Monday, 6 May 2013

Politics, Cosmo and Psychiatry – and other tales from 1958

The Media Idyll

In essence, the Men’s Movement represents a ‘revolt of reality’ against the fantastical narratives of ‘mainstream’ society. Men in the west – and especially the Anglosphere – are endlessly told that their country is overflowing with nubile, sophisticated girls brimming over with longing for scientists, philosophers and aesthetes. Then, of course, reality strikes: intelligent men soon learn that any sexualized nubiles (and there aren’t many of these, to be honest) prefer morons and thugs to educated, intelligent males.

What are the main bastions of these ‘mainstream’ delusions?

Firstly, the legacy media: radio, television and the print press. These Jurassic beasts endlessly aver that ‘everyone’ – or nearly ‘everyone’ – is happily married with 2.4 children, white, educated and living in a salubrious suburb. Perhaps these delusions are more prevalent in Britain than the other Anglosphere countries, but – with various modulations – the Anglo-American media remain hopelessly out-of-touch with mass opinion and experience. Consider how American television omits the working class, ugly people and the elderly as a matter of semi-official policy.

What the Media likes to show us...
... and what it likes to hide.

Another institution firmly cocooned from consensus reality is ‘mainstream’ politics. Anglo-American politicians of all stripes assume that ‘everyone’ – again, that ‘everyone’ - attends church three times a day, has never tried drugs, is happily-married from cradle to grave and generally believes everything authority tells them. Yet, when we study contemporary American life, this picture does not fit. Twenty percent of Americans claim no religious affiliations and their number is growing. Ever more Americans are single and, as we all know, half of all American marriages end in divorce. Among the white working class, the institution of marriage has broken down completely. At least one in three young Americans has tried an illegal drug. Moreover, many drug users are functional members of society, not the hapless junkies paraded across the legacy media.  And as for the ‘hook, line and sinker’ assumptions of ‘mainstream’ politicians, most Americans now think their government lies to them ‘most, or nearly all of the time’, according to Francis Fukuyama.  In short, ‘mainstream’ politicians are completely detached from mainstream American life at every level.

Apart from the legacy media and party politics, one other feature of Anglo-American life remains firmly embedded in the 1950s: psychiatry. Of course, anyone with a three-digit IQ detests this racist, harmful pseudo-science. For all that, its detachment from social reality is truly worthy of comment. Scan a psychiatric text-book and gasp at the archaic assumptions: everyone is married, women should be pedestalized, culture does not matter and everyone should believe everything they are told by the federal government. Amazingly, anyone whose opinions deviate from this eccentric template is labelled either ‘anti-social’ or ‘paranoid’. Clearly, what we have here is another ‘brick in the wall’ of institutional Anglo-American misandry.

The Upper Middle Class 'Fantasy Norm'

But why do so many aspects of Anglo –American culture remain embedded in the 1950s? Why do so many institutions refuse to acknowledge the reality of mainstream experience?

Firstly, the social elites who dominate politics and the media tend to have unrepresentative patterns of social experience – that is, they are cocooned from social reality by virtue of private education and inherited wealth. Because of the Anglosphere’s distinctive class system, they seldom interact with ‘ordinary’ people. Given these circumstances, their reflexive adherence to archaic values becomes perfectly understandable (if not forgivable).

Second, the political establishment is a gerontocracy. Many people in the social elite grew up in the fifties and have never interacted with the social mainstream. Little wonder they still think 'everyone' goes to Church, marries for life and trusts the government.

A third explanation is simple propaganda.  The pan-Anglosphere elites need to keep the masses believing that Britain or America are ‘Shangri la’ societies, infinitely better than anywhere else on earth. The stringently-maintained fiction that Anglo women are slim, hot and personable forms a central plank in this agenda – consider how feminist magazines like Cosmopolitan invariably portray Anglo women as burnished, sexualized beauties, in the face of overwhelming evidence. In this view, VAWA is just the legal wing of Anglo-American nationalism. And far from being revolutionaries and outcasts, feminists and White Knights are reactionary tyrants.

Attainable for Everyone? Only in your dreams...

The last explanation is cultural – and embraces all the others. It says: Anglo culture, being puritanical, does not like reality very much. Especially sexual reality. Rather than acknowledge this reality, it prefers to hide it under fairy tales from the 1950s. The social elites remain committed to such delusions because they are the culture-bearing class and Puritanism remains a core feature of Anglo culture.

This explanation also has much to offer Anglo-American MRAs. Interestingly, it locates Anglo feminism firmly within the Establishment, with its oppressive Puritanism and comprehensive denial of biological reality. It also explains the extensive patronage feminism enjoys in all Anglo-American countries.

The Anglo-American Men’s Movement is presently divided into two camps. The conservative wing wish to remove women’s rights while letting them retain their privileges. The progressive wing, on the other hand, want women to keep their rights while removing their privileges. What is universally accepted is the need to limit one or the other.  However, the foregoing discussion suggests that conservatives are making a grave mistake in representing Anglo-American feminism as ‘revolutionary’ or iconoclastic. To the contrary, it occupies a central position in the oligarchy’s ailing pseudo-consensus.












10 comments:

  1. Rookh wrote:
    "The last explanation is cultural – and embraces all the others. It says: Anglo culture, being puritanical, does not like reality very much. Especially sexual reality. Rather than acknowledge this reality, it prefers to hide it under fairy tales from the 1950s.

    The social elites remain committed to such delusions because they are the culture-bearing class and Puritanism remains a core feature of Anglo culture."

    How true that is! I have been thinking for years now why the mainstream media here in the USA is stuck in the 1950's. They put women on
    pedestals and make it look like all women in America are thin,good looking and friendly.

    The reality is, most women in America are fat, ugly and unfriendly. If you want a young hot woman in the USA, the only way your to get her is you need to be a guy who is good looking and rich.

    The media in the United States does not represent what is actually going on in todays world. Women in America are NOT how they are portrayed in movies or tv shows. Any man who lives in America or has visited America knows just how unfriendly, fat and ugly American women truly are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you want a hot woman in the USA, the only way your to get her is you need to be a guy who is good looking and rich"

      I would disagree with this, as the article above suggests, it appears that "hot" or "sexualized" women - go for complete losers - and often end up dead from severe beatings, or flagrant murder.

      I rarely see a wealthy man with a hottie.

      When I do see a man with a hottie, he is either putting up with a mountain of guff (from an overbearing witch), or he has a criminal record.

      Delete
    2. Yeah - that is part of the anglo-delusion.

      If you work hard, earn lots of money (and pay lots of taxes in the process), buy expensive fancy clothes and expensive fancy cars - you will get a "hot" chick and have lots of sex.

      That is a lie.

      I see men driving expensive cars, and wearing expensive outfits.

      I never see a woman in the car with them.

      The rusty 1983 Nissan shit-box with political stickers all over it - is usually jam-packed with hotties...

      Delete
  2. *The media in the United States does not represent what is actually going on in todays world. Women in America are NOT how they are portrayed in movies or tv shows.*

    Why do you think so many men won't accept the reality, James? Why can YOU see it but they can't?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a lot of men in America are brainwashed by what they see on tv. They simply cannot think for themselves and just accept what the media tells them.

      The truth is, if you want to meet fat, ugly and unfriendly women, just come visit America!

      Delete
  3. I think America's sudden rise to world leader, after WW2, meant that it [the Government, and culture] had to reinvent itself for its new status. This would put the 50s at the fulcrum, and what ever they did regarding State propaganda, was likely to stick in the collective consciousness for longer.

    What America was prior to the 50s, had become no longer relevant; and what America should appear like, was novel. Hence radicalism was given a free hand; and the enemy of change is 'tradition'.

    In Britain, the 60s were the cultural radicalism that spilled over from the USA; but we had to wait for the late 70s for the UK to change its politics at the radical level. Ironically it was the old guard of senior Tory politicians that plotted to install Margaret Thatcher as a counter to the cultural decline they saw from the 60s onward.

    I see the seed of cultural decline in the west as being sown by the victory of WW2. As this event effectively gave all respective governments a totalitarian reign over their 'Democracies'. It would be the kind of absolute power that Bureaucrats simply wouldn't relinquish. Hence this is when our Governments in the Anglo-sphere plotted to control their own people, and bit by bit, they had to destroy their traditions, and replace them with State controlled institutions.

    Here's an interesting Adam Curtis primer regarding 'Thatcherism':

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/MRS-THATCHER-THE-GHOST-IN-THE-HOUSE-OF-WONKS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea in Curtis' film is an interesting one - that Thatcher created a myth of Britain, which then controlled her. I'm not sure she was so imaginative. I think she was an idiomatic person (very few women of her lowly background attended Oxford in those days, let alone studied science there) who projected her idiomatic experiences onto the whole nation, such that they became subjectively 'normalized' at a mass level.

      I agree that the Wars ushered in an unprecedented mass acceptance of state interference in people's personal lives.

      Delete
  4. I agree with the Scarecrow.

    Practically everyone I know who's rich (or for that matter, even gainfully employed) is either single, divorced, or MGTOW/INCEL. Except for two who married foreign girls.

    On the other hand, not a day goes by that I see one of the few attractive women here--- invariably in the company of a complete loser. Not only that, but I've seen women actively pursuing these scumbags in various ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. I think that the PUAs have bought into the persistent 50s myth that women want successful men. In fact, the complete opposite is true: the uglier, dumber and poorer a loser is, the more sexualized Anglo females will flock to him. Yet still 'the authorities' try to convince us that education, smart clothes and economic success attract women... absurd, when you think about it.

      Delete
  5. Rookh:

    OT somewhat, but here's a link that you might find interesting:

    http://www.theantifeminist.com/appeal-for-link-exchanges/

    This blogger has ideas very similar to your Anglobitch Thesis.

    ReplyDelete