Thursday, 19 February 2009

Anglobitch Domination of the Media & the Anorexia Myth

What luck for rulers, that men do not thinkAdolf Hitler

Frankly, if we were to discuss the whole range of injustice and persecution endured by American men at the hands of Anglo feminists, ten thousand pages would not suffice. This is why we will address an issue that encapsulates the over-valuation of women and devaluation of men in the United States: anorexia.

We are ceaselessly harangued by feminist propaganda into thinking that anorexia:

• Is a mass, mainstream medical problem.
• Is a feminist, or woman’s issue
• Affects all women equally

Firstly, eating disorders are not a mass, mainstream medical problem. Nearly all sufferers are white and middle or upper class. Given that the upper classes constitute such a numerically tiny group, one would expect the actual numbers of those who die of anorexia to be insignificant. In fact, less than 100 women die every year from anorexia in the United States (Hoff-Sommers: 1995). Nearly all of these fatalities are upper middle class, with a substantial proportion attending private school. Feminists routinely exaggerate the number of victims from the sublime (200 000 for Gloria Steinem) to the ridiculous (1, 000 000 for Andrea Dworkin).

The US CDC (Nation Centre for Injury Prevention and Control) shows that 30, 622 Americans took their lives in 2001 (DCD 2004). Three quarters of these were men. If we extend the actual figures back thirty years, it is likely that somewhat less than 3000 American women have died of anorexia in that time. Simply multiplying the 2001 suicide figures by 30 gives us a hypothetical figure of 918, 660 fatalities – a little rough and ready, perhaps, but certainly a lot more than 3000. By any comparison, suicide is clearly a far more pressing health problem than anorexia in the United States. Even far more American women kill themselves than die of eating disorders. Yet feminist writings and the media in general inflate their incidence to gargantuan, hallucinatory proportions. By contrast, the largely male problem of suicide receives negligible coverage, if any.

What does this tell us about contemporary America? Above all, it proves Anglo-American feminists will obfuscate, fantasize and lie about issues and have their lies proliferated by an American media that reflexively devalues males while setting women on pedestals. Secondly, it confirms that feminism is an elitist movement that focuses on the obscure experiences of middle class females while remaining indifferent to issues pertinent to ‘ordinary’ women – not least, the suicides of fathers, sons and partners. Thirdly, the sufferings of men are largely ignored compared to (in this case, imaginary) female travails, even when the former massively outweigh the latter in significance and scope.

Eating disorders are, like intercourse, not a feminist issue at all. They are clearly a class issue. Anglo-American feminists love to address the topic with hefty gobbets of existential claptrap about fat, sexuality and control issues. However, the blunt fact that virtually everyone who dies from the condition hails from a tiny sliver of the population, namely the high-achieving, highly-educated upper-middle class, wrests the whole issue from the clammy paws of doctrinaire feminism. It would seem to any impartial observer that Anglo-American feminism, with its Calvinist values and offhand elitism might well be the true cause of eating disorders rather than the senescent, catch-all ogre of ‘patriarchy’ (whatever that is). Anorexia has burgeoned alongside feminism with lock-step precision. As an intrinsically bourgeois, elitist movement dominated by the upper-middle class, Anglo-American feminism has infiltrated all media aimed at females with images of bone-thin patrician women in attitudes of invulnerable competence.

Given that the vast majority of women are emphatically not patrician or invulnerable, nor are ever likely to be, this Stalinist smorgasbord of Calvinist imagery is bound to cause them enormous damage. But patriarchy does not manufacture these impossible imagos – they are the handiwork of elite Anglo-American feminists. Prior to the unleashing of feminism, the average woman never compared herself to elite females. Anglo feminism has forced ordinary women to compare themselves against impossible standards, with predictably damaging results. In a novel study of Anorexia, Bordo and Heywood (2004) argue that Western (read Anglo-Saxon) culture harbours fantastical conceptions of the body as an immortal entity resistant to decay and death, alongside a schizoid hatred of the body’s autonomous processes (ageing, desire and so forth). This seems a much more fecund foundation for any discussion of anorexia than patriarchy, as it incorporates the all-important factor of culture.

Anorexia is never described as a cultural issue, though it should be. Anglo-Saxon culture tacitly views physical pleasures (including sex and food) as sinful. This is not a universal phenomenon: in many cultures food is associated with celebration and excess physical weight with maternal competence. One reason why almost all sufferers are from the upper middle class is that the Anglo-Saxon elite best represent Anglo-American values – namely repression of bodily drives. Working class women seldom exhibit anorexic symptoms as they are too remote from the ‘received’ Anglo-Saxon culture to practise its core themes: repression and self-mortification. The enormous quantities of ink expended on anorexia relate directly to its status as an elite, female illness. Suicide receives very little treatment by comparison, though there are far, far more suicides than anorexics. This relates directly to the fact that suicide mostly involves poor males: and Anglo-Saxon culture views young, poor males as far more expendable than young elite females.


  1. This is Grace, and I left a comment at MenAreBetterThanWomen, that you replied to. I replied to your comment, and want to let you know that I would be happy to give you my opinions if you really want them. If you only wish to ridicule me, then that of course is your prerogative, but I am open to discussion.

  2. Canadian, American, British, and Australian women are some of the worst cunts, whores, and bitches to ever walk the surface of this good earth. They should all be treated like a nest of vipers; every single one should be savagely beaten to a bloody pulp and killed.

    The remaining Western/Westernized women should be lobotomized by having a portion of their brains dissolved by muriatic acid, making them fit only to be sex slaves and mindless zombies.


  3. Grace

    There is no place here for juvenile misogyny. If you wish to respond coherently to the charges on this forum, do so without fear. What is your objction to these claims?


    Women are cunts, yes, that is a fact.

    I hate how they look and hate how they act.

    They carry three bags on their way to work.

    And talk on their cell phones sounding like a jerk.

    They complain they don't earn as much money as males.

    Yet they run companies and are vice president of sales.

    They cannot laugh because they have no sense of humor.

    They treat everything as if it were an ovarian tumor.

    They are uptight about sex and hate to suck dick.

    No wonder your last boyfriend left you for a guy named Rick.

    I hate all women and have discontinued my hunt.

    I love pussy but hate that each one is owned by a cunt.

  5. You sound like one to whom the subject of the Anglobitch is a sore one, friend.

  6. Hitler was the man. He got rid of the women's vote (everyone's vote actually which is a good thing because universal male suffrage is used to justify universal female suffrage). He also prohibited women from running for office.

    Conclusion: We need a new Hitler.

  7. Great post Anonymous.

    Seig Heil!

  8. Uhhh... interesting article... I agree that the focus of the media is disturbingly wrong... BUT.. you're GROSSLY misusing the term "Calvinist". Calvinism is a system of Christian theology wherein God is supreme and chooses the "elect", rather than man choosing God. Check it out on Wikipedia. Think "TULIP". In fact, Calvinists tend to be VERY patriarchal, very traditional, and extremely anti-feminist. I've NEVER met a Calvinist feminist... EVER... and I went to a Christian college that was extremely Calvanist (Reformed Presbyterian), and so I've met hundreds of them. Do your homework dude... makes you look bad!

  9. Sir,

    Thank you for your contribution. Calvinism is not itself a problem and in itself does not cohere to feminism. However, when the feminist impulse has overtaken a society which once held an active Puritan ethos, then that feminism unknowingly adheres to aspects of that ethos without grasping their true origin. This is most assuredly the case with Anglo-American feminism, which hypocritically extols Puritan morality in the midst of 'goddess worship'. Anorexia also functions in this oblique manner.

  10. I think I see where you're going, but I don't think I can quite agree. Frankly, I fail to see any connection between any strict Christian morality (of any sect) and the current state of culture in the United States.

    Of course, the first settlers were Puritan, which does have some basis in Reformed theology (Calvanism), and there have been many various conservative religious groups which have existed here through history, many which were rather strict, some even being simply legalistic (and thus missing the point, incidentally.)

    Of course, the prevelence of such dogma in the history of this culture has indeed had some influence on it, in the sense that nothing operates inside of a vaccum. For that matter, the brand of secular humanism idealized by Anton LaVey in the "Church of Satan" has also had an impact on this culture. ("No man is an island...") Arguably, however, Christianity has had a much broader presence throughout history, and thus undoubtedly has had much more influence. So, again, I do see where you're going.

    However, allow me to put this to you... this culture in the United States has changed over the many years to the point where "true believers" like Calvanists are often a subject of mockery and scorn, rather than taken in any way seriously. The conservative ideals that once dominated this culture are considered by most to be either quaint or completely arcane. As such, neither Calvinism nor any other Christian influence gave birth to Feminism in any context. Rather, the rejection and abandonment of such strict guidelines of morality in favor of selfish indulgence has resulted in ideologies like Feminism. The two ideologies are simply and completely polar opposites.

    One may attempt to argue that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and so one extreme (Puritanism in any flavor) begat the other (Feminism, etc.) because the culture could not withstand the extreme and thus adopted the other to provide balance.

    Socialogically, this may seem reasonable, but it does not account for those that remain true to their religious heritage. (e.g. Not everyone has adopted the new cultural standards, some still hold to their moral roots, and reject Feminism and like-minded selfishness.) As such, we have to account for other factors.

    Personally, it is my belief that the "human factor" is, by far, the largest contributor to the existence of Feminism and every other type of self-indulgent self-important ideology. I believe that human beings, like most animals, are inherently selfish and self-serving. It is an instinct that is intended to result in personal survival, and thus continuation of the species. Although Puritan ideals do not harm our species, the fact that they condemn selfishness on any level is a violation of such insinct. Therefore, rejection of doctrines such as Calvanism by the majority is in fact inevitable, and has been demonstrated in this culture slowly over the past 100 years.

    So, in conclusion, I put this to you... that one can not draw the conclusion that there is a connection between Calvanism and Feminism at all, but rather that Feminism is the result of the natural rejection of Puritan ideals as a result of human nature. In short, ideologies like Calvanism should in fact considered be one of several "cures" for Feminism, and not considered to be the root of it.

    One issue on which I will completely agree on, however... is that the influence of Christian legalism on this culture in general has resulted in a fractured perspective. e.g. "I want to have sex, but then I must feel guilty about it." Frankly, this is not Calvanism... legalism is the culprit there, of any denomination... which is the idea that one must obey a set of rules or be punished, and the furtherance of the demonization of that which is natural, which is not supported by the Bible. If I wished to make this post longer, I could demonstrate how Calvanism (or any honest take on Christianity) is not intended to be legalistic at all, in spite of the fact that legalism is a common implementation of Christianity. (Incidentally, legalism is also born of the selfishness and self-importance of human nature.) But that's a discussion for another day!

  11. I just cannot understand how anyone can argue that Anglo-American feminism has no puritanical undercurrent. For example, prominent Anglo feminists like Catherine MacKinnon have an obsessive desire to suppress sexual freedom in Western nations - for example, by banning pornography because it 'degrades' women. Another instance is prostitution - nearly all Anglo-American feminists want prostitution banned (in my view because prostitutes create a surfeit of sex in society, which weakens the manipulative power of sex over men - women's 'Magic Ticket'). Only in a few parts of the Anglo-American world (Nevada, some Australian States) is prostitution legal, indicating a certain mutual coherence between mainstream Anglo-Saxon culture and Anglo feminism. Most countries outside the Anglosphere (Germany, Holland, Thailand) often have legalised prostitution, or at least turn a blind eye to it.

    To sum up my position, Anglo feminists have a vested interest in maintaining a puritanical ethos, because restricting sex in society enhances its value and thus gifts women manipulative power over men (as well as blinding men to their rights plus privileges agendas). This is why all Anglo feminists seek to suppress pornography and prostitution, from Mackinnon through Dworkin to Harriet Harman: simply put, it gifts them power. This is why the Sixties' 'Free Love' agenda was so short lived, briskly giving way to feminist repression. To be blunt, Anglo women did not like the 'easy fuck' because it removed their power to manipulate and exploit men.

    This is why we as Anglo-American MRAs must fight this crabbed suppression at every turn - the more porn and prostitution washing through the Anglosphere, the weaker Anglo feminists will be. Repression gives women power, which is why feminism first took root in the puritanical United States; and why American men are now most bedevilled by feminist harridans. By the same logic, promoting true sexual liberation will give the power back to us.

    I really enjoy these discussions; we need to hammer out our strategy for crushing Anglo-American feminists and that means asking (and trying to answer) hard questions of ourselves. By these means, we will develop a potent movement of friends around the Anglosphere (and beyond) who can publicly eviscerate feminists with consummate ease.

  12. What is true sexual liberation?

    And have do you want to convince very beautiful young women who is much aware about her power over men to give herselves for free and to every men around?

    Only by telling them their bodies are not so precious but that is what every men they encounter is telling them. Perhaps not all but most.

  13. Sexual liberation may be hard to define, but I can say with certainty what it is NOT: women using sex as a weapon against men, as in Anglo-American countries (and then having the audacity to pretend that this represents 'liberation' of some kind) is most definitely NOT sexual liberation.

    The Anglosphere calls this 'liberation' but it is no such thing.