Saturday, 29 December 2012

The Great Dying: The Fall of the Baby-Boomers and its Implications

Misandrist feminism is a creation of the Baby Boomer generation. Most demographers argue that the Baby Boomers will start dying off en masse in 2015. By 2025, there should be very few of them left and Generation X will hold most of their power and influence. With their passing, will the feminism they promoted start dying too?

In our view, the Boomers’ decline has already exposed many unpleasant truths about ‘the Love Generation’.  The bucolic reputation of the British 1960s is rapidly crumbling. The Jimmy Savile revelations of 2012, for instance, exposed the vaunted 'Sixties' as an era of conspiracy, pedophilia and sexual coercion. For decades, Boomer domination of the media had maintained the illusion that the 'Sixties' was a classless utopia defined by the Beatles and Mary Quant. As their grip slipped, however, a harsher truth emerged.

Consider this: after 2015, every Boomer assumption will come under similar attack. And this revolution will swiftly transform the whole Anglosphere.

Middle class Boomers of the 'Sixties' pedestalized women as no generation before or since. But many White Knights will fall from 2015 to 2025, leaving us a free road to advance our agendas: to state the case bluntly, Time’s scythe will leave us masters of the field. Of course, pussy-begging maggots like Futrelle will maintain a spirited rearguard resistance – but without Boomer patronage, expect them to seem ever less mainstream, ever more eccentric, ever more the pussy-begging losers they are.

In sum, the next few years represent unprecedented opportunities to reject, ignore or challenge Anglo-American feminism. Expect also the accelerated decline of organized religion; the marginalization of academic anti-essentialism; and, above all, the collapse of socon politics. Future conservatism must jettison its traditional links to religion, sexual repression and ‘the family’ in order to survive. Mitt Romney’s catastrophic defeat demonstrates that fidelity to such outdated Boomer ‘norms’ only results in electoral failure. Indeed, the leadership of the British Conservative Party is already expressing concerns about its ‘toxic’ ties to ‘tradition’ in a country where 35% of people are single.

So let us take heart as the curtain falls on the Boomers' fading empire.

Friday, 21 December 2012

On Dying for the Matriarchy

Schoolboys in Imperial Germany were encouraged to write appreciative essays on the subject of dying for the fatherland. It won’t be too long, I fear, before Anglo-American schoolboys are writing essays about dying for the Matriarchy. Certainly, the Anglosphere seems to be moving in that direction.

With popular support for the unwinnable wars in the Near East waning, the legacy media is redefining those wars in terms of a matriarchal crusade against 'patriarchal barbarism’.

Unwitting tool of these sickly agenda is a hapless Afghan girl shot by the Taliban.  Never mind that the Taliban offer at least as much violence against subaltern males in Afghanistan – all males are the enemy in this hasty redefinition, and thus unworthy of consideration or sympathy:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — When the time came to choose medical treatment for Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl who defied the Taliban and then was gunned down by them, her family and doctors faced a world of possibilities after a global outpouring of advice and offers of assistance.  

Whatever they chose, a medical jet from the United Arab Emirates was waiting to take her to hospitals abroad. Pakistani and American officials had talked about arranging treatment for her at the giant American military hospital at Landstuhl, Germany. 

A well-developed offer came from former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark E. Kelly, who had gone through their own treatment ordeal after she was shot in the head last year. They had gone as far as to line up a noted neurosurgeon and had even arranged a transportation option of their own to the United States — with a television celebrity offering to quietly foot the fuel bill

Those were among dozens of offers from across the world. But when the time came to fly the wounded schoolgirl out of Pakistan, in the early hours of Monday, a deal from Britain to accept Malala at a specialized hospital in Birmingham proved hard to beat. 

But first, to get her there. 

Out of worry that the Taliban would fulfill their promise to take a second shot at the teenage activist, the dawn run from the military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, to the airport was shrouded in secrecy, said Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s interior minister. 

“I directed the airport staff to remain incognito, because there was an alert, threats from the Taliban that they would kill her,” he said. “We were very careful.”

Yet there was little doubt that each of the possibilities, especially given the diplomatic tensions between Pakistan and America, carried its own political risk. 

Initially, Pakistani officials had approached the American Embassy for help, officials from both countries said. Two options were discussed, Interior Minister Malik said: the possible use of an American military facility in Oman, and evacuation to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. “We scrambled like hell,” one American official said. “We were standing by, ready to do anything.

There were also private American offers — from Ms. Giffords and Mr. Kelly, plus at least three other “serious” parties, the American official added. One came from an American businessman with ties to senior figures in the Pakistan government; another came from a constituent of Senator John Kerry, who has longstanding political ties to the country. 

Meanwhile Ms. Giffords’s doctor, Dr. Dong Kim, the head of neurosurgery at the Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, got ready to travel to Pakistan. Mr. Kelly, a former astronaut, said he had recruited an American celebrity, whom he declined to name, to finance the fuel costs of an emergency plane trip from Peshawar to Houston. 

“We were just trying to offer the best help available, as we understand it from being down this road,” Mr. Kelly said. 

Mr. Kelly also pressed political contacts in the White House, State Department and Pakistan to help push the offer through. He said that Johns Hopkins University made a similar offer. But over the weekend, Mr. Kelly was told by a senior State Department official that “Pakistan has decided to solve this domestically.” 

The British connection, however, had already been well established at that point through two doctors, both experts in trauma injuries and one of whom was of Pakistani descent, who happened to be visiting Pakistan at the time of the shooting last week

The medics were quickly drafted into the effort to save Ms. Yousafzai’s life. They were flown to Peshawar to help with the initial diagnosis and then on to the hospital in Rawalpindi. They shared in decisions about how long to keep the patient in Pakistan, officials from Britain and Pakistan said, declining to name the two. 

Early Monday morning, the medics accompanied a Pakistani brigadier in watching over Ms. Yousafzai during the flight to Britain. The air ambulance that ferried them had been offered by the United Arab Emirates, a country with close political ties to President Asif Ali Zardari. 

By several accounts there were sound medical reasons why the American offers of help to Ms. Yousafzai were not accepted, including the lengthier flight to the United States. 

But Britain may also have held other attractions. While the United States and Pakistan have engaged in diplomatic warfare in recent years — over the Osama bin Laden raid, drone strikes and the controversy surrounding a Central Intelligence Agency contractor, Raymond Davis — Britain has carefully cultivated a less adversarial relationship. Britain has been a major aid donor to Pakistan for decades, and many high-ranking Pakistanis, in political life and in the country’s armed forces, have been educated or trained in Britain. 

“If we had an offer of British help and American help, all things being equal we would go with the British,” one senior Pakistani official said. “It makes more sense.” 

Exact details of Ms. Yousafzai’s condition remain hazy. Doctors say she requires treatment for a serious skull fracture, caused by a bullet that passed through her head. Later, she may require long-term neurological rehabilitation.
Ms. Yousafzai’s schoolmaster father, Ziauddin, who inspired her to start her high-profile campaign for girls’ education and women’s rights in 2009, did not travel with her to Birmingham yesterday, Pakistani officials said.
SOURCE: New York Times

As if by magic, the War against Terror is becoming a war to impose Anglo feminism on unwilling lands and peoples.  Of course, both Anglo socons and feminists clamor for this – after all, both groups are bound by the same puritanical misandry that defines the Anglo nations.

The problem with their crooked agenda is this: very few Anglo-American men want to die for the matriarchy.  Apart from White Knights and lumpen-working class idiots, most men now view feminism as a threat to their lives and liberty.  Having seen so many fathers, uncles and brothers crash and burn in ‘no fault’ divorces, not to mention having experienced discrimination in every sphere of adult life,  very few Anglo-American American males will be signing up to defend women’s ‘rights’ any time soon.

I have an alternative solution. If feminists want to expand the matriarchy, perhaps they should do it themselves?

The Right Road: The Correct Response to Feminist Perfidy

The Anglo-American men’s movement has generally internalized the Darwinian worldview, at least as it pertains to gender relations. Unfortunately, this world-view can be used to legitimate male expendability. Moreover, the Darwinian model explains institutionalized misandry quite well – especially military gendercide, biased divorce laws and negative media representations of men. Indeed, many feminists and White Knights cherry pick aspects of evolutionary psychology as conceptual justification for male disposability, female hypergamy and other misandrist agendas.

The contemporary men’s movement remains marginalized because it seeks to mimic feminism. MRAs complain about the Sympathy Gap they experience, assuming they will reflexively attract the same sympathy and support as misandrist gender-feminism. They won’t of course – least of all from the male elite, who view them with bemused contempt. How, then, should the men’s movement proceed? If men are biologically programmed to compete for status and sex and view other men as expendable, how can a cogent and effective men’s movement ever develop?

The answer is that it won’t – at least, not in the way feminism has developed, with political patronage and government grants. It must choose a different road, one that acknowledges public indifference to men’s issues. In short, the Sympathy Gap needs expanding, not contracting – and reciprocating in kind. Since men are treated as expendable mercenaries, they should embrace that role – sever all social bonds and obligations, shun permanent relationships and generally view the world with cynical detachment.

The strongest man is he who stands alone; and no man demonstrates this truth more than the mercenary male, striding from land to land without bonds, commitments or ideals. Stunned and shaking, the elite and its feminist allies already tremble at this rising tide of masculine disengagement.