Angry Harry’s Big Conundrum: the Rise and Rise of the Femcon Alliance

Something I find continually baffling is the British MRA insistence that feminists are allies of the political left. Although some feminists profess left-liberal beliefs, most Anglo-American feminists have identical views to socons on issues like pornography, prostitution and foreign marriages. And if we track back a few decades, we find they shared the same views on racism and other social issues. In short, both movements subscribe to a crabbed, reactionary Puritanism that could easily come from the Victorian era. Exactly why Angry Harry persists in conflating feminism with Marxism in the face of these facts is something best known to himself.

The socon-feminist connection is confirmed by a brief look at the Right Minds blog network associated with the right-wing British tabloid, The Daily Mail. This is now the world’s most popular online news resource, despite having supported Hitler in the Thirties (I kid you not). On Right Minds we find many blogs penned by feminist socons eager to tear down our hard-won sexual freedoms.

Just consider Julia Manning, trying to impose a ban on all Internet pornography in the UK. A self-defined conservative, her views are identical to feminists like Dworkin, Greer and MacKinnon – anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-freedom, not to mention quietly homophobic:

Julia Manning's socon-feminist ramblings

Why is government ignoring the evidence on porn?

Polling detailed by Kirsty Walker in this paper today shows that two thirds of the public are backing the Daily Mail's campaign for an automatic block on on-line porn. This is a welcome result, but it also means that a third of people essentially think that pornography is ok. This, tragically, shows how succesful the porn industry has been at presenting itself as normal, that sex and porn are simply interchangeable descriptions of the same thing. Once curtailed by the obscene publications act, the porn industry now enjoys freedoms that its investors exploit to the full, with no holds barred and total indifference to the shattered lives they leave behind. 

We ban things that are harmful - drugs, speeding, stealing. As a society we have agreed that both the individual and societal dangers outweigh people's rights to indulge themselves, and although a law cannot change someones heart, it is a clear statement of values. You can still chose to break the law, but your behaviour will have legal and moral as well as possibly material and medical consequences. 

We put barriers in place when society has recognised that something is potentially harmful or undesirable, especially to the vulnerable, but not so harmful that it needs to be banned. Alcohol is an example; it's a toxic substance that manufacturers have excelled in turning into delicious, palatable forms but most of us know will be harmful in excess and shouldn't be given to children. 

We are now in the ridiculous position of neither banning nor putting up barriers to porn. Ask anyone in the street if they think we would all benefit if we were physically and mentally healthier and they'd say yes. Ask them if government should encourage - not force - healthy behaviours and protect the vulnerable from harm and most would again agree with this, many more I reckon than the 66% who answered 'yes' to the poll asking if there should be an automatic block to on-line porn. 

This should be sounding an alarm in the heads of every politician - the Prime Minister included - many who have said we should clamp down on the sexualisation of children. Politicians are no longer upholding the ban of shocking, graphic images. Now they are resisting barriers to reduce harm to children - even children - when it's firmly established that pornography is highly addictive, distorts and defiles the relationships and expectations of adults (let alone children), encourages aggressive, debasing treatment of women and is a causative factor in the hyper-sexualisation of our culture. 

Pornography is guilty. Guilty of causing sexual misconduct in children, exposing young girls to exploitation, driving domestic violence in the home, causing addiction and obsessive behaviour in adults and breaking up marriages. We are no longer free when we are addicted, demeaned and exploited. Why is the government pandering to liberal-individualists, ISP providers and industry and ignoring the evidence that MP Clare Perry has collated? We need a healthy society for a healthy economy: ignore the threat of porn and you put the health of both at risk.

The gaps in her logic are so huge, one could drive a Challenger tank through them. Firstly, a poll comprising the views of Daily Mail readers is wildly unrepresentative of public opinion. Secondly, she presents no valid scientific evidence to support her claims. Lastly, countries with high levels of access to porn have rather lower sex-crime rates than the ‘puricon’ Anglo-Saxon nations, utterly confounding her position. In truth, plain women like Manning are terrified of male access to porn, prostitutes and foreign brides because such freedoms negate their own sexual worth on the dating market. Instead of confessing their own sexual paranoia, however, they prefer to concoct spurious arguments of the type seen above, invoking ‘society’ and ‘children’ in classic socon fashion. The popular feminist view that the Men’s Movement is ‘obsessed’ by women – a position widely shared by David Futrelle’s followers, for instance - is simply a matter of projection. In reality, feminists are obsessed by men and their sexual activities to the exclusion of all else! Even lesbian feminists want to ban porn, foreign brides and prostitution.

And so we see that feminists and socons share exactly the same attitudes and opinions. Angry Harry’s ongoing conflation of feminism with Marxism is thus seriously flawed – yes, some feminists profess left-wing beliefs but the vast majority hold firmly conservative attitudes on sexual issues. Indeed, some do both. While the execrable Catherine MacKinnon extols the virtues of Marxism in one breath, in the next she holds puricon ideals that would stagger Queen Victoria.

In my view, Anglo-American conservatism is inherently misandrist because the Puritanism implicit in Anglo culture automatically pedestalizes women and denigrates men. Hence, all Anglo conservatives are essentially ‘Earth Mother’ feminists - whether they know it or not. Further evidence of this ‘femcon’ alliance can be found in Right Minds – for our good friend Tommy Fleming is there! Yes, the anti-Civil Rights White Knight is now sharing his nonsense with the Brits – but maybe not for long (see my link below).

It is gratifying to see one’s views shaping the manosphere. My caustic observations about the socon-feminist alliance are now common currency. A number of articles on The Spearhead show which way the wind is blowing. Most male socons are like George Sodini. They think ‘playing by the rules’ should, in a properly-ordered society, get them sex. Unfortunately, the contemporary Anglosphere is a matriarchy ruled by women’s whims, not a ‘properly-ordered society’. In reality, it isn’t the State or the Power Elites who dispense sex to men but rather dysfunctional little skanks with college degrees in finger-painting and womyn’s studies. And despite the socons’ idealization of them, these ‘ladies’ remain entranced by bums, thugs and sociopaths.

How long before incel conservative men realize the errors of their ways? Maybe never. Some males are too deeply enmeshed in the matriarchy to ever be saved. But now the conservative wing of the manosphere is folding fast, maybe more will renounce their delusions before too long.

PS: Check out the following link to Searchlight, Britain's premier anti-fascist publication. There, we find Fleming is not just a White Knight but a KKK admirer, to boot:

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1406/the-daily-mails-far-right-blogger

In the face of evidence like this, how clear does the fascist-feminist connection need to be?

Where Do White Knights Come From?

We discuss White Knights a lot in the Men’s Movement. However, very little digital ink is expended on their origins and motivations. Obviously, ‘sucking up’ to women gives low betas, gammas and obese, moronic misfits their only hope of free sex. However, I suspect there are deeper motivations behind their absurd idolization of the thug-lovers and misandrist feminists that pass for women in the contemporary Anglosphere.

In my experience, most White Knights tend to come from ‘enmeshed’ family backgrounds. Enmeshed families are dysfunctional, lower-middle class kinship groups whose members live in splendid (or not so splendid) isolation from the rest of society. They often have ‘time-warp’ values several decades behind the mainstream. Their children usually wear outmoded fashions and have an inflated sense of their own abilities. School or college is not a good time for them – such ‘real world’ institutions shatter the enmeshed child’s pipe-dreams of his/her ‘specialness’. During this stressful period, the enmeshed family and its delusions are the child’s sole haven. Indeed, the youngster’s attachment to the family matriarch grows ever stronger during these difficult years. This is where manginas and white knights come from – cold, frigid socons spouting their parents’ outmoded platitudes about ‘goddesses’ or, alternatively, socialist woman-worshippers in ostrich-like denial of women's true nature.

Here is an academic description:

The term enmeshment has been widely used in the family therapy literature since it was popularized by the work of Salvador Minuchin (1978)... 

"Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in family interactions...In a highly enmeshed, overinvolved family, changes within one family member or in the relationship between two family members reverberate throughout the system...

On an individual level, interpersonal differentiation in an enmeshed system is poor...in enmeshed families the individual gets lost in the system. The boundaries that define individual autonomy are so weak that functioning in individually differentiated ways is radically handicapped (Minuchin, et al, 1978, p.30)." 

Minuchin described the lack of clear ego boundaries between family members which produced a form of fusion, a condition that interfered with a clear sense of self. Much like parental alienation, the phenomenon of enmeshment may be found in varying degrees of intensity, with corresponding degrees of negative impact on child development.

Tommy Fleming is a perfect example of the enmeshed socon while David Futrelle exemplifies the enmeshed socialist. Fleming has the bony, fanatic face of a defeated Confederate Colonel and his website often alludes to the school-bullying and general ridicule he experienced during adolescence. His reflexive adulation of the past represents a fixation with the twisted dynamics of his biological family, nothing more. And his blind woman-worship is best explained by the semi-incestuous mother-love he experienced during turbulent adolescence.

Turning to Futrelle, he clearly had similar issues growing up. His enmeshed family were probably hippies - or at least touched by that counterculture. Man-boob David doubtless gambolled around a middle-middle class home full of Raggedy-Ann dolls and hokey books by the execrable Timothy Leary. In this candy-floss idyll, he could do no wrong: mother-love, food and approbation were ever at hand.

Cue school. Cue gym classes. Cue ridicule by sadistic jocks. Cue indifference by painted nubiles. Cue recoil into enmeshed family.  Cue mummy-worship. Cue self-delusion. Cue the obese, self-indulgent mangina we know today, squatting like some grotesque Buddha in a faded suburb amongst cat-droppings and lesbian love-letters, prattling on about how ‘human’ Anglo-American women are.

The mangina’s retreat from the ‘real world’ into the arms of his enmeshed family is crucial to his fanatic rejection of consensus reality. He deliberately forsakes the social mainstream for a mother-centred dream-world several decades behind contemporary values. Note how Fleming embodies the 1950s, Futrelle the 1970s – the Twenty-First century rarely figures in their pompous formulations. And the same is true of other White Knights, left-liberals and socons in general.

Why does the English-speaking world produce more White Knights than any other cultural bloc? Partly because the Anglosphere’s individualist, post-puritanical ethos creates far more enmeshed, lower-middle class families. In other cultures, greater ethno-cultural cohesion plus overtly masculine values do much to dissolve insular families and disrupt male attachment to them. Military service and legalized prostitution force men out into the wider world, whether they want to go or not. In Thailand, where most adolescent males use prostitutes as a matter of course, the enticements of ‘the world’ are too heady to permit the sickly ‘mother-attachment’ that dominates the Anglosphere. By contrast, countries like England are full of latent-homosexual manginas worshipping denatured, frigid women in the face of all rational evidence.

The enmeshed reactionary invariably becomes a White Knight because of the gynocratic nature of pre-Internet Anglo-Saxon culture. Women were effusively pedestalized all through the 50s, 60s and 70s in films, pop music and television shows. This agenda began to wane a little in the 80s and 90s but only met serious opposition with the rise of the Internet. Prior to that, the Pedestal Syndrome prevailed across the Anglosphere, embracing both the left-liberal counterculture and its socon adversaries. Thus, hailing from an enmeshed family invariably embeds the victim’s mind in the ‘pedestal era’. Both Fleming and Futrelle are perfect examples of this process, in their respective ways. Trapped in their vanished worlds, the poisonous reality of contemporary gender-relations passes over them like the wind.

Ugly Realities: Social Media and the New Internationalism

It is fascinating how closed-circuit television, mobile phones and the Internet are bringing nations together. By this, I mean building a visceral, intimate connection between countries separated by oceans and continents.

In the age of the legacy media – TV, radio, the press – sanitized images of nations could be presented to the world without contradiction. For example, most non-British people saw this country as a huge theme-park full of castles, stately homes and private schools reaching back into antiquity. The reality of Britain – the most uneducated people in Europe, a vast underclass, crumbling cities and mass unemployment – only ever emerged by accident. Last summer’s urban riots were a good example. Suddenly, the legacy media could no longer disguise these cracks in Britain's national facade – the truth was plain for all to see.

Similarly, countries with a sunny, healthy image – Australia springs to mind – often conceal a much darker reality. John Pilger’s classic study of Australia – An Unknown Country – exposes a country damaged by race conflict, nuclear testing and an appalling male suicide rate. These pressing problems seldom find much expression in Neighbours or Home and Away, however.

Now, as we all know, Anglo-American culture has a compulsive urge to 'pedestalise' women - a function of its underlying puritanism. And of course, this obsession extends to the Anglo-American media. In TV shows and films, American women are invariably presented as nubile, friendly angels brimming over with sexual charm – a far cry from the obese, frigid, deranged harpies actually prowling the streets of America. However, as has already been pointed out, the emergence of social media circumvents the mainstream media’s concerted ‘reality blackout’. A street scuffle can be made available to millions of viewers in a matter of seconds. And predictably, this unedited immediacy reveals a much uglier side to Anglo-American women than is ever permitted by the legacy media.

Below, we see several clips of English females spouting racist abuse with little or no provocation. I present these partly to confound the old pedestalisation agenda; partly for entertainment; but mainly to build trans-national understanding of the Anglobitch phenomenon.


 


 





I wonder what Fleming and Futrelle would have to say about this expose of their precious 'angels'? Since a hysterical hatred of reality pervades all mangina thought-processes, probably very little.