McCain and Palin: the same old Puritanical bullshit. Anglo-American men need a new, dynamic conservatism to advance their cause.
OK, guys – advanced Anglobitch class in session.
Promoting Anglo-American conservatism necessarily means clinging to traditional Anglo-American values – yet these very values have poisoned gender-relations across the Anglosphere. Hence, Anglo-American conservatism needs to be extensively reformulated sans those misandrist principles to be of any use to us. Simply extolling the same ‘traditional’ concepts - when these have wrought only crass dysfunction - is utter folly. The 'mythopoietic' Men's Movement arising from Robert Bly's Iron John draws inspiration from ancient or 'chthonic' archetypes of manhood prevalent in non-Anglosphere, pre-modern cultures. While good enough in its way, this movement will always remain the preserve of hippies and drop-outs: a total redefinition of modern manhood is necessary to build a dynamic, influential Men's Movement across the Anglosphere and beyond.
Oliver Cromwell: Cultural Architect of Pan-Anglosphere Puritanism
A cursory glance at Anglo-American history showes the consistent triumph of puritanical values. In the English Civil War (1642-46) the Royalists under Charles I were decisively defeated, the result being a period of austere Commonwealth with a lasting impact on Anglo-American civilization (the same English puritans colonized America, for instance).
The American Civil War in some respects re-framed the same libertarian/puritan distinction. The southern term 'Billy Yank' denoted a narrow minded puritan, the existential antithesis of the libertarian Southerner. Of utmost interest to the Anglobitch Thesis was the specifically matriarchal nature of the Northern States. Since Southern slave owners and other white males enjoyed free sexual access to female slaves, Southern women had far lower sexual status than Northern women – with minimal power of sexual barter and manipulation. Unsurprisingly, Northern women tended to be fervent abolitionists (of course, it worked indirectly to their advantage to restrict the ready ‘sexual supply’ Southern men enjoyed). In short, proto-feminist dynamics inflected the Civil War's conduct and outcome.
The American Civil War Touched on Feminist Agendas
It may be said that Northern women opposed slavery for the same reason modern American feminists support VAWA – a repressive society strengthens their powers of sexual manipulation, binding males in erotic servitude. Indeed, British military historian John Keegan claims that Southern American women remain culturally distinct from other Anglosphere women to this day, resembling females from less puritanical cultures like France or Norway. If so, this surely derives from the libertine nature of the antebellum South. In short, a surfeit of sex weakens women's status as 'owners' of sexual reward, emphasizing their more nurturing and feminine traits by default. On the plantations of the Old South, with countless fertile young women 'on tap', Anglobitch ‘sex-bartering’ as a tool of manipulation would have wrought little effect. Of course, the institution of slavery was entirely wrong from any moral perspective; for all that, it clearly had some positive effects on Southern white women.
Disney Princesses. A Side-Effect of Northern victory in the Civil War?
It must also be noted that the Union victory set a puritan stamp on American society for the next 150 years – popularly expressed in saccharine Disney pap, tedious strip clubs and misandrist Anglo-feminism. It is notable that the worst hotbeds of Anglo-Saxon feminism tend to be in the northern USA – principally New York and the Ivy League Colleges. Those are America’s 'Anglo heartlands' – socially, politically and culturally. While rich in the rhetoric of liberation, such places are in fact more repressive than seventeenth century New England or even Cromwell’s Commonwealth (has anyone heard of Harvard’s Antioch Rules, for instance? For the uninitiated, males have to gain written permission merely to touch women's hands, arms and other extremities. Now, isn't that so liberated?). Just scratch The Sex and the City veneer and you’ll find the same old grasping Anglobitches.
Old English Puritans: The TRUE Cultural Ancestors of Modern Anglo Feminists
In short, the triumphant Anglo-American tradition is puritanism – the very tradition that directly gave rise to misandrist Anglo-feminism. Invoking this tradition (as so many MRAs do, for example American Women Suck) is harming the male cause, not strengthening it.
However, this begs the question: What kind of conservative politics best serves Anglo American men, considering the prevailing puritan tradition is implicitly feminist and misandrist?
Perhaps a mild libertarianism best fits the bill. By 'mild', we mean ‘government small enough for society to function, but not large enough to impinge on fiscal or personal freedom’. In addition, this politics would need to be entirely free of puritanical Protestant Christianity (a major obsession both of American Republicans and British/Commonwealth conservatives), which remains at the root of the Anglobitch phenomenon. From the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, collectivist big government politics is generally allied with feminism (left-liberal politicians are more likely to produce daughters than sons, suggesting a biological origin for most gender-political affiliations). Certainly, in Welfare rich Anglosphere societies like Britain, underclass women have ‘married the state’ as ‘state brides’ and men are essentially taxed to support their profligate, idle and dysfunctional lifestyles. Indeed, welfare-funded institutions retain an active misandrist animus in Anglo-Saxon countries – for example, ‘vulnerable’ women are at the very top of British public housing lists, while men constitute 98% of the homeless.
Britain's David Cameron - another puritanical Anglo-Saxon White Knight. Anglo-American Conservatism urgently needs to be re-defined
In sum, reducing the state is definitely to men’s advantage, removing the White Knight agendas brutally imposed on our wage packets. However, the specifically puritan agendas present in pan-Anglosphere conservatism must be utterly rejected. Finally, the misandrist Anglo memes originating as socio-biological hangovers from the pre-modern need to protect female reproductive potential have to be ruthlessly recognized and excised from the media, law and politics. Indeed, eternal vigilance will be needed to check their spontaneous reemergence at some future date. Enough government must be maintained to do this – but it must be government of a minimalist, incisive kind.
1. That Anglosphere women should have rights or privileges – but not both.
2. If Anglo women opt for rights, they must submit for draft registration and active military service in order to defend those rights. All preferential treatment they presently receive before the law and elsewhere must be removed.
3. VAWA and all state repression of male partner choice must be immediately suspended.
Makes Roissy’s Game rhetoric look rather ephemeral, doesn’t it? He and his ilk are good at what they do, but what does that amount to - telling pimply college boys how to insert their penises into the diseased vaginas of obese Anglo-American females? That is good as far as it goes, but Anglobitch has far loftier ambitions. We know we have cracked the code to Anglo-American feminism and identified the sources of its misandrist agenda. Far from being an aberration, it is in fact a flawless expression of core Anglo-Saxon socio-sexual values. Only a radical redefinition and reappraisal of Anglo-Saxon culture can save the Anglosphere from cultural suicide, and the world in general from the Anglobitch infection.
Now, none of this is work for voluptuaries or morons. Why then, to quote Nietzsche, should I 'look for the noughts'? Some people come here and say, ‘these ideas must be presented across the Anglosphere. Go to the Spearhead and post there if you want to move the masses’.
The question is, do I want to move the masses? Are the masses of any use? If we consider Alexander’s battles at Issus and Guegemala, he effortlessly defeated the Persians – despite being outnumbered by more than six to one. The secret of success lay not in numbers and their dead weight, but in his motivated, skilled Macedonian army. In the same way, I seek only the highest quality readers from the Anglosphere and beyond – men of elite consciousness who can forge a new future.