A few days ago I watched an old Hollywood movie (Giant, 1956) I remember reading about once in an alt-right article about early “cultural Marxist” propaganda in (((the movies))). The alleged “cultural Marxism” lay in the fact that there is a scene in which Rock Hudson stands up to a caricature-like racist who didn’t want to serve a black man in his restaurant. Hudson then gets beaten up for this act and afterwards applauded, hugged and kissed by Elizabeth Taylor. What I found to be much more interesting, though, was the fact that one scene of this movie was not mentioned as an element of “cultural Marxism”; namely the scene in which Elizabeth Taylor interrupts a couple of men talking about male things (=politics!) and refuses to leave when these men first wait patiently, then react puzzled and then outrightly angry when she refuses to leave them alone and insists on interrupting them by giving her female opinion on every political topic that comes up. Of course, the men in this scene are depicted as stupid pigs, while Elizabeth Taylor’s stubborn defiance (and I guess rudeness for permanently interrupting others) was depicted as heroic and brave.
So much for the 1950s. Six decades later, it is indeed noteworthy how many modern right-wing parties are led or co-led by women and how so many right-wing types who complain about unmasculine men seem to have no problem at all with the political pantsuit and wouldn’t even recognize the idea of women being involved in politics as something that was introduced only recently, and did absolutely not fall out of thin air. Not even mentioning the tattooed skingirl types (representing a subcultural branch of far-right extremism that seems to have gone out of fashion just like the Goths), prominent alt-right-ish pantsuits include Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, Siv Jensen in Norway, Alessandra Mussolini (“Better a fascist than a faggot.”) in Italy, Frauke Petry and Beatrix von Storch in Germany, and of course Marine Le Pen in France. (In 1943, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted in his book “The Menace of the Herd”, that “there is also a masculine tendency in National-Socialist womanhood. (…) To be a man is also the great dream of many an enthusiastic Hitler girl.”) All of this is in so far surprising, as both liberals and conservatives, both right-wingers and left-wingers should actually be able to agree on the idea that masculinity and femininity are complementary properties, and that you can’t have masculine men without feminine women, and can’t have feminine women without masculine men.
Adorno for instance noted about femininity, that “without a single exception feminine natures are conformist. (…) [Nietzsche] fell for the fraud of saying ‘the feminine’ when talking of women. Hence the perfidious advice not to forget the whip: femininity itself is already the effect of the whip.” Some chapters later he remarks that, “the female character and the ideal of femininity on which it is modeled are products of masculine society. The picture of undistorted nature originates first in distortion, as its opposite. There, where it claims to be humane, masculine society sovereignly breeds in women their own corrective (…).” (I guess one could argue that with capitalism being replaced by the fruit of its loins, monopolism, the age of a “corrective” to soothe the stresses of existence in a capitalist society [Nietzsche again, “Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior.”] is also coming to an end.) The point however just being that even feminists who are critical of “toxic masculinity” and “traitorous”, “self-hating” femininity are also able to recognize that we’re dealing with complementary properties here. After all, feminists want to “deconstruct” (female) femininity, either.
This raises the question why so many alt-right-ish types would gladly embrace Elizabeth Taylor even if she wore a pantsuit, even if she screamed about politics in front of an audience of drunken soldiers, and yet complain about unmasculine men. Leaving the Chicken-Egg-Question aside, a problem I see for men is that both liberal feminists and conservative feminists, both left-wing feminists and right-wing feminists all accept the unfeminine woman (=the pantsuit who wants to become President to lead the men of her country) but do not accept the unmasculine man. They rather accept the female politician in a pantsuit than a man literally wearing some pants that are cut in such a feminine style. It is noteworthy that even the monopolized fake news media are constantly complaining about a lack of “real men” these days. Men who would refuse to grow up, were remaining boys and bros, preferring video games over marriage and should finally man up, marry and then do at least 50% of the homework. The same is true for somewhat traditional Christian conservative as well as for right-wing outlets; even there you have pantsuits complaining about men not wanting to marry and not (the “politically incorrect” side of the same feminist coin) sacrificing themselves by fighting against groping immigrants or by letting women into lifeboats first. (As was the case with the “Costa Concordia” in Italy, if I remember correctly. When the ship was sinking, many men apparently refused to sacrifice themselves for the female passengers, causing angry comments from both liberal and conservative feminists.) Also, let us not forget the psychosexual dimension of all these 50 shades of “feminists outside the bedroom” types, who all seem to have two tumblr blogs, one dealing with feminism, the other one being an artsy-fartsy black and white porno tumblr with fantasies about being “a little” who gets raped by her “Daddy Dom”, and whose ideal partner seems to be a rich feminist mangina who turns into a plastic “Dom” in the bedroom only. Be that as it may, no matter your stance on “masculinity” and “femininity”, they both can only appear as complementary properties, the logical equivalent to the pantsuit and the kickass female is the feminine man. Futhermore, a man who would sacrifice himself for some “Refugees welcome!”-screaming equality slut isn’t manly but simply stupid.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that the alt-right will eventually fail and that alt-right-ish types won’t have anything to offer that is healthy, stable and able to stand the test of time. They will become/remain mostly attractive for people who do not care about long-term goals but are, rather, so impoverished and alienated that they develop a “Burn it all down!”-attitude, never realizing that they lack the power to burn down anything other than their local mosque. (Hitler didn’t come to power because of “meme magic” or because he had a way with words, but because the capital used him to destroy the labor movement. When this fascist monster turned against its Frankenstein, he was brought down very quickly.) Both left-wing feminists as well as right-wing feminists, both liberal as well as conservative feminists are effectively promoting a kind of “heterosexual gay marriage”, a straight civil union, so to speak. They all promote the idea that the average woman is better than the average man (if you believe that the average man is not good enough, not “alpha”, not “mature”, not “real man” enough for the average woman, you imply that the average woman is better than him), are blind to the fact, that in biology there can be only one alpha male, and are in some cases simply, utterly contradictory and weird. (As is the case with anti-Christian right-wingers who believe that ancient Pagans [and it’s always the Pagans we actually know little about so these postmodernists can romanticize them and turn them into whatever they like. You won’t find them idealizing the Pagan religions and practices of Ancient Rome and Greece
although because we actually know lots of stuff about] actually championed gender equality before the Jews first destroyed this utopia by introducing the Christian patriarchy, and eventually destroyed said patriarchy by installing feminism.)
Complaining about the feminization of Western society is in so far absurd as most political movements basically promote such a kind of “heterosexual gay marriage”, and since these societies have in many ways become much more masculine rather than more feminine. Now both men and women are brutally competing for jobs; for fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages, higher and higher rents and the prospect of ending up homeless if they fail. It’s not like men could lean back now and relax. The social security systems of many Western European countries that were pretty good only thirty or so years ago, have been gradually destroyed. And since women are hypergamous and like men who are even more dominant than they are, even more wealthy than they are, even more manly than they are, you can’t be surprised by the kind of plastic masculinity you often encounter, the promotion of the “feminist BDSM top”.
So, to sum up the whole matter, what both the alt-right and the “man up and marry mainstream” offer is essentially this kind of heterosexual gay marriage in which the only difference between men and women is that the man is supposed to be the “top” in the bedroom while the woman wants to be the “bottom” in the bathroom (I have actually met women who used “bottom” and the verb “to bottom” to describe themselves) and who needs the simulation of rape-like conditions to get her loose vagina moist. Conservative and alt-right-ish types who swoon over kickass womyn and stronk pantsuits as long as they oppose Islam (for all the wrong feminist reasons) aren’t any better than your average run-of-the-mill cuckservative swooning over the stronk arms of Michelle Obama.