Saturday, 21 March 2009
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent – Isaac Asimov
Aaron Kipnis shows how the United States has the highest rate of boys and young men incarcerated in juvenile halls, jails, boot camps, mental hospitals, recovery hospitals and adult prisons compared to any other nation (Kipnis, 2002). Unfortunately, Kipnis, a psychologist wastes large amounts of ink on a ‘psychological’ explanation. Not that there is anything amiss about the causes he lists: ineffectual and irrelevant education; father absence; sexual and emotional abuse, not least by women; poverty and economic exclusion; spiritual poverty; lack of positive role models; anti-male bias in the media; anti-boy bias in schools; the list is virtually endless.
But all of these ‘psychological’ factors only can be explained by cultural and social forces. In an open question to Dr Kipnis, we ask: why are you begging the question? The cause of these iniquities is easily identified: Anglo-Saxon culture! Why else would Anglo-Saxon countries find it hardest to integrate males? It must be that Anglo-Saxon culture embodies values that ostracise, damage and exclude men: for the only difference between Anglo-Saxon countries and the rest of the advanced world is culture itself.
A Brace of British Chavs:
The other Anglo Saxon countries, notably Britain, have similar problems with males: for instance, Britain incarcerates more young men than any European country (Riddell, 2006). Indeed, the public misbehaviour of feral 'chavs' (moronic underclass youths) is rapidly becoming a national crisis. Now, if England and America had a diet of peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches, and young males habitually ate such sandwiches, before long every half-baked ‘expert’ under the sun would be shouting: “Peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches are pushing our young men off the rails!” But, amazingly, the true distinguishing feature – namely a puritanical culture that ostracises men as sexualised beings – is never mentioned at all.
Isn't She Lovely? The New Breed of Anglobitch:
Again, why do women flourish in Anglo-American countries in a manner unthinkable anywhere else in the world? Why are there hundreds of courses in women’s studies in universities across England and America, and not a single comparable course in men’s studies? Again, the answer is simple: Anglo-Saxon culture. Because it is puritanical, it automatically places women on pedestals of existential supremacy, since they possess sex in a repressive social context. Consequently, Anglo-American media, politics and education reflexively lionise women, while offhandedly vilifying men as child abusers, morons and cannon fodder. And then the authorities querulously wonder why men are in revolt! Or why young Anglo-Saxon males are confused, hobbled with low self-esteem; or why they are increasingly a danger to themselves and others, suicidal or blowing away their teachers and classmates in high school. The answer is obvious, not elusive: culture, culture, culture!
The Fall-out from Anglobitch Feminism:
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
The anthemic ‘How Soon is Now’ by British Indy band The Smiths neatly describes many a young male’s personal dilemma:
You shut your mouth
how can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am human and I need to be loved
just like everybody else does
There's a club if you'd like to go
you could meet somebody who really loves you
so you go, and you stand on your own
and you leave on your own
and you go home, and you cry
and you want to die
Here are great sentiments of romantic alienation beautifully expressed – but, as with even the best popular culture – this lugubrious masterwork is entirely bereft of analysis. And the briefest analysis will reveal much about the contemporary Anglosphere - and the poisoned gender-relations that prevail therein. Cool, ruthless analysis also reveals the real root of Morrissey’s romantic displeasure.
As a relatively sensitive, intelligent, literate male in a northern English post-industrial slum, the unfortunate Morrissey presumably grew up surrounded by women of low intelligence and education; and such women are interested in only one thing –thugs. Indeed, most young women are attracted to thugs, whether they hail from slums or salubrious suburbs. So Morrissey’s Dilemma – the reason why he is single, shunned and sexless – really has a rather simple explanation. His intelligence, sensitivity and relatively high level of culture – all factors rhetorically extolled by feminists as ‘appealing’ to women – are actually handicaps in trying to attract an Anglo-American woman from the social mainstream. They are solely interested in two types of males: sadistic, sociopathic thugs and swaggering plutocrats.
Of course, they have a right to their preference. However, the fallout from this aberrant exercise of choice intrudes pointedly upon the freedoms of others. Since the sociopathic male is infinitely more likely to desert his partner and their children, the Anglosphere tax-payer has been left to foot the bill for an ever-expanding underclass - dangerous, crime-prone, moronic, ungrateful, Welfare-dependent and generally cretinous (see Professor Daniel Amneus’ ‘The Garbage Generation’). Low-status women shunning males of high genetic quality for low-IQ sociopaths is surely having a dysgenic effect in the West; declining intellectual and moral standards are self- apparent across the Anglosphere.
Above all, the reflexive Anglobitch preference for moronic thugs is causing a socio-demographic disruption that must bring the West to its knees, if it continues unchecked. ‘Love’ is, in sociobiological terms, a neurological trick played on young men in order that couples can rear fit, healthy children in their prime years. ‘Love’ ensures the young male will stay with his mate when she is pregnant and nursing; one thinks of Jaguar Paw in Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto, overcoming enormous obstacles to rescue his drowning wife and child.
Unfortunately, the male’s autonomic nervous system is primed for this intense bonding process only up to the age of twenty-five; it serves little biological purpose thereafter. With young Anglo-American women choosing to shun ‘boring’ (read focused, intelligent, articulate, educated, solvent) males for dangerous thugs, men of higher genetic potential are reaching their thirties having lost the chance to pair-bond in their prime years. But by that time, the deep feelings they should have experienced in a stable relationship have fled forever; they are no longer ‘primed’ for deep commitment. Given the overtly unfair Divorce laws that presently prevail in the Anglosphere, without the irrational spur of ‘love’ such males are unlikely to contribute their stable, productive genes to a society that has served them so poorly.
But if the brightest and best men withdraw their consent from the Anglosphere – this cultural bloc will not (indeed, cannot) survive. A society comprised solely of low-IQ sociopaths must crumble, sooner or later (and probably sooner). It may well be that patriarchy evolved as a social meme closely associated with advanced civilization; mainly because unchecked female ‘choice’ allows sociopathic genes to proliferate beyond a viable level. Certainly, since the State replaced low-status males as the main underclass family ‘provider’, it is plain that the lower echelons of Anglo-American society have lapsed into widespread sociopathy. Restricting female partner-choice would seem to be the primary cornerstone of all advanced societies; for by limiting the proportion of sociopaths, patriarchy indirectly promotes genes for industry, intelligence and self-restraint. Doubtless this is why regulating female sexuality has always been a primary concern of the Abrahamic religions, intimately associated as they are with Western civilization and its myriad achievements.
Let the Western Power Elites take heed: do you want this ancient English-speaking culture to stand or to fall? It is your choice. Keep the best men ‘on side’ and promote their reproductive success, and our culture might weather the storms to come. Ignore them, and it will crumble in decades - if not sooner.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Since the dawn of time, many a wise man has asked himself, "Why do women insist on plastering their faces with paint?"
From the Anglobitch perspective, it is clear that most Anglo-American women believe that painting their pinched, squash-alley faces will make them more alluring. Anglo-American females frequently apply cherry-red smiles to their muffin lips; eye-shadow to accentuate their piggy eyes; and, last but not least, blusher to hide their deathly pallor. Now, which corporate celebrity also decorates himself this way?
You got it: Ronald MacDonald.
Who told these cretins that resembling a cheese-burger vending clown would make them look attractive? It must have been the same person who told them that pachyderm Permatans or bottle-blonde hair are alluring: a complete idiot, probably blind.
However, although this 'Ronald Look' might be a (failed) attempt to hide the Anglobitch's true appearance, in fact it reveals her. For the Anglobitch is truly a figure of fun.
At thirty, used and dried up, struggling with sociopathic kids fathered by long-departed, knuckle-dragging losers ('Bad Boys!'), the Anglobitch is a clown in all but name. She trawls the dating sites, looking for Mr Solvent to rescue her: but Mr Solvent is single, free and childless (and probably banging fresh young chicks every night). All the Anglobitch has to offer is her shrivelled cunt, a burden of debt, three fuck-wit kids and high-maintenance expectations.
Mmmmm, I'm lovin' it! Is it any wonder Anglo-American marriage rates are at an all-time low?
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Over the past few years, a new phenomenon has arisen to stalk the Anglo-Saxon world. This is the murderous Asian malcontent, represented by the Islamic terrorists who bombed London in 2005 and the Korean school shooter Seung-Hui Cho who massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. As usual, bereft of the profound analytical tool that is the Anglobitch Thesis, the so called ‘experts’ are left scratching their heads about these desperate acts, dismissing them as foibles of the perpetrator’s personality or entirely driven by ideology.
However, to someone schooled in the Anglobitch Thesis, one fact shrieks out in all these cases: the perpetrator(s) came from a patriarchal culture that failed to inure them to the misandry of the Anglo-American matriarchy. In Cho’s case, he came from Korea, perhaps the most ‘macho’ of all oriental countries. The four British suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on a London bus had all been raised and educated in England, while adhering to the strict tenets of the Islamic faith. Now, to the typical Anglo-American male, female cant, hypocrisy, entitlement, double-standards and misandry are just casual facts of life that individuals accept and adapt to. It is entirely ‘transparent’ – indeed, acceptable - to most Anglo-American males when female miscreants are excused with perfunctory sentences; or when millions are spent by Police on detecting missing white middle-class females, while missing males are viewed with tacit indifference. By contrast, Asian men have experienced cultures where men are valued and respected; and thus they are not inoculated to these outrages as Western men are.
Hence, in the formative years young Asian males reared in Anglo-Saxon countries incubate a sense of grievance on two counts. First, males are viewed with tacit disdain across all Anglosphere nations; second, women are set atop pedestals, overvalued, pandered to and allowed to square rights with privileges. The anger this must instil in individuals whose patriarchal instincts are strong must be immense. For example, in an Islamic Court a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s – but in the Anglosphere, a man can be summarily imprisoned on a woman’s word. Indeed, Anglo women can commit murder and escape retribution because of their sex. In sum, males reared in patriarchies are poorly adjusted to life in Anglo-Saxon matriarchies, across every existential index: how could it be otherwise? And this, surely has a bearing on why Asian males are increasingly alienated from Anglo nations - and ready to declare personal or collective war against them at the first opportunity.
In educational terms, the male children of Asian immigrants to the Anglosphere perform outstandingly. Why? Unlike indigenous males, they reject the anti-male animus endemic in Anglo societies. This is why Anglo educationalists frequently mis-label Asian youths ‘arrogant’ or ‘overbearing’ – in fact, they are just normal young men who refuse to let their self-esteem be eroded by Anglo misandry or grovel before insolent Anglo-American 'Bratz' armed with rights and privileges. To Asian males from cultures where males are not reflexively vilified, such expectations are an outrageous assault on their identities. This is why so many Asian immigrant youths have begun to reject the received Anglo culture outright - and why some are starting to fight back, albeit in a misguided fashion.
One of the traditional right’s preoccupations is encouraging immigrants to conform to the parent culture. A problem with this approach is a willful refusal to critically examine the parent culture for flaws. It is notable that most Anglosphere immigrants have accepted consumerism and the work ethic, but not Anglo Puritanism and its associated misandry. Unlike the indigenous population, they have not been inoculated to signs in public spaces reading ‘This Desk is For the Use of Women Only’, a generation of women armed with rights and privileges, arrant misandry in schools, pro-female legal practices, and other abuses. In fact, the firm patriarchal Asian family structure is responsible for that community’s educational and commercial success – no wonder they protect it. By contrast, single-parent households characteristic of Anglo culture seem to breed only failure.
As an addendum to the Asian theme, most Western men prefer a respectful oriental woman as a partner over a post-feminist Anglobitch who hates men. The Internet and the global village have given men that choice for the first time, with very predictable results. In a few years a new elite may well arise in the Anglosphere: the high median IQ of Oriental mothers coupled with the authoritarian drive of solvent Caucasian fathers will produce offspring of an eminently superior type. By contrast, the dysfunctional offspring of Anglo-American single mothers will devolve into a mulatto underclass characterised by crime and failure. To some extent these outcomes are already present in Anglo-American society. If Caucasian males increasingly opt for reproductive marriages with oriental brides (a burgeoning lifestyle choice) highly able citizens of Asian descent will eventually monopolise the power-elite positions in American society. Given also that Anglo-American women have ever fewer children, the stage is set for a radical demographic shift in power relations across the Anglosphere.