibility. Given this background, we can see quite plainly why resurrecting traditional Anglo-Saxon values can only strengthen feminism. Anglo feminism expresses Anglo culture – repressive, puritanical and hypocritical. Modern feminism is not progressive, in the least. Its assumptions are essentially Victorian, decrying virility and sexual freedom at every turn.


Devastating proof of this can be seen in Prime Minister David Cameron’s limp-dicked retreat on the thorny issue of male anonymity in heterosexual rape cases. Doctor Snark and other ‘conservative’ British masculinists were excited by Cameron’s promise to grant anonymity to the accused, not just the accuser. They assumed that a ‘conservative’ would uphold men’s rights and freedoms.

None of it!

Cameron immediately crumpled before rabid feminist and man-hater Harriet Harman, reformulating the Bill to only grant anonymity until trial. More worrying still, Cameron has pledged more (yet more!) support for female rape 'victims'.

From the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis, this craven capitulation to misandrist feminism is entirely predictable. In the Anglosphere, ‘tradition’ means repression and, in the end, repression maintains Anglo feminism. Consequently, Anglo ‘traditions’ can only worsen the male situation in the Anglosphere. Yet conservative masculinists persist in trying to resurrect the repressive values that brought us to this desperate pass in the first place.


The same problem inheres to the new discipline of Male Studies, which emphasizes the innate differences between the sexes. While such differences surely exist, without challenging the default contempt for masculinity implicit in Anglo culture such an enterprise is pointless. Men and women are different... well, so what? Most smart people have worked that out by age twelve. Unless Male Studies frees masculinity from its strait-jacket of misandrist contempt, it is a pointless discipline. Indeed, emphasising innate gender differences without reversing the Anglosphere’s default misandry could well be dangerous, legitimizing the further marginalisation of men and boys. This is another variant of the ‘conservative problem’ implicit in Anglo-Saxon masculinism – extolling Anglo tradition merely defends feminist misandry, since traditional Anglo Puritanism promotes feminism by default.

Male Studies can discuss hormonal, physical and genetic differences between the sexes until Doomsday (probably adding little beyond Professor Glenn Wilson’s superb The Great Sex Divide) but if masculine virtues remain reviled by the parent culture, such discussion might merely advance feminist misandry. After all, Anglo feminists frequently invoke innate differences to explain their greater sociality and emotionalism. Male studies will subliminally promote the same misandrist agenda unless masculinity is seen as virtuous. Its apologists cannot perceive this danger because they are mostly soft scientists (anthropologists and psychologists) with little grasp of ideological conflict.


Let us turn now to the true origins of Anglo feminism’s intellectual ancestry. Throughout conservative MRA writings we find an obsession with Marxism and a callow conflation of Marxism with Anglo-American radicalism. This has gone unchallenged for far too long. Marxism has an intellectual heritage quite distinct from Anglo-American radicalism and cannot be simplistically conflated with it.

Marxism hails from the German-speaking world, being derived from Hegel’s metaphysics. Broadly speaking, Hegel thought that history unfolded towards a state of social enlightenment (which he believed was the nineteenth century Prussian state). In sum, his ideas were not leftist or liberal at all – fascists admire Hegel just as much as Marx did. Marx simply transferred Hegel’s concepts into the socio-economic sphere. He believed that socio-economic classes (defined by their relationship to the economic means of production) underwent a similar process of historical development, with capitalism yielding to communism - a society without classes where all were valued equally. At first the State (echoes of Hegel’s authoritarianism) would have to 'manage' this Communist utopia. Eventually it would ‘wither away’ however, leaving humanity in an eternally benign condition.

At first glance, these ideas are quite alien to the Anglo-American intellectual tradition. For Hegel and Marx, the individual is subsumed in collective waves of social change like a leaf in a storm. In short, Marxism is intellectually Germanic, with an ‘organic’ view of humanity that completely denies individualism and private property. One thinks of Nazi marches and Prussian military schools, not the Alamo or an English village pub. This is because Anglo-American radicalism follows a very distinct line of descent from Marxism. What is that heritage and how did it shape feminism?

Long before Marx and Hegel (1215, actually), the English barons made King John sign the Magna Carta, forcing him to acknowledge the innate rights and freedoms of the English people. In the Seventeenth Century, the English beheaded King Charles I for transgressing those freedoms. A century later, the fledgling United States won its independence from the British crown. In sum, the English-speaking world has an autonomous radical tradition quite independent of Marxism and antedating it by centuries.


In the nineteenth century, Anglo radicalism re-emerged as Christian socialism, especially in Britain. In the States it resurfaced as the temperance movement. Of course, the association between Puritanism and radicalism has always existed – consider Cromwell’s repressive Commonwealth, or the Pilgrim Fathers. Much more importantly, feminism also arose in that turbulent era. It was not new, nor was it Marxist; its origins can be traced back to the very origins of the anglosphere. And from the get-go, it embodied the inhuman loathing of sex and pleasure that has long marred Anglo culture.

The sickly repression of the Victorians cohered with radical feminism to produce a ‘women’s movement’ more intent on suppressing masculinity, virility and pleasure than advancing women’s rights – a crabbed agenda still characteristic of Anglo feminism today. Indeed, contemporary feminist hysteria against (largely imaginary) sex trafficking, prostitution, pornography and other legitimate forms of sensual expression could well come from the Victorian era (in fact, I aver that they do!).

So we are back to our principal theme, that Anglo culture is inherently misandrist and matriarchal by virtue of its Puritanism. Marxism is irrelevant to the issue - repressive Anglo radicalism gave birth to feminism, not Marx or Hegel. That tradition has an admirable love of liberty. Crossed with Puritan feminism, however, it became the curse of the Anglosphere. As ever, Anglo repression sickens all it touches.

In conclusion, only a total redefinition of Anglo culture will permit coherent resistance to Anglo-American feminism. Invoking ‘traditional’ Anglo values can lead only to defeat for the pan-Anglosphere men’s movement. A better alternative is a new, revolutionary agenda that severs all links with Anglo Puritanism. ‘Conservatism’ has failed us utterly, as David Cameron has demonstrated.


Having worked hard on this peerless piece, I feel all readers should profit from my pain. Let all readers (official and otherwise;-)) enjoy a fresh young whore this very week. Wherever you walk in the Anglosphere or the world, whatever your mood or pleasure, have this one on me. In one fell swoop you assail feminism, mock repression, strengthen the male position and make me very, very happy.

Excelsior!

13 comments:

  1. Another great post! It's funny how prostitution is illegal in "anglo countries." Your right, anglo countries are repressive and hate anything having to do with sex. It does go back to puritanism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you are right about the conservative-puritanical source of feminism, then maybe there is some hope from the destruction of the Anglo-American education systems; for they are nothing if not anti-tradition. So maybe the feminist schools have shot themselves in the foot?

    As a corollary, the rise of the chavs and chavettes, has coincided with the new-wave public education implosion; whereby some kids are developing their own 'society' out of the chaos left behind by the feminist teachers.

    Either way, be it a puritanical tradition, or a Marxist radicalism, feminism will probably lead to chaos, and either intended or unintended revolution. Let us hope this time round, it's the Tricoteuse that get the chop.

    ReplyDelete
  3. *If you are right about the conservative-puritanical source of feminism, then maybe there is some hope from the destruction of the Anglo-American education systems; for they are nothing if not anti-tradition.*

    A very astute observation. It has not escaped my notice that the pan-Anglosphere men's movement (such as it is) has grown markedly since the breakdown of hegemonic institutions like schools and the mainstream media. It is up to us to pick up the pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 真正仁慈的人,會忘記他們做過的善行,他們全心投入現在的工作,過去的事已被遺忘。.................................................

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent piece...

    There is a site called, "The Thinking Housewife" - I was going to write up an essay calling it, "The Spark that Lit the Fire" - the fire being feminism and modern male-hatred. The woman who runs it holds on to traditional values of our culture - and it seems like those values are no different than the men-hating values of today (maybe a slightly different flavor).

    It seems like the old traditional values are just a more "delusional" form of feminism - where men are still demonized - and fooled into believing that they are in control (the B.S. of patriarchy).

    AND - thank you for pointing out the danger's of "male studies". This was something I thought of as well. What good will "male studies" do - when male-hatred is the real issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. P.S. I never wrote up the piece on "The Thinking Housewife" - because I am working on getting more feedback about that woman's site.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It seems like the old traditional values are just a more "delusional" form of feminism - where men are still demonized - and fooled into believing that they are in control (the B.S. of patriarchy)."

    You're walking into 1970s Feministic "Men's Studies" discourse here (which would make you a psuedo-MRA).

    This discourse attempted to demonize "patriarchy" (male power and institutions that create/uphold male power) telling men they were "victims" of such an order. This is an trick that the feminists have been using for quite some time.

    The intended recipients/followers of this message - men - were however useful idiots. Not only would they abandon any sense of the righteousness "patriarchy", they would also be encouraged to acquiesce to the new Gynocentrist/Gynocratic Order, in which men zero agency.

    Feminists neglected to tell men that "patriarchy" would be replaced by something specific (feminism, society ordered on feminist principles) and this would not be friendly towards men at all. Naturally, where feminism marginalizes and deceives men, the "Men's Studies" has nothing to say. Because feminists do not care one whit about the welfare of men; they only care to brainwash men and control the debate.

    Beware of the 1970s "Men's Studies" "Patriarchy hurts men too" line. It is pernicious and vicious: intended to hurt and disempower men, as all feminism is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous.

    "The B.S. of Patriarchy":

    I was suggesting that patriarchy never actually existed - not that it was bad...

    P.S. WHO ARE YOU!?

    That is an excellent comment!!!

    I wish I knew who it came from - in case you have a blog or something - I could follow...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wouldn't consider myself conservative. I never have and I don't think I ever did call myself one.

    What I did say was that I was excited about the prospects of a government which stated it would grant anonymity to men accused of rape - and that this marked a sea change from the Labour government.

    But that does not make ME a conservative - philosophically speaking there is a great distance between conservatives and myself. And I have subsequently lost all faith in the coalition government since Cameron's 'limp dick' backtracking on the issue (although I do find them preferable to Labour on many other issues).

    Angry Harry was not in favour of the proposal. He is in favour of taking anonymity away from the accuser, rather than granting it to the accused. He's written on a long piece on this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Then I have been misinformed, my apologies to you and him. Cameron is an odd fish, promising everything to this one and that one. His backtracking did not surprise me at all since he all too obviously has a pro-feminist agenda. This is entirely what one would expect in light of my foregoing analysis:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7090065.stm

    Also, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with conservatism. In the Anglo-American context the 'conservative problem' lies solely in puritanical repression. As I have repeatedly shown and most MRAs now recognize, this aspect of Anglo-Saxon culture is at the root of our travails, sustaining Anglo feminism at every turn. Indeed, it could be argued it is a 'contrary meme' in the total cultural nexus, in that it clashes strongly with the deep Anglo traditions of choice and self-reliance. In the hands of Anglo feminists, puritanical repression has thus become a 'non-conservative conservatism'.

    By the way, I was wondering why you closed your blog. I and many others enjoyed reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It was something that had to be done. All content worth keeping will be back in a somewhat different form.

    'Non-conservative conservatism' is a good descriptor of Anglo feminism.

    ReplyDelete