Thursday, 30 September 2010

Response to Thomas Fleming, Deluded White Knight and Misguided Conservative



A reader asked me to respond to the following article:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/25/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights/


So I did...

Thomas Fleming seems to think that men in contemporary western societies should grit their teeth and defend women like males did in earlier, pre-feminist eras, setting them on pedestals and turning a blind eye to their iniquitous conduct. He fails to see that this is not only morally unreasonable, it is also wholly impracticable. Since the late fifties, sixties or seventies (depending on which feminist school you prefer), women have actively rejected conventional males in favor of thugs, deadbeats and sociopaths, along with other ‘cuties’ like violent criminals and swaggering plutocrats. The result is a large rump of sexually and reproductively disenfranchised middle-class males in most Anglosphere societies. These males have followed all the advice given to them by parents, schools, professors and the feminist media and ended up in the living death of involuntary celibacy (or the even worse fate of post-divorce male penury). And still Fleming expects men to view Anglo-American women as Disney princesses above all reproach, as did the bourgeois class in the nineteenth century. Is this man serious? The REAL question American men are asking in ever increasing numbers is: “WHY should I defer to women when all it leads to is false harassment charges, female contempt, involuntary celibacy and, if I’m luck, an icky divorce which leaves me in a trailer-park paying for kids I never see!”


What Fleming fails to grasp is that any complex society is an engine. If one or more components fail, the engine won’t work. Judeo-Christianity is an illogical hotchpotch of competing positions, some of which led directly to the Marxism that most American conservatives claim to excoriate. However, the ancient Hebrews DID realize that monogamy sustains civilization by giving nearly all males a genetic stake in society. This is especially important for the conceptual class, whose cognitive contributions are essential if any advanced culture is to flourish. It is crucial to civilization that genes for intelligence and deferred gratification are maintained in viable quotas, for those qualities ‘oil the wheels’ of civilization, as it were. This is why advanced nations encourage immigration only by cognitive elites – scientists, architects, engineers and other high IQ ‘betas’, seldom criminals or unskilled workers. Unfortunately, unfettered female sexuality prefers layabouts, thugs and sociopaths, leading not only to a sharp decline in collective intelligence and social capital but also a crisis of confidence among middle class males. Are they supposed to maintain their old deference for women, when this results only in female contempt and sexual failure? Are they supposed to lay down their lives for women who despise the very air they breathe? Well, since the feminist/sexual revolution that is EXACTLY what they have been asked to do and frankly, they just aren’t listening any more. In sum, feminism has sabotaged monogamy, THE vital heart of our social engine. All the other components are struggling, as might be expected. Yet Fleming persists in believing that one part of the engine should continue to work as it has always done for no benefit whatsoever, though the rest of the engine does not work at all.

To hell with that! Women cannot shirk their monogamous responsibilities and expect men to respect them on the old terms. In reality, men will only sacrifice for women if there is some genetic payback. Men on the Titanic only sacrificed themselves because their own female kin – sisters, wives and daughters – were in the lifeboats. There is no reason for men to sacrifice themselves when they have no female kin (the lot of a good many pan-Anglosphere males) and most other women actively despise them. The men’s movement has arisen because singleness permits male objectivity on the issue of women. As Camille Paglia once wrote, ‘female beauty is the world’s most potent drug’. Once the promise of sex and beauty is removed, however, men can afford to see women as they really are: grasping, hypocritical, selfish. With many more men single, childless and divorced, there is simply no REASON for widespread male self-delusion or chivalry. Men are now free to rationally criticize women without fear of censure or rebuke, since they are disenfranchised in all senses, anyway… hence, the Men’s Movement. Another interesting expression of this ‘new objectivity’ is a healthy tendency to take women to task for racism, fascism and other forms of intolerance. Until very recently, a ‘blind eye’ was habitually turned to these unlovely female traits – but no longer.

In conclusion, Fleming is suffering from a particularly virulent case of Pedestal Syndrome, a sickness that afflicts many pan-Anglosphere conservatives. Since Anglo-Saxon culture is puritanical and repressive, it reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings while idolizing women as ‘owners’ of sex. This is what renders Anglo-American conservatives so ineffectual in the face of misandrist Anglo feminism; they reflexively defend what they profess to attack, reminiscent of British psychiatrist R D Laing’s concept of the ‘Double Bind’. The reader who has followed me this far can surely see Fleming’s tired formulations as abetting and advancing feminism by vilifying men and idealizing women – in short, defending the puritan cancer that is presently rotting Anglo-Saxon civilization from the inside out. In his warped Anglo-puritan perspective, the female can jettison ALL social responsibilities to men, while men are expected to discharge ALL their traditional duties to women without genetic, social or economic benefit. I wish him luck with that.

35 comments:

  1. Fleming's ideas are part of a trend in Western Culture, sort of away from the 'Bitches-Against-Men' attitude of the 90s, to the this ridiculous 'return' to psuedo-chivalry where men are relegated to obedient servants of these Amazons. I blame this trend largely on two factors: Australian misandry dominating the Anglosphere media combined with American neo-puritanism.

    The first is, of course, a product of Rupert Murdoch and his camarilla, which promotes the strong, sexy, priviledged female as the natural balance to the bungling, dunderheaded male. The second is related to the religio/political culture of the United States which is dominated by a corrupted form of Christianity that combines neo-Victorian social ethics with a neo-Gnostic elevation of woman to near goddess-status.

    The result of this is that, as Rookh rightly pointed out, a serious disruption in the social equilibrium. Women retained their priviledges and abandoned their responsibilities; conversely, men lost their priviledges and retained their obligations. What we are left with is a dysfunctional social system where women are entitled to near-deification (without doing anything to earn it); and men expected to serve them (without expection of receiving anything in return).

    Anyone can see what the logical outcome of that kind of relationship will be; but Fleming and people like him are in too deep a state of psychological denial to see it. These types of men WANT to believe that these Anglobitches actually are impressed by their chivalric conduct. The truth is, western women aren't impressed with anybody but themselves and see men like Fleming as willing tools to be used and then disposed of as soon as she meets another male whom she can use for some other purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Friend,

    Some fine points brilliantly stated. Judging by his photo, Fleming is a fairly repulsive-looking individual. In the Anglosphere, that type of male typically grows up in puritanical awe of women on account of his sexual disenfranchisement. Thus permanently damaged, he wanders adult life in a haze of sexual delusion, a White Knight sucker imbibing the puritanical, misandrist garbage pumped out by Murdoch's media while fallaciously imagining himself some kind of iconoclast. As you intimate, these fools invariably project ideals onto Anglo women that they absolutely lack. The American comics artist Daniel Clowes is a good example of this tendency; his celebrated Ghost World imbues Anglo-American teenage girls with levels of self-awareness absolutely unknown in consensus reality.

    Another important point: My post was not published, despite being the most insightful ever to appear on that forum. What does this reveal? Our opponents are petrified of the Anglobitch Thesis, since it effortlessly exposes the contradictions inherent in their position. It also answers another perplexing question: why do women or White Knights never post their objections to the Thesis here? The answer is simple: they fear being publicly trounced in open debate.

    *I blame this trend largely on two factors: Australian misandry dominating the Anglosphere media combined with American neo-puritanism.*

    Absolutely, though I would also add English sexual repression and latent-homosexuality to the mix. As the oldest country in the Anglosphere, England still exerts a potent subliminal influence on Anglo-American culture, and this is its sickly contribution.

    *a corrupted form of Christianity that combines neo-Victorian social ethics with a neo-Gnostic elevation of woman to near goddess-status*

    Worth the price of admission for that one statement alone. I once knew an American who made a compelling case that America is a Gnostic nation, governed by spiritual concepts of revelation derived from German Anabaptists and English nonconformists like the Quakers. Note how in America everyone can be 'saved' by a relationship with some pedestal-dwelling Anglobitch, and how relationships retain a Disneyfied, 'Salvationist' undercurrent blindingly remote from the reality of sexless marriages and misandrist Divorce settlements. I'm not knocking America exclusively here, since these themes characterize the whole Anglosphere to varying degrees.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You know, I would get a kick out of publishing a survey at uni and giving it out to every Anglo girl. It would ask them a bunch of questions (like how much do you like this sort of guy - and list the sorts of guys that Rookh listed above), ask them how much they hate decent men and also ask them if they had enough integrity to actually be honest.

    Their reactions would be priceless - it'd be akin to having a bucket of water launched at them. For their entire lives, their amoral, elitist, tacitly/overtly contemptuous behaviour has been largely accepted, even applauded (as many younger Anglo guys still instinctively defend girls or at least see opposing them as like drinking a baby's blood). Imagine the shock when they are finally forced to face their own significant failings. Would they have the introspective qualities required to realise that their behaviour is not really admirable - or would they just get angry? I'd say the latter.

    As for Thomas Fleming, he just seems like a crusty old man. He strikes me as one of those older Anglo fellows who live in a time warp - they do not and cannot truly appreciate how much women have changed since the late 1960's. So I don't think that his problem is femme worship (at least not as I recognise it), as such.

    Fleming's dismissal of the anti-Anglo woman brigade (the term MRA doesn't address the root of the problem - the behaviour of Anglo women) is remarkably leftist, too. It just goes to show that, for all of their emphasis on reason when it comes to foreign affairs, conservatives are just as prone to kneejerk cultural imperialism and femme promotion as their leftist counterparts, though from different ends. Conservatives actively support the spread of Anglo feminist values which obviously empower women, whilst leftists seek to end the 'oppression' of women everywhere by inadvertently promoting those same values worldwide. The difference is that leftists are more inclined to support Marxists who are sympathetic to their ideals than righties are. So the difference between leftists and right-wingers in the Anglosphere is ultimately more economic than anything else.

    I also think that American Christianity is more focused on dogma than true spiritualism. In other words, American Christians tend to use religion not just to bring order into their lives, but to exert their perceived power and superiority over others. Many are immensely egotistical, thinking that their religion is the best just because they chose it or were born into it - this is because America, as Winston Wu has pointed out, is tremendously individualistic and isolationist at heart, despite perceptions of friendliness from foreigners.

    The presence of God is incidental to those types. Even if their organised religion did not contain a God (like Buddhism), they'd still be the exact same. The Muslims in power in the Arab world (particularly the Islamists) are even worse, because they combine this egotism with genocidal impulses (the 25-year war in South Sudan was against Arab Islamists and black Christians).

    They're not like South-East Asian Catholics, who use their religion as a way to worship and communicate with God. I know - my Malaysian mother does this. I do to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sebastian Hawks17 May 2014 at 09:30

      "You know, I would get a kick out of publishing a survey at uni and giving it out to every Anglo girl"...."ask them how much they hate decent men"

      "Their reactions would be priceless "


      It would be useless, women ALWAYS say they want "nice sensitive" men who will be "good loving husbands" but by their actions prove otherwise. Whether they are conscious of their deceit or self-deluded can be debated, but best to judge by what they DO and not as they SAY.

      Delete
  4. By the way, I lobbed a pen at an Anglo girl's back around 10 days ago. You probably have an idea of what she was like - she conveyed elitism even when she WASN'T interacting with you. It was the most liberating thing I've done for a while - more liberating than Anglo feminism, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. *By the way, I lobbed a pen at an Anglo girl's back around 10 days ago.*

    Don't waste your energy. Instead, crack the books and achieve. Once the pan-Anglosphere Establishment has been infiltrated by enough right-thinking males, we can start to level the Anglo-feminist misandrists from the top down. Take it from me, fighting battles from the bottom up is infinitely harder than from the top down. I often consider MRA issues from a strategic perspective, and it is crucial that older MRAs groom the next generation of gender-aware males for power, not blogging. Nothing wrong with blogging, of course; it is, to paraphrase W B Yeats, the conceptual 'rag and bone shop' of the movement. We don't want to be stuck here forever, though; we need to give eager youth the tools for outright victory in the longer term. We can't go on forever, and the torch must be passed on to to strong, competent hands.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually Rookh, I am one of the youth that you're referring to (I just turned 21 a month or so ago). I have done well academically in the past - until this year, when things have gotten harder.

    Sadly, I feel that I am far ahead of the vast majority of Anglo guys my age when it comes to societal awareness. Many will learn, though.

    Another thing about academia is that girls can achieve very highly in that, yet still lack awareness of the world around them. Sure, they love to travel, but usually they just go to tourist spots, possibly get drunk and have sexual relations and come home again without learning a great deal. Me thinks that academia consists a lot of absorbing info then regurgitating it in a narrow context, rather than true intellectual musings. I was good at doing that, which is why I achieved highly, but I seem to lost that ability (and maybe a little of the interest - I'm just going through the motions and the lotions at the moment).

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is a well-attested disparity between IQ and academic performance, which is probably what you are referring to. High IQ people are often failed by education. Indeed, apart from maths and the sciences education does not really VALUE high intelligence.

    Check these people out:

    http://equalwrites.org/writer-bios/

    Every last one of them is studying the liberal arts or humanities, an astonishing coincidence. Now, recall my post about the mental instability of sociology students...? Not one scientist there. Fascinating, no?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, the field that I am currently studying is commerce, which aside from maybe finance at times, does not really require the use of advanced mathematics.

    Curiously enough, I did excel in the humanities, but I shied away from it, realising how leftist much of it was.

    I browsed your link. Quite a few guys and a few non-whites - which just goes to show that anyone can be fundamentally Anglo if they absorb Anglo culture. It also shows that all too many guys are unaware (or unwilling to criticise) Anglo girls when they really should.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rookh,

    Thanks for your comments on my post. Yes, I HAVE noticed how these would-be white knights and the anglobitches never like discussion or dissent. One of the only times I got on a forum like that, it was more like a scream-fest than an actual debate. I don't think they liked my comment that classical mythologies about Amazonia and Circe's Isle, are conspicuous for their absence of knightly males!

    Projection is definately practiced by men like Fleming and it is exacerabted by the media. Similar to Clowes, these predominantly male writers instill characteristics in their female celebrities that Anglobitches never possess in reality. That is a huge part of Sarah Palin's popularity over here, and notice how political imitations of her have sprung up recently!

    Conversely, there's a lot of reverse projection promoted too: compare how many negative Anglobitch personality traits are projected onto men generally. Usually when a sentence starts with "All men are..." you can bet that whatever follows is something more typically female.

    Both you and DaRick alluded to American Christianity; I think it is predominantly American, though it had its origins in Britain. Part of the issue here is that, unlike Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere, we have never had an established Church. That may not necessarily be a bad thing in itself, but established churches tend to produce professional classes of educated clergy; whereas here anybody with the energy and resources (read: a fanatic), can set himself up as a 'spiritual authority'.

    But you're absolutely correct: neo-Gnostic American Christianity actively promotes the elevation of woman as goddess and sanctification through serving her through the family. Organizations like 'Promise Keepers'; 'Focus on the Family'; and various others promote the idea of male service to the almighty feminine. There are other variations of this theme from 'liberal' Academia, which has elevated female saints like Mary Magdalene to the same status as Jesus Himself. These academics openly promote ancient Gnostic literature, whereas the conservative evangelicals practice Gnosticism while claiming tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thank you for your comment,Rookh. It was masterful, and hit every point that needed to be hit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is another analogy, which might take this thesis away from Christian ethics, and place it towards Arabic sentiments.

    The 'white knight' fawning over the white goddess, can be replaced by the grand vizier and his harem. He treats all other men as his eunuchs; therefore promotes his women above other men.

    The grand vizier's influence extends into other men's harems, by sending out his 'Trojan Mares' to subvert the other man's wives from lover to scold.

    The grand vizier dominates his women; but advocates the misandric contempt, through the narcissistic conceit of women not in his fold, to spoil the relations for other men.

    To your woman, he appears as a white knight, to save her 'virtues'; but to his women, he is lord and master above all.

    For the grand vizier, we must do as he says, but never as he does. And to ensure the latter, his private life is guarded by the state, whilst your life is scrutinized by his Trojan Mares, backed up by state of the art CCTV, and enforced by gay friendly Janissary.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The 'white knight' fawning over the white goddess, can be replaced by the grand vizier and his harem. He treats all other men as his eunuchs; therefore promotes his women above other men.

    The grand vizier's influence extends into other men's harems, by sending out his 'Trojan Mares' to subvert the other man's wives from lover to scold.

    The grand vizier dominates his women; but advocates the misandric contempt, through the narcissistic conceit of women not in his fold, to spoil the relations for other men.

    To your woman, he appears as a white knight, to save her 'virtues'; but to his women, he is lord and master above all.

    For the grand vizier, we must do as he says, but never as he does. And to ensure the latter, his private life is guarded by the state, whilst your life is scrutinized by his Trojan Mares, backed up by state of the art CCTV, and enforced by gay friendly Janissary.


    Excellent metaphor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. *The 'white knight' fawning over the white goddess, can be replaced by the grand vizier and his harem. He treats all other men as his eunuchs; therefore promotes his women above other men.

    The grand vizier's influence extends into other men's harems, by sending out his 'Trojan Mares' to subvert the other man's wives from lover to scold.

    The grand vizier dominates his women; but advocates the misandric contempt, through the narcissistic conceit of women not in his fold, to spoil the relations for other men.*

    A beautiful set of thoughts. The harem concept is a useful one to describe much of the contemporary Anglosphere. However, was not the Grand Vizier often himself a homosexual, as in the case of Ibrahim, Vizier (and lover of) Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II? Further, the 'man' responsible for day to day running of the harem was usually the Chief Eunuch. Of course, there are lots of interesting analogies with the contemporary Anglosphere there, too (consider the homosexual mafia that dominate large sections of the pan-Anglosphere media), as you ably intimate.

    If you want to work up your elegant theory into a full article, I would be glad to post it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder why men like Fleming never look at the obvious: Just how much respect do women seem to have for men who treat them as he advocates? The only men I know who succeed with American women are barely one step above baboons on the civilization scale. I wonder how many concrete examples he could bring forth of women actually won over by chivalrous treatment.

    It dovetails into what was written earlier about projection. Anglobitches are always complaining that men are 'afraid of a strong, intelligent, independent woman'. It doesn't seem like strength, intelligence, or independence play much of a factor in the men THEY choose, though.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "If you want to work up your elegant theory into a full article, I would be glad to post it."

    Bless you Rookh, but this 'analogy' [metaphor] is as the rooting around for the question to the problem. Once a question is settled, and meaningfully posed, the process of analysing the various solutions can take place.

    To be a theory of any value, it's necessary to describe either absolute truth (as in mathematics and logic), or relate a 'mechanism' (as in a functional hypothesis, to test). In this respect, the metaphor above is inadequate in itself as a theory. Its function is to aid definitions of parameters to solve, such as: what makes women amenable to the 'harem'? And what makes men create them?

    My intuition points to the fundamental differences between the genders:

    Men, who are thoughtful, are comfortable with their solitude, but seek company to perform necessary tasks, like games, hunting, warfare, and manufacture.

    Women, who are sociable, are comfortable in the herd, but seek isolation for their necessary tasks, like housework, and child birth.

    When men in the workplace wait for the assignment to turn up, they are each others pain; forever teasing each other, and giving birth to the most outrageous nicknames to celebrate their differences. But when the assignment arrives, they jump to the task as one, all the squeaks, grunts and squawks, are innately understood, as the team happily works with deft purpose; their previous insolence to one another put firmly into abeyance for the duration of the mutual task at hand. Men like work, they hate unemployment; men seek purpose.

    Women, happy in company, require an ulterior motive to break from their gossip to do work; they require the notion of 'sacrifice' to aid their ego. Women hate work, they love idle gossip (and being paid for it); women seek esteem. They do not tease each other in idle banter like men, for when the girls show each other insolence, it is a cause of deep and sustained resentment. They reserve their put-downs for the purpose of hierarchy amongst themselves; and they rarely act as a team, even during the assignment. To aid their gossip, women presume their fake sense of 'equality' to each others faces; their conversation must never be exclusive, therefore drifts to the lowest intellect for that inclusive purpose. The corollary to that is, women have evolved a lower average IQ, and a lower spread: the mediocrity of women.

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Continued:

    A corollary to the above gender appraisal, is the choices of punishment: men are punished by grouping them; whilst women are punished by separation. It would be interesting to know what the statistics are for isolation induced psychosis, between the genders?

    So now we try to ascribe the mechanism for harem formation:

    (i) Gather thy women; they're happy to oblige. Treat them equally in public, but deferentially, in private, and they will be content.
    (ii) Buy them with anything, they are attuned to flattery, for that is how their gossip works.
    (iii) Be rich enough to afford a harem; out-do your competition by getting them to do all the work, so your girls have less to do; they like it that way.

    The anti-thesis would go:

    (i) Gather thy men; they will be angry, especially in the absence of purpose. Treat them equally, and they will compete.
    (ii) Flatter them at your peril. When a women says to another "you look beautiful", the women hopes it's true; but when a man says the same to another man, that man hopes it's a joke.
    (iii) Buy a man's idleness, and he will soon jade in the waste of his function. And a man without purpose is the most dangerous creature on earth.

    I believe the Grand Vizier analogy [metaphor], like all such comparisons, add nothing to the understanding of phenomena, but aid in the meaning of question building, and illustration to some answers. They are never to be taken literally, as I'm sure all appreciate, yet it's good sport to test them as such. You are right Rookh, to point out the sexual ambiguity of the real characters; but I could dodge this, or even elaborate upon that, by suggesting the Grand Vizier was a metaphor for the Marxist-Feminist State, the ultimate 'White Knight'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I found Laing's double-blind analogy to be especially acute and helpful. Simon Sheppard uses a similar concept, Pavlovian neurosis, in his work.

    ReplyDelete
  18. *You are right Rookh, to point out the sexual ambiguity of the real characters; but I could dodge this, or even elaborate upon that, by suggesting the Grand Vizier was a metaphor for the Marxist-Feminist State, the ultimate 'White Knight'.*

    I don't think exotic analogies are required, although they are useful for expanding one's mental maps, as it were. There is an interesting tradition in anarchist thought that links Marxism (and socialism in general) to Protestant Christianity, arguing that socialism is a kind of 'neo-Christianity'. Certainly, socialism insists that instinct (especially sexual instinct) is invariably bad and in need of 'reform' by some higher, collectivist power, very like Christianity. Both 'faiths' foster a White Knight, idealized view of women. As George Orwell opined, intellectually left-wing people are often rightist by temperament, and this also characterizes Christians. It would be tempting to consider Marxism merely a modern, secular expression of Christian values, in fact. At a bio-eugenic level, I have often noticed that both belief-systems tend to attract 'angry betas' who found that social conformity merely left them sexually disenfranchised, and who unconsciously favor a socio-economic 'levelling' in order to gain a mate. In Britain, of course, both socialism and Christianity exclusively attract the bland middle-middle class (you know who I mean), strongly confirming this biological interpretation.

    And another thing: both creeds detest evolutionary psychology and other biological explanations of human behavior, since these ably explain their own turbid motivations.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To which I will add, contemporary Anglo culture always hearkens back to older themes. Modern socialism is but the extension of puritanical Christianity, not its opponent (as it would claim). The 'Good Old Days' MRA tradition that views Marxist-feminism as entirely 'new' and opposed to the old puritanical order is entirely deluded and doomed to failure, since the archaic puritan meme FEEDS the Anglobitch Pedestal Syndrome like nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rookh,

    Along those same lines, Bachofen. a German anthropolgist of the 19th Century, postulated a theory that Paleolithic man lived in an essentially martriachal society. He also showed that Paleolithic culture was singular for its cultural stagnation and oppression. Bachofen further suggested that it was only after the matriarchy was overthrown in the Neolithic Period that civilization became possible.

    Freud was a student of Bachofen's and went even further: he suggested that, just as the tendencies of dysfunctional individuals is to regress to infantile states (i.e., protection of the mother); so societies in a state of collapse revert back to atavistic social structures.

    What we can see from these observations is that, despite all the anglo-delusions about the 'return of the goddess' and 'awakening of feminine power', what we are actually witnessing is a cultural reversion back to pre-Neolithic levels. And that is also borne out by observing the semi-savage state of men whom Anglo-American women seem to find desirable.

    What the end result of this will likely be is that the Anglosphere will ultimately collapse before the more masculine cultures of Asia, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East. That is, in fact, in the process of happening: Compare the Anglosphere of 50 years ago to today. Britain was a world empire then; today it is a petty socialist police-state. Australia and Canada were the lands of rugged frontiersmen; today they're fascistic, politically-correct social despotisms. The US, once the 'bastion of the free market' and the 'arsenal of democracy'; is a puritanical plutocracy utterly economically dependent on Asian manufacturing, Latin American labor, and Arabian energy sources.

    Probably the best hope for the Anglosphere is that enough of us men ultimately marry into foreign stock to the point where feminism simply dies out through attrition.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Probably the best hope for the Anglosphere is that enough of us men ultimately marry into foreign stock to the point where feminism simply dies out through attrition."

    How true! I think about 10% of married men in America are married to foreign women. I would like to see that number increase to at least 50% someday! Then how would the feminist react?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jamesbond:

    The US Census Bureau estimates that that number will be 25% by the year 2020. I think in the US, we're already seeing some reactionary trends. The conservative political candidates in this election cycle are surpassing all boundaries in their proposals for puritanical extremism, and the liberals are revving up their misandryist social policies as well.

    ReplyDelete
  23. *The conservative political candidates in this election cycle are surpassing all boundaries in their proposals for puritanical extremism, and the liberals are revving up their misandryist social policies as well.*

    This is an open question. Do you think the pan-Anglosphere elites and their minions are actually AWARE of the unfolding crisis? Do they grasp how alienated American men, say, are? I mean, these people aren't stupid. Most of them of them are products of the Anglosphere's best universities and can surely understand phenomena like the marriage Strike against Anglo-American women. But then, most of them live in closed elite subcultures around thirty years behind mainstream social reality where everyone still gets married, produces two-point-four kids and lives inside a picket fence. So perhaps the upsurge in puritanism and misandry in the States is more an unconscious response than a coherent agenda. The puritanical desire to outlaw masturbation is a good case in point, embracing both Anglo liberals and conservatives (as the Anglobitch Thesis would lead us to expect, since culture transcends politics).

    A similar question relates to British feminists' hysteria about 'sex trafficking', despite there being no real evidence that many sex workers are coerced. Are they consciously aware that sex workers render women like them redundant, or just dimly responding to half-formed, instinctive fears of sexual redundancy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sebastian Hawks18 May 2014 at 09:42

      "But then, most of them live in closed elite subcultures around thirty years behind mainstream social reality where everyone still gets married, produces two-point-four kids and lives inside a picket fence."

      Yep, I know those people well, my Sister is one of them. A perfectionist who was hospitalized with Anorexia in High School. Total teacher's pet who told them exactly what they wanted to hear, endless awards for "creative writing" where she wrote stories that could have ended up on "After School Specials TV" about girls going to a party, trying a wine cooler for the first time and then killing somebody in an auto accident. Or another deluded classic: Sally Cheerleader hangs out with Harry Highschool at a "party" and her first experiment ever with illegal drugs is INTRAVENOUS HEROIN!!!! She then promptly catches aids.

      Well my super high achieving sister went on to marry a DC lawyer and lives in a million dollar house he bought for her with her two kids. She endlessly campaigns for my mom to kick out my loser brother who still lives at home at nearly 40. She somehow expects life to be just as easy for him as it was for a young blond girl like her who was handed everything, including a million dollar house, buy men who wanted to get in her pants.

      We've got another one like her at work, with her "winner" boyfriend. She actually encouraged all the mopes at work to "volunteer" to "mentor" disadvantaged (bastard) children. As if I don't have enough free time to squander. Upon hiring everyone spends a few days working in the various departments. They hired a coke whore chick in sales and the brothers in assembly got used to the fairly vulgar talk she'd tolerate. Then this perfectionist chick came in to work with them for a few days and they kept up the same gangsta rap conversations about "going to strip joints and fucking." Perfectionist girl went to HR, allegedly "not that she was offended, but someone else might be." female evasion of the plain fact that she was offended and ratted them out to this utter sissy who runs HR.

      Delete
  24. Rookh;

    I don't think they actually care one way or another whether American men are alienated or not. The reflexive action of our political and media elites is to blame men no matter what; and, if American men are turning away from American women, that only translates to a problem with American men. So naturally, men need to be coerced, by force of law if necessary, to conform to whichever version of the misandryist agenda that happens to be in power.

    So I think, to answer your question, it is mostly an unconscious reaction, at least at this point. A few academics may see the handwriting on the wall, but mostly it's people who are sensing the era of female entitlement and pedestal princesses is crumbling without fully understanding why and lashing out in whatever direction suits them.

    The same is true of a lot of men, including homosexuals, who are unwittingly participating in the Marriage Strike without fully understanding its philosophy. They've simply turned against female insolence and entitlement and are refusing commitment to it in their own ways.

    Given the amount of recent media wailing over the supposed 'man shortages' and 'male commitophobia' and 'no good men left' &c., &c. &c., it's obvious that the Anglobitches are feeling the pinch, so to speak. Because neither media nor academia has any desire to encourage this trend, it's impossible to say how much the MRM is contributing to this and how much is just fed-up men striking out on their own. But the one thing that can't be denied is that the MRM is giving the trend an organized direction: which I'm sure is hardly endearing us to these self-styled elites.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would certainly think that 25% of American males marrying foreign women consciously worries most American women, since it threatens to leave large numbers of them in the (for them) living death of reproductive and emotional failure. It was fascinating to see how many American women gathered to post on Dick Masterson's site, as if they sensed it embodied deeper, more dangerous forces than mere satire.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rookh;
    I'm sure that it would too, I only doubt how many American women are actually aware of the numbers since the misandrist media doesn't report it; in fact, the media here is openly hostile to foreign marriages. But it definately can't have escaped the Anglobitch's attention: I live in a city over here with a huge population of Asian immigrants and nobody can help but notice how many of them have American boyfriends/husbands. And generally these American guys aren't the same collection of thugs that American women have been relegated to, either.

    I'll have to check out Masterson's site, it sounds interesting. I will relate that, while riding a city bus recently, I was having a discussion with an elderly American woman and mentioned to her that I never date American women at all; and prefer to look in Europe or Latin America for romantic interests. She told me that most elderly women she knew have told her that 'if they were young men, they'd do the same thing.' She also said that some of her friends have actually encouraged their grandsons to check out foreign dating sites! Believe me, every Anglobitch under 40 on the bus was tuned in to THAT conversation!

    It's probably different in other parts of the Anglosphere, but most American women over 70 are either the daughters or grand-daughters of foreign wives themselves (my grandmother was German). When one considers numbers like the census statistics: the year 2020 will also see the first generation of daughters born to today's foreign wives coming of age. If they are factored in to the statistical marriage projections, the number of foreign-born/second generation women married in the US will explode exponentially.

    So, at least over here, the Anglobitch future is looking VERY dismal. I mentioned on another forum that, unless American women start some kind of counter-misandryist movement of their own, they stand a serious chance of being wiped out as a demographic group. Whether or not they have it in themselves to do it or not is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The puritanical desire to outlaw masturbation is a good case in point, embracing both. . ."

    Forgive me. . but did somebody actually float such a proposal, or make any noises to that effect at all??

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fidelbogen;

    US Senate candidate from Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, made statements to that effect during an earlier campaign of hers. She hasn't repudiated that position since it was brought out during this one. On a related note, a Montana Senate candidate has said that he would seek to outlaw homosexuality.

    There have been various movements in some local elections to do things like raising the so-called 'Age of Consent' to 25 (I've heard several radio talk-show hosts advocating this); and in my state a few years ago an attempt was defeated to extend 'statuatory rape' laws to include consensual sex where there was an age difference of more than 15 years between the two partners.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Islam is the only antibiotic that will work against the Anglobitch/feminist infection.

    Having seen it up close in Turkey (although in a somewhat modernized version) - I have never seen so many dignified men and women in one place.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Rookh, did you stop writing or what? I actually enjoyed reading your articles. They were certainly accurate when it came to the (yuck) cuntus anglo-americanus.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No friend, not at all, have lots of stuff in the pipeline. I have just had a very bad cold recently, which is clearing up at last.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You mentioned the titanic incident in this post - what you forgot to mention - in the spirit of herstory revisionism - is that all the women who got into the life boats were first beaten, then raped.

    http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2011/09/women-and-children-first-as-soon-as-we.html

    I think that is even in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  33. First time I seen a female with the red pill honesty and boldness to admit to incel, granted I am now MGTOW but I started off incel, TFL, w/e u wanna call it. I was attacking this war on men before it became semi-mainstream knowledge. I was already picking apart the global agenda and all the conspiracy information.

    ReplyDelete