Wednesday, 17 October 2018

The Triumph of Anglo-Feminist Misandry, and Its True Origins

Regular readers will know that misandrist Anglo-American feminism draws much of its power from the malleable Common Law legal system which prevails in most English-speaking countries. The following account from the Red Ice website shows just how pro-female that system now is, especially against males of low socio-economic status. However, like most White Nationalists, the journalist author predictably fails to blame the real culprit - Anglo culture itself - for these transgressions:

One of the county bar associations in Pennsylvania asked me to write a summary and analysis of major recent cases on “Protection From Abuse” orders and the means whereby these orders are signed by defendants. They were concerned that almost 97% of these were signed by the defendant without a hearing even though it means the loss of his home, children and most of his income. It is often treated as a criminal conviction though it is only a civil case. I was shocked by not only the laws and case law concerning these orders, but the tricks that are used to force men, especially the poor, to sign them without argument.

This assignment required me to interview men at these hearings and ask them about their motivations. In late 2015, I went to the county courthouse and asked the defendants their story. They were overjoyed that finally, someone was willing to listen to them. They were almost all very poor males and none had lawyers defending them. I was surprised that they didn’t know the difference between civil and criminal law or that judicial proceedings were public. They were not guaranteed a lawyer because these are civil cases, but they were all convinced regardless that it is a criminal trial.

On the other hand, the women are granted a free lawyer (on permanent retainer for life) and are actually dressed up by the feminist group supplying them. They are given lines to memorize and all are told to cry on the stand. However, it is very rare that they ever get that far. Many defense attorneys are loathe to challenge the local feminists.

I struck up a conversation with a very young-looking man, poorly dressed, wearing a terrified, pale expression. He looked like he was about to vomit. He was all alone and seemed younger than 18. He must have just come from his shop because he was wearing greasy work clothes and he had clearly made no preparations of any kind for his court date.
I approached him and asked if he was OK. He told me that he and his girlfriend just had a baby. Tiring of him, she issued a PFA against him without cause, warning or warrant. No evidence is required for these in the state of Pennsylvania. The day after it was issued, her new boyfriend moved in to his house. The restraining order forced him to pay $750 each month in child support or face prison. His ex quit her job and now both partners live off his forced support. When I asked what he makes here in a month, he say “about $850 or so before taxes.”

Worse, his ex-girlfriend now gets a free lawyer, free and unobstructed access to all social services (she cannot be turned down for welfare programs), and free weekly counseling. If his ex had any moral qualms about what she had done, there are a battery of counselors there to justify it and give their official sanction to her “act of self defense.” This young man was too small to be a threat to anyone but the most anorexic. I refused to believe he had done anything wrong, especially when he told me there was no criminal case concurrent to this.

I discovered that when a woman claims she was assaulted by her mate, police are constrained to arrest regardless of probable cause. The condition of bail is always that he cannot return to his home and he cannot have any contact with the “victim.” He is presumed guilty. The question arose: if this is the condition of bail, why use the PFA? If this woman had been assaulted, why not get him arrested? The answer was clear: that the young man never hurt a soul. A criminal case requires evidence, unlike a PFA. A criminal case will at least guarantee him a minimum of state-sponsored legal assistance. Furthermore, a PFA can contain a support order as well, meaning that a woman can pad her income merely by making this claim without evidence. Worse, her victim must pay all court costs and no cost can accrue to the claimant by law. Almost always, she never needs to testify or face cross-examination.
All manner of trickery is used to get the ignorant victim, usually a man never before in trouble, to sign and accept his fate. In Indiana County PA, it is common, for example, for the local feminist “victim advocacy” organization to use blackmail. They tell the terrified man that they will not leak this case to his employer if he just signs the PFA without a hearing.

Elsewhere, he’s told that he can sign it “without admission of guilt,” implying that a PFA is tantamount to a criminal conviction. Of course, no guilt is assumed regardless, as this is a civil matter and has no (official) punitive purpose. It is a rhetorical trick to ensure their client never needs to testify. Quite literally, the woman does not need to spend a penny or life a finger to destroy her mate’s life, assure herself an income, receive endless sympathy and control the behavior of her ex. She becomes a member of a noble class that has immediate access to all social welfare, highly motivated and specialized legal representation and weekly free counseling that exists solely to justify her actions.

It is men who pass these laws and it is men who justify them. This proves that women rule absolutely. When men pass these laws even they realize that they might well be the victim of them, female rule is complete and without historical precedent. A man is not secure in his home or in his property if a women is living with him. Muscular, powerful women, when attacked by weaker men, are seen as helpless victims.

This is just one example of not merely female dominance, but their utter irresponsible totalitarian domination of men. Women live almost a decade longer than men. They control almost all personal (that is, disposable) wealth, and are now almost 60% of all college graduates. Even wealthy women are automatically promoted and hired through affirmative action. Women suffer about 5% of all work related fatalities or accidents. They are victims of only 30% of all violent crimes. Men are sentenced far more harshly then women for the same crime in the justice system at all levels. Two-thirds of all health care dollars are spent on women. Men, unsurprisingly, almost all white, commit 90% of all suicides.

Feminism as an ideology does not demand power, it is a manifestation of power long institutionalized. It is a means to maintain power. The question here is why did feminism emerge when it did as a dominant ideological force unchallenged in academia. Female academics are often absurdly ignorant. This is not because they are inherently idiots, but because they have no need or incentive to study. The better looking the woman, the more privilege she receives. She can walk into any cocktail party, sit down, cross her legs and hold court: dozens of men will be there fighting one another to give her money and jobs.

We don’t see feminism in the Roman Empire, Egypt or Ming China. Why did feminism develop? The reason is that capitalism required wages to fall. Feminism came into existence at the same time as immigration laws were relaxed. This was also the height of union power and the zenith of male wages in the US. American males, from the capitalist point of view, were doing too well. Capitalism created feminism, “anti-racism” and mass immigration. It served their interest in obvious ways, but the clearest and most fundamental way was to lower labor costs and discourage cooperation.

The example of the Pennsylvania “Domestic Violence” laws above is considered mild by national standards. It is proof beyond doubt that the US is a violent gynocracy. It is proof that women, especially if they are attractive and not too obese, are an aristocracy with more power than any that ever existed. The question, however, is where did it come from? How did such an absurd view get the support of all elites and both parties?
Women as the New Nobility, Red Ice, 04/07/16

The article predictably concludes that misandrist feminism is a leftist conspiracy cooked up by corporate America to suppress wages and living standards. However, the real source of Anglo-American institutional misandry and gynocentrism arises from the intersection of two things: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and feminism. Alone, these things are not calamitous; but when they make contact the result is female deification, male ostracism and social destruction. A good analogy for this process would be a light bulb and a battery linked in a simple circuit. Before the circuit is closed, there is no tangible effect; but when it is, the bulb lights up and the whole environment is completely transformed.


Puritanism offered women reasonable protection from arbitrary ill-treatment in traditional patriarchy; but once gyneocratic feminism arose, misandry became the default setting of the pan-Anglosphere institutional establishment. This is why Anglo feminism is so reflexively sex-negative: residual Anglo-American Puritanism underwrites all its primary positions.  Conversely, the Anglo-American state (abetted by its malleable Common Law) reflexively supports feminism by its very nature. Relampago Furioso describes its latest assault on American sexual freedom, an underhand attempt to ban its few legalised brothels in Nevada:
The new gynarcho-tyranny formerly known as America continues to expand its utterly insane War on Sex. Two of its “heroic” Police State USA units have hit three Nevada brothels (all owned by charismatic pimp Dennis Hof) with what basically amounts to false charges.

Cockblocking cops from Lyon County Sherriff’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement claim immigration violations are occurring at Hof’s brothels, even though they’re the very agencies responsible for conducting background checks on the prostitutes who work in the brothels when sex work cards are issued by government officials.

It’s truly one of the most astonishing cases of the fox guarding the hen house ever heard of. Nonetheless, a heterosexual hating press chimed with glee:

An investigation of three legal Nevada brothels owned by a reality TV star and candidate for the state legislature found immigration violations and indications of possible human trafficking, the county sheriff said.

Thus said Reuters, member of the propaganda wing of the Deep State establishment. (You know, the people who constantly screw with your psychology through advertising, public relations, and fake news operations.) Surely, this hit couldn’t have anything to do with Hof running for office, and being the favored candidate to win a Nevada assembly seat? To ask the question is to answer it.
The New Modern man, Police State USA Hits its Nevada Brothels with False Charges, 09/10/2018

Of course, other factors are implicated in the rabid misandry engulfing the Anglosphere: for example, the soulless post-industrial machine tendencies Relampago Furioso writes about; or the homocentric tendencies discussed by Richard Scarecrow; or the feminist infiltration of Anglo-American legalism identified by many learned commentators on this site.

However, all these things are in themselves harmless; they become misandrist weapons only in the presence of Anglo puritan-feminism.