Sunday, 8 January 2012

Anglo-American Men: The New Mercenaries


Machiavelli placed great reliance on the motivated citizen army as the best defensive backbone of any state. Mercenaries might well be excellent soldiers but - and it is a crucial but - their lack of loyalty makes them a liability in the long run. If they are victorious, they wish to subvert the State and seize power for themselves. If defeated, they 'serve up misfortune' in the usual manner.

In many respects, western males (and Anglosphere males in particular) have been reduced to mercenaries by feminism and sexual politics. They have no intimate connection to the nations in which they live, no longer raising families or taking any active social responsibility. This is especially true of middle-class males, who enjoy a nomadic existence as technical or commercial consultants while excluding themselves from social and civic life. According to Machiavelli, such a state of affairs will make the State brittle and prone to external overthrow, since mercenaries have no loyalty to any State or sovereign.

I would argue that the men's Movement is the organic expression of this new 'mercenary' mindset. What have always been the pleasures of a mercenary? Sex and money. And on the one hand we have the Game practitioners telling men how to acquire sex outside traditional forms of commitment, while more serious MRA theorists coach men to avoid divorce and try their romantic luck in foreign lands (thus protecting their assets and incomes). Neither of these two strategies should be decried, of course; having been dealt a mercenary's hand by misandrist Anglo feminism, Anglo-American men can hardly be blamed for acting like mercenaries.

In earlier eras, men across the Anglosphere would usually rally when their country called. Intimately embedded in the cultural nexus, such loyalty represented their obligations as social beings. Today, only the 'no hope' working classes join Anglosphere armies in any numbers (explaining the Anglo elite's willingness to commit such troops to military 'lost causes'). By contrast, the middle-class Anglo-American male has largely 'washed his hands' of such fruitless loyalties.

Tommy Fleming and other Anglo-American conservatives claim that this withdrawal represents the deterioration of American manhood. They miss a crucial point, however: that post-feminist Anglo-American society does not reward masculine loyalty. Simply put, there is no pay-off for male conformity under the feminist matriarchy. While earlier generations of men could expect loyal wives, stable families and public recognition in return for their social loyalty, the post-feminist world offers only sexual disenfranchisement, costly divorce and public vilification in return for chivalrous behavior.



Tommy Fleming and his ilk expect men to 'open their veins' for women for no returns whatsoever. In the conservative model of things, the male is like a customer who enters a car-dealership with a million dollars in his pocket. He is expected to lay all his money down on an old, clapped-out jalopy and be damned happy for the privilege! Indeed, Fleming (and a good many 'new conservative' feminists) would have him revel in the experience, oddly grateful for the uneven transaction.

And so the mercenary lifestyle can only grow. While David Futrelle might sneer at MRAs 'going Galt', mercenary values are already widespread among middle-class, Anglo-American males. A few decades ago, 80% of Americans in their twenties were married; today, the figure is a mere 20%. In a few years, that figure will drop to zero - and be echoed all around the Anglosphere.

Machiavelli argued that reliance on mercenaries is the root cause of any society's collapse. Rome itself came to rely on Visigothic mercenaries and, according to Machiavelli, its long-term decline and fall coincided with this reliance. In a broader sense, any State is reliant on male goodwill for effective functioning. The female contribution is largely in the humanistic field, the liberal arts and the 'caring' occupations like nursing - insufficient to keep advanced industrial societies functioning. Male disengagement (or expulsion, depending on one's perspective) across the Anglosphere will inevitably witness the fraying of societal structures and, more important, the informal assumptions that sustain them. Indeed, it could be argued that this process is already well-advanced, especially in Britain and the United States - the two core Anglosphere countries.

The 'traditional' men's movement has a misguided obsession with 'putting the clock back' to a pre-feminist era such as the 1950s. This is problematic in a number of ways, not least that the puritanical Anglosphere nurtures a centuries-old misandry. In addition, complex social processes are by definition irreversible, nullifying such reactionary ambitions. Once a significant social phenomenon like feminism has been 'lived through' (as Wittgenstein put it), it cannot be wished away; its influence becomes permanent.

Given these difficult facts, yearning for return to some pre-feminist idyll is both undesirable and pointless. Far better to meet the new conditions with mercenary verve.

19 comments:

  1. Rookh wrote: "the male is like a customer who enters a car-dealership with a million dollars in his pocket. He is expected to lay all his money down on an old, clapped-out jalopy and be damned happy for the privilege!"

    That's a great analogy Rookh, men in anglo countries are just happy to get ANY woman, even if she is fat, ugly, or a single mother.

    I think men in anglo countries are waking up to the fact that anglo women are not worth pursuing and should be avoided like the plague! Look how far the marriages rates have fallen in anglo-countries.

    When I think about the idea of getting involved with an anglo-woman, I don't know whether or not I should laugh.......or vomit!

    ReplyDelete
  2. James Bond:
    Right on. In fact, in the US, the only marriage demographic growing positively are with foreign-born wives. Any men's movevement hoping to bring back civilization and traditional values can never do it with co-operation of Anglo-American women.

    As for guys like Fleming and Futrelle, they are in DEEP psychological denial. How many times have radical feminists told us that their stated goal was the subjugation of men; and how many women raised under that system actually try to subjugate any male they meet? They keep expecting a different result with the same methods.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brilliant post Rookh.

    It astonishes me that the British public cannot draw a direct analogy between Harriet Harman's 'equality law' enacted in 2010, which encouraged discrimination against employing men, and the Nuremburg laws, which forbade offering employment to Jews if a German national was up for the job.

    “People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.” [Edmund Burke].

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can answer that. Men in the contemporary Anglosphere are not considered human beings - much like Jews in Nazi Germany. Once a group is viewed as non-human in any given society, radical discrimination against them becomes inevitable.

      Delete
  4. You describe me. I am John Galt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's good that the article some of the wider social ramifications of how feminist ideology rots out a culture from within. We see this mercenary attitude strongly in the US. Our whole system has broke down into mercenary economics (outsourcing, plutocartic looting); mercenary politics (pandering to interest groups); and pointless military adventurism--- none of which benefits the nation in the least. I would suspect the same is true of the rest of the Anglosphere as well.

    Feminism has brought about this situation, since men no longer feel any stake in the cultures they belong to. Even those who want a traditional marriage are practically compelled to seek it in other cultures.

    The follow-up to Machiavelli'e theory is the enivitable collapse of these feminised cultures to the more vibrant, masculine ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Feminism has brought about this situation, since men no longer feel any stake in the cultures they belong to."

      Thus reminds me of a feminist girl I know. Quite cute until you read her posts it is stunning. She posted about Libya, citing human rights violations, inciting and demanding to know when *WE* are going to do something about it.

      Of course *WE* means: men. Blown limb from limb in battle; in the name of Anglobitchery

      With women in greater power these days, there is plenty of war, male battlefield death and misery. If Hell Knows No Fury As A Woman Scorned, then the radical feminists will be furious as men scorn their battle cries.

      The hated male; cannon fodder; sacrificed upon the altar of Anglobitchery.

      "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". -Rhett Butler

      Delete
  6. An oddly resonant piece. Years ago, before my opinions on the American culture's and law's treatment of men had fully formed, I already recognized my attitude as fundamentally mercenary -- I used that exact word.

    This is a nice explanation of how that came to be.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's scary how accurately this sentence describes my situation.

    "This is especially true of middle-class males, who enjoy a nomadic existence as technical or commercial consultants while excluding themselves from social and civic life."

    I did not think of myself as a mercenary but I plead guilty to your listed sins. I have limited loyalty to the state. As a dual citizen I have often pondered if I would "go to war" for one of my passport nations against the other. My answer has always been it depends on circumstances! There's no automatic boo-rah here! As for women, my first wife was a standard anglospheric liberated woman and it ended badly. She never accepted the premise that marriage is a deal and both partners better get something out of it. It was always about her, her and her and frankly I wasn't pussified enough to submit forever. My second wife is oddly foreign born and she came into the arrangement willing to assume traditional female duties provided I answer with traditional male duties. We're celebrating our tenth anniversary this month and we're both much happier married than not. Your premise that 60's era ball-crushing feminism is a carbuncle on the ass of western civilization is something I learned the hard way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *As for women, my first wife was a standard anglospheric liberated woman and it ended badly. She never accepted the premise that marriage is a deal and both partners better get something out of it. It was always about her, her and her and frankly I wasn't pussified enough to submit forever. My second wife is oddly foreign born and she came into the arrangement willing to assume traditional female duties provided I answer with traditional male duties. We're celebrating our tenth anniversary this month and we're both much happier married than not. Your premise that 60's era ball-crushing feminism is a carbuncle on the ass of western civilization is something I learned the hard way.*

    Posts like this are wonderful life-maps for young fellows, revealing how best to avoid the dangerous quick-sands of post-feminist male existence. Tumbling marriage-rates can be partly attributed to the Internet's unique ability to transcend generational boundaries. Never have young men been able to hear such candid opinions from older males. The whole baby-boomer myth of generational conflict never looked lamer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I read this article today and thought " Yes , you have summed up my situation completely. Speaking as a middle class Anglo male, I have avoided Anglo women like the plague because I keep finding that many of them believe that men should be under control. What they fail to realise is that men have the option of either having a foreign wife with traditional values or we can simply drop out of society altogether only joining in when we see a financial or other advantage.The feminist predicament can be summed up like this: the Alpha males have left the building with the women of their choice,the beta males were told by feminists to leave because they either didn't do as they were told or didn't earn enough money which left the gammas, deltas or ypsilons or put another way; the wimps the wasters and the bastards. All I can say to the feminists is ENJOY the society that you have created.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Egypt was an ancient superpower that was undone by mercenaries. Egypt used slaves in the army and hired mercenaries guards. The mercenary guards easily made a coupe d'etat.

    I read this in a curious bookshop located in San Diego Normal Heights neighborhood. The shop had all sorts of books about Egypt and other stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  11. cadgbd:
    The same was true of Rome, BTW. The situation we Anglo-Americans find ourselves in right now is roughly where the Egyptians and the Romans went. Rookh was absolutely right in that denying men a stake in a culture's future is that culture's swansong.

    Even those of us who advocate pursuing foreign women as an alternative are really working to reshape the culture. The nation might stay the same geographically, but the culture will be radically changed with the foreign influx. Whenever there are these mixed marriages, the children tend to identify with the minority parent (President Obama is a good example; he identifies as black, although he was raised by whites).

    On the other hand, many men are seeing that Anglo-American culture is not worth preserving in its current state.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent analysis. It has always been recognized that a large, unattached male population is dangerous because of the lack of investment in the society. Don't kid yourself, some women get it, too. I came across the following quote from a woman. It's men with a stake in a civilization who are, in the end, the glue that holds the civilization together.

    But nature isn’t fair, and it is nature that has given men superior body strength, and it is the reason why civilisation hangs by such a fragile thread. So long as enough men agree that Might is not Right, civilisation stands. If enough men decide that Might IS Right, civilisation crumbles. If nature should triumph over civilisation, women will be entirely at the mercy of men, and I doubt that all the punching, kicking and hair-pulling the average woman can do will make much difference.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The 'traditional' men's movement has a misguided obsession with 'putting the clock back' to a pre-feminist era such as the 1950s. This is problematic in a number of ways, not least that the puritanical Anglosphere nurtures a centuries-old misandry. In addition, complex social processes are by definition irreversible, nullifying such reactionary ambitions. Once a significant social phenomenon like feminism has been 'lived through' (as Wittgenstein put it), it cannot be wished away; its influence becomes permanent."

    This is an astute criticism. This failure of conservatives, to conserve anything of value to anyone but themselves (as professional"conservators") goes well beyond the sex question.

    The key element that conservatives fail to absorb, is the loss of confidence in their ability (not to mention their sincerity) to uphold a certain standard and defend it successfully against feminist hordes. Once this confidence is lost the conservative's entire position becomes a joke.

    A rather pathetic joke.

    ReplyDelete
  14. *This is an astute criticism. This failure of conservatives, to conserve anything of value to anyone but themselves (as professional "conservators") goes well beyond the sex question.*

    I think conservatives fail because their goals are impossible to achieve (in any sphere, not just gender politics), for the reasons described. And as you say, if conservatism fails to quell rising opposition (feminism being an good example) before it takes hold, it necessarily fails again and again. Once conservative failure becomes a precendent, it becomes inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rookh:

    From what I've seen in America, the conservatives are arguably even more puritanical than the liberals. We actually had a (female conservative) Senate candidate a few years ago who had advocated outlawing masturbation! There have numerous attempts in state legislatures to redefine 'statutory rape' to include age differences.

    Conservatives have proposed legislation aimed at denying US nationality to foreign-born wives of American husbands; putting numerous obstacles in the immigration process (IMBRA and VAWA were passed under conservative Congresses and a right-wing president); and loosening deportation procedures for children of foreign-born mothers. Not long ago, there was a campaign to raise the so-called 'Age of Consent' to 25!

    One conservative candidate for president during this election cycle was forced out the primaries, simply on allegations of 'inappropriate touching' and 'sexual harassment'. I've heard more than one commentator---conservative ones--- denounce Newt Gingrich because 'he's on his third marriage and to someone young enough to be his daughter!" in the words of one self-appointed pundit I've heard lately.

    The liberals here, of course, are mostly manginas and feminized males who worship the 'strong woman' type and enforce strict politically-correct sexual codes. But the conservatives are not only not opposition to them; they seem to be trying to outdo them in extremism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anglobitches are the very reason I no longer love the English language.

    ReplyDelete
  17. eToro is the most recommended forex broker for newbie and professional traders.

    ReplyDelete