Anglobitch

The Costa Concordia and How White Knights Missed the Point

2012-01-21T00:20:00.020-08:00

The Costa Concordia sinking was an informative tragedy. That is, it exposed all that is wrong with contemporary Anglo-American gender-relations. First, let us amuse ourselves with an Anglo White Knight's hysterical response to events. A N Wilson's article appeared in the British right-wing tabloid, the Daily Mail, shortly after the sinking. The Daily Mail has the dubious distinction of having supported Hitler, by the way... but I digress:

Whatever Happened to Women and Children First?

When the Titanic went down in April 1912, the Captain’s orders were: ‘Women and children first!’

Although this legendary edict was never part of maritime law, it was adhered to so strictly on the Titanic that men were actually stopped from boarding lifeboats, many of which went to sea only three-quarters full. There were only a few exceptions to the unvarying tales of heroism: three men in steerage who disobeyed the rule — Italians, coincidentally — were shot.

The chivalry was reflected in survival rates: 74 per cent of the women were saved; 52 per cent of the children; and just 20 per cent of the men. It meant that Titanic’s sinking quickly became the stuff of mythology. The Chairman of the White Star Line, Joseph Bruce Ismay, who was on board the liner and did escape in a lifeboat, was branded a coward by the world’s Press for leaving the Titanic while there were still women and children on board.

Nellie Taft, wife of the U.S. President, mounted a campaign to raise funds for a monument that would be inscribed: ‘To the brave men who gave their lives that women and children might be saved.’

The tragedy of the wrecked cruise liner, the Costa Concordia, with its dreadful loss of life and hideous memories for the terror-stricken crew and passengers, has appalled all of us. It would now seem as though the accident was avoidable, and this makes it all the more horrifying for everyone who lived through what one crew-member called a 36-hour nightmare. One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape; and how the Italian crew ignored passengers and reportedly shouldered their way past mothers and pregnant women to get into lifeboats...

It seems that the seafaring command about women and children being first to board lifeboats originated with the sinking of HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa in 1852. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered, the soldiers’ commander told his men to ‘stand fast!’ and allow women and children to make use of the few lifeboats on the vessel...

But in our day, with the advent of feminism and the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned. As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.

But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing. And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.

A. N. Wilson, Daily Mail, 17 January 2012

This farrago of White Knight, Anglofag drivel can educate as well as entertain, however. Among the points arising:

1. The Mainstream Media are woefully out of touch with contemporary society - especially the 'conservative' media. All the highly-ranked comments on Wilson's article are 'anti-chivalry' and could come straight off the Spearhead. Not one of them supports his absurd double-standards. Here are two good examples:

What happened? Feminism happened. It took our jobs, our children, our freedom and our dignity. It denigrated, and lied, until we were little more than dirt in the eyes of society, unpleasant and expendable individually, though useful macroscopically. In an age of guilty till proven innocent, where law is bent subjectively to suit any purpose, a slow realisation and attitude of resentment is sweeping throughout the psyche of the captor, conscious for some, but present for most. Your conviction in this is irrelevant; expect more examples of denial of female privilege, gradually escalating, until something significant changes.

- Adam, N.Ireland, 17/1/2012 2:53

OK, so you are on a sinking ship. There is one lifeboat. Your companions are the Eagle Sisters, Dianne Abbott, Jackie Smith, Harriet Harman, Teresa May (all hideous feminists - RK) and a single other male who is knowledgeable about cricket and fine wines and tells a good joke. You have a pistol. Discuss.

- TerenceH, Rochester, UK, 17/1/2012 7:04

The second comment is particularly revealing. Wilson seems to assumes all women are Edwardian 'ladies' wafting around in a haze of perfume and poetry. Note also how the Costa Concordia women shown in the media are all presentable, feminine and middle class - quite unlike the vast majority of Anglo females. The 'Lady' archetype is always wheeled out for these occasions despite most Anglo-American women being obese, drunken, vicious, ugly and loud. Has Wilson been living in an upper-middle class cocoon for most of his life? I suspect so.

In brief, times haves changed. The old Anglofag nonsense has been steadily eroded by the Internet and the Men's Rights Movement. If there is indeed 'a longing among most men to protect women and children' why did this chivalry not manifest itself on the Costa Concordia? Moreover, why did so few male commentators on Wilson's article support his antiquated ideas? And why did so many readers rank his critics so highly?

This movement is often accused or changing nothing in the real world. Odd, because we now live in a world where masculinist values are omnipresent - a completely different world than even twenty years ago. White Knights and feminists can bleat until they are blue in the face but the era of 'pussy passes' is clearly at an end.

2. Paradoxically, feminism can only work in a patriarchal context. Bizarre but true, this observation cuts right to the heart of feminism. The females on the Costa Concordia were looking for male authority ('an officer') to protect their privileges. Without patriarchy, without men, feminism would not be possible.

The same must be said of post-feminist Anglo-American society in general. When men are fleeced in the Divorce courts and robbed of their children, male judges and police officers typically do the dirty work. When feminists say 'we need to stop international sex trafficking' they really mean, 'male-headed and staffed police agencies need to stop international sex trafficking'.

That doesn't sound quite the same, of course. If large numbers of men defect from society, however, feminism will crumble. And the lesson? The Costa Concordia showed the true power we wield.

3. Being mercenaries (see my previous article), men are not 'playing the game' any more. There is no reason - sexual, economic or social - for men to conform to their traditional 'gender obligations'. Simply put, feminism and female emancipation have eliminated all payoffs for chivalrous behavior. Being a 'nice guy' leads only to sexual disenfranchisement, divorce and poverty, hardly gold-plated incentives. If the grinding tedium of medical school were not rewarded with elevated salaries, would anyone attend? Of course not! But White Knights like Fleming, Wilson and Futrelle (plus the emerging breed of 'feminist conservatives' - that is, women who like rights with privileges) expect men to queue up for chivalry without a single economic, social or sexual reward... fortunately, most men are not as stupid as they are.

4. Feminism and Anglo-American Conservatives are one. Feminism is not a revolutionary movement, at all. In his post on the MRA response to the disaster, David Futrelle assails the (quite valid) MRA observation that conservatives like Wilson and Anglo-American feminists are one and the same. I am flattered that the 'new wave' of post-conservative masculinists are saying this, since I first conceived of it!

Anglo-American conservatives share many attitudes with feminists. A quick list:

1. Hatred of recreational sex, in all its forms (prostitution, hook-ups, sex tourism).
2. Idealization of women (in the teeth of all contrary evidence).
3. Misandry - both groups reflexively demonize men as sexual beings.
4. Racism and classism - both feminism and conservatism are white, middle class, Anglocentric movements dismissive of anyone outside their privileged world. And both movements have a scurrilous history of racism and intolerance.
5. Coercive - both movements detest personal freedom, especially male sexual freedom.
6. Christian - both groups usually commit to a joyless, hypocritical protestantism derived from English Puritanism: anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-men. And sick in the extreme.
7. Both groups are imperialistic, obsessed by exporting their warped values around the world. In the case of feminism, this theme has grown much stronger in recent years (partly because men now have no rights in the Anglosphere, obviating the feminists' original mission). They seek new lands to conquer. The 'anti-trafficking' agenda is a central plank in this new feminist imperialism.

Perhaps the best answer is that Anglo-Saxon conservatism and feminism represent different ideological manifestations of the same cultural phenomenon - puritanical repression. One is reminded of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm: indistinguishable from the tyrannical farmers. The more Anglo feminism preaches 'revolution', the more it stays the same.

As an amusing conclusion, just look at who Daily Mail bigot Peter Hitchens (brother of the deceased Christopher) links to:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Yes, it's our cross-eyed friend, Tommy Fleming! The link between Anglo feminism and Anglo conservatism could not be clearer.

Anglo-American Men: The New Mercenaries

2012-01-08T04:55:00.012-08:00

Machiavelli placed great reliance on the motivated citizen army as the best defensive backbone of any state. Mercenaries might well be excellent soldiers but - and it is a crucial but - their lack of loyalty makes them a liability in the long run. If they are victorious, they wish to subvert the State and seize power for themselves. If defeated, they 'serve up misfortune' in the usual manner.

In many respects, western males (and Anglosphere males in particular) have been reduced to mercenaries by feminism and sexual politics. They have no intimate connection to the nations in which they live, no longer raising families or taking any active social responsibility. This is especially true of middle-class males, who enjoy a nomadic existence as technical or commercial consultants while excluding themselves from social and civic life. According to Machiavelli, such a state of affairs will make the State brittle and prone to external overthrow, since mercenaries have no loyalty to any State or sovereign.

I would argue that the men's Movement is the organic expression of this new 'mercenary' mindset. What have always been the pleasures of a mercenary? Sex and money. And on the one hand we have the Game practitioners telling men how to acquire sex outside traditional forms of commitment, while more serious MRA theorists coach men to avoid divorce and try their romantic luck in foreign lands (thus protecting their assets and incomes). Neither of these two strategies should be decried, of course; having been dealt a mercenary's hand by misandrist Anglo feminism, Anglo-American men can hardly be blamed for acting like mercenaries.

In earlier eras, men across the Anglosphere would usually rally when their country called. Intimately embedded in the cultural nexus, such loyalty represented their obligations as social beings. Today, only the 'no hope' working classes join Anglosphere armies in any numbers (explaining the Anglo elite's willingness to commit such troops to military 'lost causes'). By contrast, the middle-class Anglo-American male has largely 'washed his hands' of such fruitless loyalties.

Tommy Fleming and other Anglo-American conservatives claim that this withdrawal represents the deterioration of American manhood. They miss a crucial point, however: that post-feminist Anglo-American society does not reward masculine loyalty. Simply put, there is no pay-off for male conformity under the feminist matriarchy. While earlier generations of men could expect loyal wives, stable families and public recognition in return for their social loyalty, the post-feminist world offers only sexual disenfranchisement, costly divorce and public vilification in return for chivalrous behavior.

Tommy Fleming and his ilk expect men to 'open their veins' for women for no returns whatsoever. In the conservative model of things, the male is like a customer who enters a car-dealership with a million dollars in his pocket. He is expected to lay all his money down on an old, clapped-out jalopy and be damned happy for the privilege! Indeed, Fleming (and a good many 'new conservative' feminists) would have him revel in the experience, oddly grateful for the uneven transaction.

And so the mercenary lifestyle can only grow. While David Futrelle might sneer at MRAs 'going Galt', mercenary values are already widespread among middle-class, Anglo-American males. A few decades ago, 80% of Americans in their twenties were married; today, the figure is a mere 20%. In a few years, that figure will drop to zero - and be echoed all around the Anglosphere.

Machiavelli argued that reliance on mercenaries is the root cause of any society's collapse. Rome itself came to rely on Visigothic mercenaries and, according to Machiavelli, its long-term decline and fall coincided with this reliance. In a broader sense, any State is reliant on male goodwill for effective functioning. The female contribution is largely in the humanistic field, the liberal arts and the 'caring' occupations like nursing - insufficient to keep advanced industrial societies functioning. Male disengagement (or expulsion, depending on one's perspective) across the Anglosphere will inevitably witness the fraying of societal structures and, more important, the informal assumptions that sustain them. Indeed, it could be argued that this process is already well-advanced, especially in Britain the the United States - the two core Anglosphere countries.

The 'traditional' men's movement has a misguided obsession with 'putting the clock back' to a pre-feminist era such as the 1950s. This is problematic in a number of ways, not least that the puritanical Anglosphere nurtures a centuries-old misandry. In addition, complex social processes are by definition irreversible, nullifying such reactionary ambitions. Once a significant social phenomenon like feminism has been 'lived through' (as Wittgenstein put it), it cannot be wished away; its influence becomes permanent.

Given these difficult facts, yearning for return to some pre-feminist idyll is both undesirable and pointless. Far better to meet the new conditions with mercenary verve.

Three Great Videos

2012-01-06T08:29:00.000-08:00

I suspect these guys have been spending quality time on these pages:

Ten Girls for Every Mumbling Thug: Arab Springs, Good Vibrations and the Revolution of Truth

2011-08-26T06:37:00.020-08:00

The recent uprisings in the Arab world are interesting on a number of counts. These insurrections are propelled by the youthful naivety of Arab populations – half of whom are under 25, after all – not to mention the skilled self-marketing of Anglo-American nations.

For those of resident in the Anglosphere, the images projected by the Anglo-American media are fantastical nonsense – we know from our daily lives that very few people own private helicopters, live in mansions or earn billions of dollars. However, to people in Libya, the radiant images beamed at them by Hollywood are accurate depictions of life in the contemporary Anglosphere. Most of the youthful revolutionaries doubtless believe they, too, will own a helicopter if they adopt a western lifestyle.

One of the core myths projected by the Anglo media is the notion that sex with beautiful women is happening everywhere, to everyone, all the time – that casual sex is like autumn fruit, an endless abundance. I recall a coca-cola advert that typified this agenda. Some fool was jogging along when he encountered a beautiful blonde girl running in the opposite direction. In moments they were jogging together, saccharine music welling in the background, caught in the first flush of love... have a Coke and a smile.

Now, many American men report that such easy-going attitudes are rather rare among American females. PUAs talk about continual ‘shit-tests’. MRAs talk about over rudeness and hostility to decent, middle-class men, not to mention no-fault divorces and widespread female misandry. It is reasonable to say, therefore, that a vast gulf divides the reality of American sexuality and its media portrayal.

Sadly, people outside the Anglosphere only see what the Anglo-American media show them. Most young Libyans doubtless walk about thinking that all American men are dating nubile models and enjoying daily orgies. We cannot blame them for this – how could they think otherwise? The Anglo media does not tell them that a vast number of America males are sexually disenfranchised, or that most American women are obese. All they see are Coca Cola ads – hardly an index of social reality.

George Sodini’s rampage had a great impact around the world for this very reason – it confounded America’s carefully-groomed international image. Suddenly, people in Asia, Africa or the Arab world glimpsed the bugs lurking in America’s bed. Sodini’s massacre hinted at a very different America than the one typically portrayed – one where thugs and plutocrats monopolize the few attractive women, leaving all other males to the tender mercies of Divorce or sexual disenfranchisement. That was why the Anglo-American establishment was so quick to decry Sodini as warped and deluded – much more was at stake than a few dead women. One interesting fact that garnered much international attention was Sodini’s attachment to the PUA subculture. Many foreigners were fascinated by its very existence – that American men had to go to such preposterous lengths to get sex with even obese, past-prime or plain women. This went sorely against the grain of America’s international image, where debutantes and models are routinely depicted leaping into bed with ranch-hands and truck-drivers. Consider the lyrics to Katy Perry’s ‘California Girls’, a paean to American girls’ sassy, hedonistic ways:

You could travel the world
But nothing comes close
To the Golden Coast
Once you party with us
You'll be falling in love
Oooooh oh oooooh

California girls
We're unforgettable
Daisy Dukes
Bikinis on top
Sun-kissed skin
So hot
We'll melt your Popsicle
Oooooh oh oooooh

California girls
We're undeniable
Fine, fresh, fierce
We got it on lock
Westcoast represent
Now put your hands up
Oooooh oh oooooh

Sex on the beach
We don't mind sand in our Stilettos
We freak
In my Jeep
Snoop Doggy Dogg on the stereo (Oh oh)

American pop music from the sixties went even further in its ludicrous misrepresentation of sexual reality; consider ‘Surf City’, the old Jan and Dean surf song. This warbling ditty implies that all American men are driving around in customised T-Birds, attending an endless round of beach parties and banging two or more tanned, beautiful chicks at a time:

I bought a '30 Ford wagon and we call it a woody
(Surf City, here we come)
You know it's not very cherry, it's an oldie but a goody
(Surf City, here we come)
Well, it ain't got a back seat or a rear window
But it still gets me where I wanna go

And we're goin' to Surf City, 'cause it's two to one
You know we're goin' to Surf City, gonna have some fun
Ya, we're goin' to Surf City, 'cause it's two to one
You know we're goin' to Surf City, gonna have some fun, now
Two girls for every boy

You see they never roll the streets up 'cause there's always somethin' goin'
(Surf City, here we come)
You know they're either out surfin' or they got a party growin'
(Surf City, here we come)
Well, with two swingin' honeys for every guy
And all you gotta do is just wink your eye

Chorus

And if my woody breaks down on me somewhere on the surf route
(Surf City, here we come)
I'll strap my board to my back and hitch a ride in my wetsuit
(Surf City, here we come)
And when I get to Surf City I'll be shootin' the curl
And checkin' out the parties for a surfer girl

Chorus

Yeah, right. A world-view totally at odds with the experience of every American male I have ever met. All you gotta do is just wink your eye... and be a mumbling, sadistic thug with personal hygiene problems. The surfers forgot to mention that, unfortunately.

Of course, a tiny minority of rich, famous males were enjoying such a lifestyle in the early sixties – and their experiences were amplified by the mainstream media to create an entirely spurious image of the United States as a haven of sexual freedom. In primitive theocracies, the broad masses lack the cultural acumen to perceive the squalid reality behind America’s glittering public image. Young Libyans and Iranians truly believe that adopting Western ways will result in ‘two girls for every boy’. The reality, as we all know, runs more like: ‘ten girls for every mumbling thug/swaggering plutocrat - very little for anyone else.’

The foregoing discussion partly explains the Anglo-American establishment’s rabid antagonism towards the men’s movement. By revealing the tormented reality of Anglo-American gender-relations, the manosphere deflates decades of Hollywood propaganda, indirectly challenging the Anglosphere’s global agenda of economic coercion and cultural infiltration.

Only since the Internet obliterated the legacy media’s tired tales has this ‘revolution of truth’ been possible. I would compare the Internet to a Roman legionary’s pilum. These short spears were designed to stick in enemy shields, not to kill or wound the foe. Thus encumbered, the enemy could not raise their shields to defend themselves at close quarters; which exposed them to fatal, stabbing thrusts from the Roman gladius or short sword. In the same way, the Internet downs the Pan-Anglosphere shield of carefully-crafted media delusions, exposing the Anglo-American world to foreign eyes for the first time: misandrist, repressed and gynocentric.

One good MRA blog undoes decades of surf music, Hollywood romances and Coke adverts. Is it any wonder the men’s movement is so suppressed and marginalised in the United States? When the Arab revolutionaries find the sexual benefits of western life are only for an unrepresentative few, one can only guess at their response. Whatever, the West’s media shields are down or discarded, their filters ineffectual – and there’s not one thing the Anglo establishment can do about it.

The INCEL Revolution: Norway, Riots and the Failing Hegemony

2011-08-12T22:58:00.017-08:00

Futrelle and other feminist sympathizers always consider themselves iconoclasts and revolutionaries – strange when one considers their boundless admiration for the mainstream media, which enjoys an intimate relationship with the Anglo-American cultural establishment. This gushing approbation makes more sense if one considers television and newspapers to be pro-feminist, misandrist institutions – and that feminism defines the Establishment rather than opposing it.

Antonio Gramsci argued that the media bound the consent of the masses to the existing social order by injecting them with a worldview contrary to their real lives – in short, they adopted the worldview of the elite (or their media minions), becoming detached from (and indifferent towards) their own reality. In this deluded condition, they were easy prey for elite manipulation. What the Internet has done – in its various forms – is challenge this indoctrination process. And that is frightening the elite, for obvious reasons. Richard Scarecrow’s blog is an excellent example of this ‘reality revolution’ in action. While the legacy media continually aver that Anglo-American women are kindly angels brimming with love for humanity, Richard gives us telling anecdotes about real American women – seemingly a very different species.

When Richard – a personable, educated, solvent male – approached women in his youth, he met remarks like: “You’re so ugly I wish I was a lesbian”; “fuck off”; “Go shoot yourself”. Now, encounters like this are very rarely described in the legacy media – yet seem rather commonplace in contemporary North America. Likewise, the ubiquitous female attraction to thugs and psychopaths is widely discussed on MRA blogs and websites, yet comprehensively vetoed by the 'mainstream' media. It seems that TV and the print media are living in a cocoon of utter self-delusion on any issue that might cast women in a negative light - in short, hopelessly out-of-touch with mainstream experience. This partly explains their recent marginalization and decline into low-brow slogans and platitudes - nowadays, only working class morons, knee-jerk conservatives and libtard fanatics uncritically swallow the puritanical misandry peddled by Murdoch’s legacy press: thinking people have gone elsewhere for news and opinion (according to Reuters, 70% of Americans now consider the media 'out of touch').

This dramatic shift raises many issues of interest to MRAs and anti-feminists. With the media’s hegemony crumbling, we are seeing reality aright for the first time in centuries. While the mainstream Anglo-American media would have us believe that 60 year old women are as attractive as 20 year olds, that all men want sex with Sarah Jessica Parker, that fashion models are all leaping around in bed with truck drivers, that women aren’t hypergamous and that no one is INCEL – in short, a farrago of fictions – most thinking people now see that these are remarkably silly messages. The point being, only since the Internet emerged has any opportunity for consensus social reality to be described or upheld at all – prior to the Internet, reality was systematically vetoed.

The Internet revolution also permits new perspectives on long-standing men’s issues. It has long been assumed by PUAs and conservative anti-feminists that the late sixties weakened monogamy, allowing women to pursue 'alpha' thugs and celebrities and creating a large rump of sexually disenfranchised males. While there is some truth in this model, an alternative explanation exists. In short, could it be that there have always been sexually-disenfranchised, INCEL males – that they are not new at all? Perhaps they only seem so because - prior to the Internet - there was no way for them to articulate their experience.

The media aimed at the Anglo-American working class projects a strongly sexualized agenda – ‘everyone’ is having sex ten times a day in Murdoch-world. Given that Anglo-American working class males are – given their low incomes and desultory life-chances – unlikely to enjoy much high-quality sex, one must accept that this is classic hegemonic manipulation at work. Further, anyone who dares challenge these mass hallucinations is reflexively lambasted as a ‘freak’ or ‘misfit’. And the middle class media (GQ, Men’s Health, Esquire) are little better, largely devised by Anglo-American homosexuals and projecting a denatured, high-bourgeois fantasy world as some kind of hyper-real ‘norm’.

But now – zum Teufel! – we have a plethora of blogs, websites and social media where normal people can express themselves without Murdoch’s tyrannical filter. It is our contention that this explosion gives the impression that INCEL males, PUAs and MRAs are something new – when they have always existed, albeit in a voiceless state. After all, the voiceless might as well not exist, for all practical purposes. Similarly, anti-feminist dissent has a 'fresh-minted' aura that is entirely spurious: a good British magazine called Male View existed in the early 90s, covering much of the ground now ably traversed by Angry Harry (I know – I published in it). Of course, Male View came by subscription only – its message was too radical for the mainstream – but it still existed, albeit in a marginalized state. In sum, the Internet has made the marginal mainstream.

Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway has caused the Anglo-American Establishment much angst, most of it focussing on how online ‘communities of interest’ can form spontaneously in cyberspace, blissfully free of their ideological control (the manosphere being a good example). This fear is interesting, since fear always betrays weakness:

Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world

Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.

The role of the internet in fragmenting the public sphere has been the subject of some scholarly and journalistic interest, most recently in Eli Pariser's excellent The Filter Bubble, which shows how Google, Facebook and other major actors filter our web searches, updates etc according to our user profiles and previous cyberhistories. So if I am an environmentalist typing "climate change" into Google, I get a different set of results from you, if you are an oil executive. The filter bubble operates on Amazon by giving personal recommendations; in its more insidious ways, it tailors our web searches to confirm our pre-existing world view without us noticing. Eventually, we may drift apart and end up living in different worlds.

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, The Guardian UK, 25 July 2011

'... had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different.'

True enough - but would his world have looked like reality? The same discourse emerged in relation to George Sodini - if he had not been immersed in the PUA subculture, would he have shot the people? Well, had Sodini been listening to the 'mainstream' media (and there is no evidence he did not) he would still have thought himself a crazy misfit - and perhaps been even more dangerous. After all, the 'mainstream' media's distorted fixation with demographic oddities - rich people, cross-class relationships, teenagers, alternative lifestyles - is hardly conducive to normal social adjustment. British academic John Downing cites evidence that people who watch a lot of TV hugely exaggerate the number of privately-owned helicopters, tennis courts, swimming pools and mansions in western societies - clear proof the 'mainstream' media promotes a delusional view of the world. How, then, can accepting the 'mainstream' media promote proper adjustment when it projects such delusions as casual norms?

The establishment's worries were recently compounded by the riots in England, challenges to the power elite's hegemony organized through social networking media. Prime Minister David Cameron has already promised to shut down social networking channels during future riots. This highlights the danger they represent to our oppressors - and the opportunities they give to us.

Famous British Paedophiles: A Response to Anglo-American Puritanism?

2011-07-02T14:11:00.003-08:00

A deeply disturbing, if interesting, site:

http://www.glgarden.org/ocg/archive1/brits.html

No further comment is needed...

Dear Woman: White Knight Anglofags Abase themselves

2011-06-26T09:23:00.006-08:00

For readers familiar with Anglo White Knights like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle, this YouTube video will be eerily familiar:

After watching this, how can anyone seriously deny that Anglo-American males are programmed by their culture to pedestalize women in the most ridiculous manner? Note the token presence of a few non-Anglo males to 'smooth the message' (hired White Knights?).

Note also the studied lack of objectivity these buffoons display in describing Anglo-American women - typically bigots, drunks, sluts and home-wreckers. For the White Knight fanciers among us (and there are many), these specimens embody all that is sick within Anglo-American manhood. Indeed, they remind me of cultists following some strange, arbitrary belief-system; consider their glazed eyes, slack mouths and feminine features. Not H P Lovecraft himself could conceive a more disturbing sect of denatured abominations.

Are Anglo-American 'Gay' Men just Priapic?

2011-06-25T01:44:00.013-08:00

pri·ap·ic/prīˈapik/Adjective
1. Of, relating to, or resembling a phallus.
2. Of or relating to male sexuality and sexual activity.

In the Anglosphere, ‘gay’ culture is defined by a cloying obsession with sex. Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men. Gay writers, film directors, artists and philosophers are all enslaved by their sexual urges, to the exclusion of all else.

This fact set me to thinking: are most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it. Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.

This state of affairs is strongly reinforced in the Anglosphere, with its undertow of puritan repression and attendant pedestalization of women as ‘owners’ of sex. In our view, the hyper-sexualized adoptee of homosexuality is far more common in the Anglo-Saxon countries than elsewhere, for this very reason. Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.

Let us consider another aspect of homosexuality – the vaunted ‘giftedness’ of gay men. Short and dirty IQ tests generally suggest that gay men are the sexual orientation whose median IQ ranks highest. A self-evident observation across the Anglosphere (especially in the United States) is that women actively dislike males of high intelligence, preferring swaggering thugs and moronic misfits. Now, this offers a plausible alternative explanation for the high incidence of homosexuality among intelligent males than the pseudo-scientific explanations currently in vogue – simply put, homosexuality follows intelligence, not the other way round. Left with no other option for attaining sex, highly sexed and intelligent males adopt homosexuality as a recreational life-strategy and genes have little to do with it.

These views may not be beloved – but then, truth seldom was. As we all know, Anglo-Saxon culture reflexively exonerates females of responsibility for pretty much everything – and homosexuality is doubtless another statistic. The very notion that homosexuality may be enforced by female sexual ostracism of intelligent males would never be admitted in the legacy media, yet the evidence for such a conclusion is impressive. Indeed, very few gay men would accept such a contention, since that would redefine their hedonistic lifestyle-choice as simple, unbridled lust, not the mystic ‘orientation’ it currently presents as.

Of all the pretty lies in the Anglosphere – liberation, democracy and equality - homosexuality remains the biggest.

Of no small significance is the fact that homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. Feminism and homosexuality are usually considered to be unrelated phenomena – or at best, phenomena independently linked to the rise of the Baby-Boomers’ ‘permissive society’. However, an alternative view is that feminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere. Certainly, genetic explanations of gay giftedness remain flaky at best, while Anglo-American sociobiology remains firmly trapped in the flawed assumption that women find male intelligence attractive, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Finally, the rabid female hatred of male homosexuals ‘seals the deal’ on this issue. As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose. Women who like gay men are a tiny, unrepresentative minority of the educated middle class inflated by the legacy media – the vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. The present author recently heard a discussion about homosexuality on BBC Radio Five. One gay youth described being savagely attacked by a girl wielding a cricket bat. That sums up the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality: the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.

What Next for Anglo-American Men: Stars of David?

2011-06-19T07:04:00.005-08:00

As most regular readers will know, it is our opinion that - being in essence puritanical - Anglo-American culture harbors a reflexive animus against all men as sexualized beings. Consequently, we should not look to 'conservative' politicians across the Anglosphere to uphold men's rights - to the contrary, 'conservatives' are men's greatest enemies, since traditional Anglo culture detests men.

The latest proof of this assertion? British 'conservative' Prime Minister David Cameron's demented Father's Day outburst against 'feckless fathers'. As per usual, this 'conservative' decries all absent fathers as villains, conveniently forgetting that large numbers of men aren't allowed to see their children in contemporary Britain. Quite aside from this, most single mothers are hardly the harassed, misunderstood angels such White Knights as Futrelle, Fleming and Cameron routinely depict them as. Indeed, the vast majority of single mothers are educationally subnormal, welfare-dependent parasites whose offspring - if Professor Daniel Amneus is correct - are far more prone to crime, unemployment and economic failure than children raised in households where a father is present.

Anyway, let's have a good laugh at 'Dave's' rant:

Fathers who abandon their families should be "stigmatised" by society in the same way as drink drivers, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister signalled a new onslaught on "runaway dads" saying they should be made to feel the "full force of shame" for their actions.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph in an article to mark Father's Day he said it "simply isn't acceptable" for single mothers to be left to bring up their children on their own. Mr Cameron also indicated his determination to introduce tax breaks for married couples - a Tory general election pledge which appeared to have been dropped by the coalition in the face of Liberal Democrat opposition.

"I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment," he wrote.

He issued a strong defence of traditional family life - describing it as the "cornerstone of our society" and called for a new drive to "bring fathers back into the lives of all our children".

Even when parents were separated, he said, fathers had a duty to support "financially and emotionally" their children - spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and taking an interest in their education. Where men were unwilling to face up to their family obligations, Mr Cameron said that it was up to the rest of society to make clear that such behaviour was unacceptable.

"It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them," he said.

"They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they're doing is wrong - that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn't acceptable."

Mr Cameron also described how he learned his values from his own father, Ian Cameron, who died last year aged 77.

"From my father, I learned about responsibility. Seeing him get up before the crack of dawn to go and do a hard day's work and not come back until late at night had a profound impact on me," he said.

And there we have it, pure gold. The holes in Cameron's arguments are so huge one could comfortably drive a Mack truck through them. But why bother? His views do not originate in rational thought, just the misandrist psychobabble that is contemporary Anglo-American culture.

Royal Wedding Lessons: Some Useful Revelations

2011-05-01T07:30:00.020-08:00

Just a few observations on the Royal Wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince William:

- The Anglosphere countries remain culturally united by more than language
- Disney values define the Anglosphere
- Most Anglo women retain hypergamous fantasies
- The Anglo elites remain committed to puritanism
- Anglo women remain committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
- The Anglosphere template remains aristocratic
- Anglo 'tradition' and feminism are one
- At heart, all Guys want Something Else

The Anglosphere Nations remain Culturally United by more than Language
This Marriage (and the hysteria surrounding it) proves the Anglosphere remains a cogent cultural entity. From Milwaukee to Melbourne, from Manitoba to Milton Keynes, the event elicited a similar response. Wherever they were, all Anglo women wallowed in the same hypergamous fantasy, searing proof of the Anglosphere's androphobia, misandry and repression. Little wonder: sexual repression ('romance') remains the cornerstone of their agendas - and source of their socio-political power.

As we all know, George Washington defeated the British Crown (with the aid of the French) thereby creating a continental power that would one day rule the Anglosphere (and indeed, the world). And yet the same democratic, 'classless' republic still gets 'hot flushes' for British pageantry and aristocratic privilege.

These facts demonstrate the truth of the Anglosphere concept. Underlying superficial differences of accent, law and 'football' definitions, the English-speaking countries remain a cogent entity.

Disney values define the Anglosphere
Saccharine values define the Anglosphere. The broad mass of Anglo females in America, Australia, Canada and Britain still become starry-eyed whenever marriage is mentioned (especially to scions of inherited privilege).

All this persists despite the fact that around half of all marriages end in divorce and most British children now reach the age of 16 in a single-parent family. And yet, at least notionally, the Disneyland idyll thrives like marijuana in a hothouse. This is because the needle of Anglo culture defaults to a puritan pole, despite an antithetical 'reality'.

At heart, All Guys want Something Else
As a young Mexican fellow once observed here, Middleton looks more like Prince William's older sister rather than his girlfriend or wife. One way or another, most males will do anything to escape a stereotypical relationship with an Anglo female. Of course, selecting a foreign mate is the most direct and forceful expression of this tendency but, even so, an older-looking female still represents a viable statement of protest. Then again, there may be deeper psychological forces at work. As is generally observed, the repressive nature of Anglo culture ensures that the younger and more attractive a female is, the more entitled and obnoxious she will be. Hence the widely-observed preference for old-looking females among Anglo-American men - it represents a psychic defence against fear, insecurity and unhappy memories.

The Middleton girl is not merely too old, she is really rather plain. If she were a prostitute, she would struggle to make a living. And yet the gynocentric media gush over her as if she were Helen of Troy. Yet another reason to want 'something else'...

Anglo women remain Committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
Women love 'romance' and remain fanatically devoted to it, despite decades (if not centuries) of feminist propaganda decrying it. But hold on; was this the same 'militant' feminism that railed against prostitution, (imaginary) sex-trafficking and pornography? Of course it was. And now we see the kinship between Anglo feminism and the dominant, traditional culture of the Anglosphere, where 'romance' and repression are the order of the day.

Indeed, the popularity of the Royal Marriage (in all, 2 billion people watched it) indicates that the vast majority of Anglo women remain committed to hypergamous fantasies. This implies that Anglo feminism (most contemporary Anglo women are self-identified feminists, after all) coheres with 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon values, a central assumption of the Anglobitch Thesis. So much for 'revolutionary' feminism...

The Anglosphere Template Remains Aristocratic
The aristocratic nature of American culture has never been touched upon in my writings, but is rather important. The high social 'power distance' in Anglo-Saxon countries drives female hypergamy and entitlement to insane levels. Indeed, this 'aristocratic' hypergamy inheres seamlessly with Anglo repression to produce a 'hyper-hypergamy' with racist, caste-like and Neo-Nazi undertones. This is felt most keenly by working-class and non-white males in the Anglosphere (although it also infects female attitudes to all men, to a greater or lesser extent).

Compared to the aristocratic ideal and the 'fairy-tale' hypergamy that springs from it, no male can ever match the crazy expectations of the Anglobitch. Such expectations handily explain why 7 in 10 divorces are initiated by women and half of all marriages end in divorce. Nothing less than a Prince is good enough for a princess, after all...

P.S. A pity the Gynotheory writer is on holiday. I wonder where he goes - perhaps the Bodeleian library? Anyone who can write such fine essays is clearly highly intelligent... the kind of visionary who makes us all dream.

Out of the Mouths of Anglofags... an Interesting Article

2011-04-18T14:07:00.001-08:00

I found this article rather interesting, not so much for Stephen Fry's views but rather for the hysterical response to them by Anglo-American women. Dick Masterson once wrote, 'female anger is the weather-vane of truth'. Considering the Anglobitch rage elicited by Fry's comments (among 'feminist psychotherapists' and other pseudo-scientific finger-painters), one is inclined to give his acerbic views consideration, if not credence.

He has been called ‘the cleverest man in Britain’. But even Stephen Fry’s fans must feel there are limits to his expertise. And as one of the country’s most famous homosexuals, female sexuality is unlikely to be one of his specialist topics.

Yet 53-year-old Fry has raised eyebrows by claiming that women are unenthusiastic about sex, and see it only as ‘the price they are willing to pay for a relationship’.

Most straight men, he added, fear that ‘they disgust women’ and ‘find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are’.

Feminist writer Susie Orbach suggested the remarks said more about Fry than they do about women, and ground-breaking female journalist Rosie Boycott said he was talking ‘rubbish’. Fry told gay magazine Attitude that men feared that women were less interested in sex than them ‘for good reason’. If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas,’ he said.

‘Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, “God, I’ve got to get my ******* rocks off”, or they’d go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to s**g behind a bush. It doesn’t happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it.’

Fry, who hosts BBC quiz QI, added: ‘I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, “Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!” But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?’

Feminist journalist Miss Boycott said the claims were ‘kind of rubbish’, adding: ‘Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex.

'We don’t go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don’t need to. Women have other ways to get our thrills, and we can go and get them in bars or clubs.’

Psychotherapist and writer Miss Orbach said: ‘I’m really intrigued by his notion that men’s sexuality is disgusting in some way. Why would he believe that women could be so disgusted by men? Does he think there is something disgusting about sex?’

Fry has often spoken out for gay rights. He played Oscar Wilde in the 1997 movie Wilde, and a gay man dying of Aids in 1992 film Peter’s Friends. But he has also said he was celibate from 1979 to 1995. And in his autobiography this year he said he was only ‘90 per cent gay’ and had once been attracted to Rowan Atkinson’s wife Sunetra Sastry and his Cambridge University contemporary Caroline Oulton, now a novelist. Nothing happened with either woman. Fry is currently understood to be in a relationship with actor Steven Webb, 25.

SOURCE: Daily Mail, November 2010

As ever, one is struck by the 'mainstream' Anglo media's reflexive support for feminist hysteria and misandrist gynocentrism. Is any further proof needed of the close alignment between 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture and misandrist Anglo-American feminism?

In truth, the two are one.

Feminism, Social Utility and the Men's Rights Movement

2011-04-10T03:50:00.017-08:00

The following research has some interesting implications for anti-feminists and the international Men's Rights Movement:

Faith no more! From New Zealand to Canada, religion 'to become extinct' in nine countries

Religion is on course to virtually die out in nine countries, according to a new study. Research using census data from a selection of countries concluded there is a steady rise in people claiming no religious affiliation. The findings, unveiled at a American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, was drawn from data stretching back 100 years from these countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

The study was carried out by Northwestern University and the University of Arizona. Richard Wiener, of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, led the scientific survey. He said: 'In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion. 'In the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%.'

Mr Wiener did, however, admit the highly-formulaic study only provided ‘suggestive results’ and recognised it did not represent the structure of modern society with the way it calculated each person being influenced equally by all other people. It followed a formula used in 2003 research on the decline of lesser-spoken world languages. At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the 'utility' of speaking one instead of another, the BBC reports. Mr Wiener said: 'The idea is pretty simple: social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join. 'For example, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of the dying language of Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not.' Put simply, it shows that social groups have a kind of 'gravity' that drags in more people the bigger they are.

The same principle can be seen on the web when it comes to the growth of some social networking sites over others. The paper adds: 'Some other competitive social systems in which identical or very similar models may apply include, for example, smoker versus non-smoker, vegetarian versus meat-eater, obese versus non-obese, and Mac user versus PC user.'

Mrs Wiener said: 'It's interesting that a fairly simple model captures the data, and if those simple ideas are correct, it suggests where this might be going. 'Obviously much more complicated things are going on with any one individual, but maybe a lot of that averages out.'

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail

I believe that the insidious growth of misandrist feminism so ably described on the gynotheory blog is partly due to its high 'social utility' - the countless advantages it showers on its adherents (both male and female). Of course, the fact that Anglo-Saxon culture harbors a puritanical, reflexively misandrist animus has also facilitated this hegemonic expansion.

By contrast, the Anglo-American Men's Rights movement remains a weak, marginalized social entity. Unlike feminism, it enjoys little or no 'social utility', rather resembling some obscure sect like the Shakers. Most MRA activity remains virtual, seldom infiltrating the mainstream media . Feminism, by contrast, has thoroughly infiltrated the socio-political establishment. In sum, MRAs remain cultural outlaws - which, while it may be superficially romantic leaves us with no real power and no chance of changing anything. This is merely an objective assessment.

Unless the social utility of Anglo-American masculinism improves dramatically, it must remain an obscure subculture associated with social and political failure. Consider the relative success of Futrelle's Manboobz blog: both women and manginas flock to it despite the abysmal level of research and argument contained therein. Women enjoy it because it notionally reinforces the social advantages and spurious victim-status they revel in; manginas and White Knights flock to it because it ingratiates them with women, offering the prospect of sexual relations. By contrast, this blog only attracts high IQ males from across the Anglosphere and beyond, despite its robust conceptual foundations.

In our perspective, the misandry inherent in Anglo-American culture plays a potent role in maintaining the elevated social profile of feminism - an ongoing, omnipresent Kulturkampf. In Anglo-Saxon culture we have a Manichaean dualism that reflexively equates boys, men and masculinity with evil and girls, women and femininity with good. This covert campaign perpetuates the parlous state of Anglo-American masculinity and assures the cultic marginalization of the Men's movement.

As ever, the 'old style' masculinism which yearns to return to some mythical 'patriarchal' past (when Anglo-Saxon culture has always maintained an informal contra-masculine position) merely maintains the poor public image of organized masculinism. Indeed, the abject public image of Anglo-American MRAs - angry, maladjusted men living in trailer parks with guns under the bed - is continually reinforced by both Anglo culture and 'traditional' masculinists themselves.

Somewhere along the line, if MRAs are serious about rising from subcultural obscurity to become a credible political force across the anglosphere, a complete redefinition of contemporary masculinism is essential. It needs to confer the social benefits presently showered by feminism on its adherents - state-sanctioned legal, healthcare, welfare, educational and media advantages, not to mention (for men, at least) improved access to sex. On all these fronts, masculinism has shown itself an unmitigated failure. A complete conceptual translation is required to liberate the movement from its 'utility ghetto'. Smart, progressive, rational, overclass, self-aware and sexy - these are the core 'social proofs' any successful movement must demonstrate to flourish in this image-conscious age - and presently, in the coarse hands of 'old style', reactionary MRAs this movement projects none of these benefits.

Of course, it is much easier to argue for this redefinition than to actually realize it across the Anglosphere. Reactionary MRAs - what I call 'the 1958 brigade' - presently define and control the movement's public image (such as it is). However, if the Anglo-American men's movement is to transcend its currently marginalized and ineffective condition, such redefinition is imperative. At least online, the good news is that a growing network of thoughtful, urbane blogs, sites and fora - Gynotheory, Scarecrow's Blog and several others - are injecting a measure of positive 'social equity' into the movement. However, much more positive activity is needed to lift this movement with the necessary 'social utility' to seriously contest the feminist hegemony.

Terrifying Bayer Ad... The Anglobitch Rampant

2011-02-25T11:50:00.005-08:00

Take a look at the following Bayer Beyond Birth Control advertisement:

Note how the women can choose males from a shelf in a department store like different brands of perfume. Advertisements inevitably reflect the values of a culture (or at least a specific target audience) and this one shows clearly how Anglo-American women view men: as disposable commodities to be traded and discarded. Each male on display is a stooge expressing some inane 'lifestyle-choice' for the female to approve (or not, as the case may be).

The whole theme of birth-control is presented as an entirely female enterprise. The fact that a male has fathered the child is conveniently dismissed, along with any influence he might have on the woman's decision. In fact, the process in presented in rather Brave New World terms, except that female 'choice' has replaced the technocratic state.

Ultimately, what we observe here is the ultimate feminist idyll: a matriarchy resembling that of the social insects where the male - any male - is a brief-lived sperm-giver, a necessary evil, a ghost at the banquet. In fact, no living male is necessary to perpetuate such a nightmare scenario; his sperm can be frozen and utilized whenever necessary. The man-hating feminist Jodie Foster of course chose this method of conception, and no doubt we will see ever more middle-class females adopt her spine-chilling approach in the years to come. The complete elimination of living men is already scientifically possible. Like the mythical Amazons, feminist technocrats could simply kill all male infants and their misandrist utopia would still continue indefinitely. Seldom have all the terrible themes of Anglo-American feminism been presented so artfully: misandry, homosociality, gendercide, puritanism and totalitarian matriarchy. What I have attempted to describe in three years, Bayer have successfully expressed in three minutes... no small achievement.

White Knights like Fleming or Futrelle should study this cultural artifact hard and often. At heart, Anglo-American women simply don't like men very much. That goes for Fleming, Futrelle and any other male (whether White Knight or not). The ultimate end of Anglo-American feminism is not some peaceful wonder-world of sexual freedom but the gendercidal elimination of all men - and, of course, matriarchal fascism.

The Puritan Paradox: How Incontinent Cultures Remain Puritanical

2011-02-13T08:48:00.019-08:00

Recently, some silver-tongued fellow challenged the Anglobitch Thesis and some of his charges merited a counter-critique, which we present here. Incisive criticism presented with eloquence and skill - we love these things. His central objection was that the Anglosphere cannot be considered puritanical if we view it objectively – children born out of wedlock, rampant divorce rates, sex-education classes, teenage pregnancies, hook-up culture, and so on.

By way of reply, I must first point out that Anglo-American gender-relations are determined by social structure as much as Puritanism. The Anglo-Saxon nations have smaller, less influential middle-classes than most comparable western nations. This means fewer personable, attractive women, since such winning qualities are ‘middle-class’ as such. Continental countries like Sweden or Austria have rather more ‘high beta’ women than the Anglosphere (in Game ranking, 5s to 7s), while the Anglo-American power-distance between classes ensures such women are rare (lots of under-5s and a few entitled over-7s, complete with Homeric 'bitch-shields'). European countries also have traditions of exercise and good diet, further raising the average standard of their women.

That said, at first glance it seems ridiculous to claim that the contemporary anglosphere is ‘puritanical’. In virtually Anglo-American city on a Friday or Saturday night, scantily clad young women can be seen tottering about in drunken stupefaction on the hunt for thugs, sports stars or plutocrats. While the anglosphere was indisputably puritanical well into the 1950s, such a description seems laughable today.

And yet – and it is a crucial ‘and yet’ – the contemporary anglosphere retains a far-reaching animus against men as sexualized beings. Murdoch’s media demonizes men while glorifying women at every turn. For example, British girls who pass public examinations (after years of preferential treatment, of course) are celebrated in press photo-shoots (I kid you not) while young males are mocked as feral morons and pumped full of Ritalin. The ‘conservative’ politicians of the Anglosphere take women’s side at every opportunity, capitulating to every feminist demand. Women commit all manner of crimes with impunity while males are imprisoned for the most trivial offences (and no offences, in the case of divorced fathers).

And so we have a paradox - while the contemporary anglosphere is no longer overtly puritanical, it still exalts women as if it were. The explanation underlying this contradiction sheds much light on feminist conceit. As usual, nothing is simple when discussing the Anglobitch.

The culture-bearing classes in the contemporary anglosphere are not reflective of the general population. That is, social elites in Britain, America and the rest of the Anglophere retain an antiquated outlook completely out of step with modern experience. Moreover, the Anglo elites are typically WASPS whose beliefs closely inhere to ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon puritanism. British Prime Minister David Cameron is a perfect example – having attended Eton College, Oxford University and enjoyed a life of insular privilege, he might as well be living in the 1950s for all he knows of contemporary Britain with its gangs, drugs and Welfare mothers. Unsurprisingly, this weak character yields to feminist opinion at every turn, belying the old-style MRA belief that all feminists are Marxists. And elites across the English-speaking world are similarly archaic, repressive, puritanical and misandrist. This explains how a morally-lax culture still nurtures a puritanical, misandrist media, legislature and judiciary. Its top decision-makers are still living in the early fifties, woodenly partisan and fiercely insistent on imposing their outmoded beliefs.

Furthermore, Puritanism persists in pockets outside the elite. Of course, the Anglo elite are of paramount importance in maintaining the old puritanical culture, but they have many lesser confederates in their mission. The feminist movement clings fiercely to the old repression, with its hysterical ‘sex-trafficking’ fantasies, its paranoid desire to suppress porn – and above all, its overmastering urge to prevent American men seeking foreign mates via VAWA and its derivatives. The legal profession remains determinedly WASP-ish – and of course, pivotal in framing the torrent of anti-male legislation that has oppressed Anglo-American men in recent decades. The media – Ezra Pound’s ‘Liars for Hire’ – are also some fifty years behind the times, still exalting women as stainless angels, forever presenting males as dead-beat dads, rapists and morons. And the established Protestant churches augment this agenda – especially in the United States, where religion remains a potent socio-cultural force.

It is also notable that Anglo-American elite colleges like Harvard, Yale and Oxford are hotbeds of repression. The fact that very little sex occurs in these institutions (about half of Harvard students have no sex in four years of study) shows perfectly well that puritanical attitudes still thrive among the traditional Anglo elites. Academic feminism (as exemplified by the execrable views of Ms Catherine Mackinnon) is notably archaic and anti-sexual - indeed, could come straight from Seventeenth Century New England. Yet graduates of these institutions go on to occupy prominent positions in law, politics and the media, maintaining a strong puritanical agenda in the corridors of power.

Though writers like Roissy continually claim that America is now a ‘post-Marriage’ culture characterised by casual hook-ups, these views and experiences are most definitely not shared by the Anglosphere elites. No – they are still living in the fifties, frowning on sex outside marriage – even though a substantial proportion of Anglo-American citizens no longer marry at all. In Britain, the archaic Establishment gushes over Royal Weddings even though hordes of people are single and substantial numbers of children are now born out of wedlock (most Royal marriages fail, anyway).

So – while the Anglosphere is replete with drunken whores, sex-education classes and porn downloads, in many key areas of policy and opinion-formation the old puritanism is alive and well. And this explains our paradox: the Anglo-American elites defend 'princesses' even while the drunken Anglobitch staggers the streets, her panties around her ankles. Indeed, this gulf between the Anglobitch and the Anglo-American Establishment’s idealization of her is what renders feminism so intellectually inconsistent and absurd.

Where does the foregoing discussion leave us? Above all, it hammers home the point that the ‘conservatism’ extolled by old-style MRAs offers nothing to the Anglo-American men’s movement. Why should it, when residual Puritanism is the source of pan-anglosphere misandry?

Elite or overclass detachment from mainstream experience also explains the precipituous decline of the mainstream media. The Internet has greatly weakened the elite’s ideological influence, exposing the gulf between their archaic rhetoric and the post-feminist nightmare most men have to live in. It is by definition that the men’s movement is an online phenomenon, since the Internet allows for objective discussion without hindrance from the feminists' 'silk curtain'. The MSM does not like men, has no time for their issues and has experienced male disengagement for that reason.

Generation Anglobitch: Small Female Amygdalas and Huge Expectations

2011-01-24T09:08:00.017-08:00

This is one of the funnist things I've ever read. Don't laugh too hard, your sides might split...

Today’s 20-somethings were brought up believing they could have it all: the high-flying job, the enviable bank balance, the perfect relationship. But as young adults in a recession, they have found that the reality is very different. For a generation raised on sky-high expectations, learning to compromise has brought them back down to earth, says 23-year-old Sophie Ellis...

When I arrived at Manchester Metropolitan University (decidedly not Oxford - RK) to study English (decidedly not chemical engineering - RK) six years ago, I had no doubt that after three years of hedonism, hangovers and hard work, I’d emerge a proud graduate with the world at my feet. I believed that it would be only a matter of time before I found a full-time job in my chosen field, made inroads into my student debts, bought my first house and forged a happy relationship with the man of my dreams. There was an unspoken assumption among my peers that this was our future – all we had to do now was sort out the finer details. The word compromise never entered our heads. Unfortunately, we soon discovered that life had other plans for us.

After university I took a master’s in journalism, thinking it would give me an edge in a highly competitive industry. But as the chaplain handed me my scroll in 2008, the reality of graduation was far from the fairy tale I had expected. The abrupt economic downturn had really sunk in; unemployment was skyrocketing alongside loan interest rates; graduates weren’t getting a look-in in the job market and the 100 per cent mortgages of recent years, which had allowed first-time buyers a vital first footing on the property ladder, had vanished. We were left reeling.

‘Rigid goals, an idealised trajectory and a world-owes-me-something attitude is commonplace, making many of today’s young adults demoralised, anxious and depressed,’ says psychologist Dr Cecilia d’Felice. Psychotherapist Richard Reid agrees: ‘I’ve noticed an increasing number of young adults coming to see me suffering from symptoms of dissatisfaction in their everyday lives,’ he says. ‘They’ve lost their identity and sense of direction as the jobs and lifestyle they expected have been abruptly taken away.’

Dissatisfaction is an understatement. Despite what our parents and teachers assured us, a degree no longer guarantees a good job. Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that almost one in ten of 2008’s graduates are unemployed, and more than a million under 25s were out of work at the end of 2009.

I’d assumed I would walk into my ideal job on a women’s magazine; instead, I spent the best part of six months filling in application forms for jobs that weren’t even remotely related to my degree. The rejection letters I received could easily have filled a postbag. I eventually secured a job as a television researcher in Leeds. I was lucky – at least it was in the journalistic arena. My friend Jessica, 22, graduated with a degree in fashion buying the same year as me. Eight months later she became so disillusioned at the lack of jobs that she decided to take a Postgraduate Certificate in Education to retrain as a teacher. ‘Teaching isn’t something I would have considered before,’ she says. ‘But I have to believe that I’m bettering my chances.’

For some, the brutal shock of unemployment in place of the promise of a fulfilling career proves too much to handle. In April, 21-year-old Vicky Harrison committed suicide. She had dreamt of a career as a teacher or a TV producer but gave up hope after more than 200 unsuccessful job applications. She was one of more than 450,000 young adults under 25 who claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance (Welfare) last year – a figure which has risen by 99 per cent since the beginning of the recession.

‘When we are young our hopes are in their most nascent and fragile form,’ explains Dr d’Felice. ‘They can easily be trampled upon – with devastating consequences to our self-confidence and self-esteem, as the tragic case of Vicky Harrison illustrates so poignantly.’

When I was born in 1986 it was a time of affluence, opportunity and promise; my mother, a single parent, had a respected and well-paid job in the flourishing IT industry and worked hard to provide a decent lifestyle for the two of us. She emphasised the importance of education and pushed me academically. I joined after-school clubs, took clarinet and piano lessons and applied myself to my studies. It seemed an obvious equation – working hard at school meant I’d get a good job and nice things when I grew up.

However, like many people who grew up in the 1970s, my mum had had a smooth transition into the world of work. She found a job with a large IT firm weeks after graduating, progressed quickly up the career ladder, bought a house and, by the time she had me, at 31, was established in a lucrative job as a freelance computer programmer. Her peers had similar good fortune – many had received full grants for university, signed on in the long holidays and graduated with no debt. They found work, bought property cheaply, then, as prices rose, made a tidy profit and traded up. As their children, we had the best foundations in terms of education, economy and ego. I had no doubt that I’d be at least as successful as my mother.

For the first time, we’re asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in constructive compromise.

The media sold me a similar dream. Magazines taught me how to bag a bloke, add zeros to my future salary and become the best-dressed girl in town; and every US drama from Sweet Valley High to Sex and the City assured me that, one day, I too would be sipping cosmopolitans, flicking my perfectly coiffed hair and discussing my charmed life with my equally groomed, intelligent and successful friends. In short, my expectations of adulthood were sky-high; my sense of entitlement enormous. Nothing – intellectually, financially or emotionally, I believed – was out of reach.

Yet here I am, living back at home near Leeds – crammed in with my mum and her dog Louis. As we sit watching Location, Location, Location, I daydream about the small but stylish city-centre flat I’d envisaged for myself. I’m far from alone – one 23-year-old friend, who needs to pay off her student debt and is trying to save for a deposit on a flat, has moved back in with her parents, is sleeping in her childhood bed and adhering to a curfew.

My relationship has been similarly affected by my own lofty expectations. I have been with my boyfriend, albeit on and off, for more than five years. In truth, all our ‘off’ times were down to my concern that there might be something better out there. It’s awful to admit, but my reluctance to commit was because our relationship was ‘normal’. I felt entitled to constant declarations of love and devotion, 90210-style, and it’s taken me a long time to curb my cravings for a Hollywood romance that simply doesn’t exist. And, seemingly, my peers are having the same trouble adjusting. In a recent newspaper article, author Joanna Trollope chastised young women for believing in the perfect man.

She insisted: ‘People have to throw away this absurd Vera Wang shopping list which says that a man has to earn £100,000 a year, be able to cut down a tree, play the Spanish guitar, make love all night and cook a cheese soufflé.’ But growing up, all we saw were perfect men with perfect wives, whether it was on television, in a magazine or on a billboard. Even my mother advised me to settle for nothing less than the three Rs – respect, romance and ‘Robert Redford looks’. Ironically, she herself has never married, which should have been a hint that real life wasn’t like the movies. Slowly, begrudgingly, my generation is realising that compromise is key.

The upside to the gloom is that we’ve had to knock the narcissism down a peg or two and realise that we weren’t quite as entitled to the job, the house or the man as we thought. For the first time, we’re asking ourselves what we can do without and becoming masters in constructive compromise. For me, living in London just wouldn’t have worked. It wasn’t feasible to pay off my student debts alongside extortionate rent. Yes, living with mum is a compromise – for both of us – but one which, with luck, will enable me to save for a place of my own. And although my magazine dreams may be delayed, I have decided to give freelancing a go – it’s hard work, but the sense of pride I feel when I get a commission is something I wouldn’t necessarily have experienced in a magazine-office environment. My relationship is now flourishing too. We both make the effort to keep it special and exciting, and I’ve learnt that an ‘ordinary’ night in on the sofa beats overblown declarations of love any day.

Would it have made the blow any easier if my generation had known in advance that we would become adults in an age of insecurity and cutbacks? Probably. But that might not have given us the motivation to aim high. According to a recent poll, rather than becoming despondent and giving up, a quarter of young people still dream of running their own business, and 23 per cent of new graduates want to gain more qualifications in order to better tailor their skills to the career they really want.

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail.

This article is couched in terms of 'generational' experience but really, most of the issues discussed are relevant only to young Anglo females: ideal 'love', absurd career expectations and a total lack of self awareness. In sum, is this 'crisis' to do with generations or is it really to do with Anglobitch entitlement? In my opinion, it is the latter.

Sophie Ellis believes that she is entitled to a multi-millionaire uber-alpha male partner, a six-figure job, a house in one of the world's most expensive cities, a Hollywood romance - all with a 'degree' in a soft subject from a mediocre school that, frankly, anyone of normal intelligence could have acquired. The Men's Rights Movement often discusses the effect of female-headed households on sons, never daughters. However, the impact of an entitled mother prattling continuously in her daughter's ear cannot be underestimated. The only male presence in Sophie's formative years seems to have been her mother's dog - a fact that surely amplified the impact of this parental misandry ten-thousandfold. Her mother's '3 Rs' (Respect, Romance and Robert Redford looks) are especially disturbing - how many more young girls are being similarly indoctrinated by feminist mothers? Divorce and lone-motherhood must inflate female self-delusion to deranged levels.

Having smaller amygdalas, women are naturally more pliant to external influences than men. And Anglo-American societies continually tell women they are 'special', they are princesses, they are entitled to things by mere virtue of owning a vagina (our Pedestal Syndrome). But what happens when this absurd agenda hits the real world of work and commerce? Well, what happened to Sophie Ellis: such carefully-constructed fantasies collapse like a house of cards. Many Anglo females apparently hit a crisis in their early Twenties (the vaunted 'Quarter-Life Crisis') when they realise they are not princesses strolling about a magic kingdom. The mass media aimed at Anglo-American women are all characterised by a relentless, homosocial narcissism, hammering home the message that they are 'special' and entitled to a personal pedestal. Because men are comparatively autonomous, free-thinking individuals governed by instinct, such messages have little purchase on them. But for women they are 'Holy Writ' and only 'the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' can prise such fantasies from them.

The article also raises questions about the state of Anglo-American education. Women now take up most college places, but what do they study? Usually 'Mickey Mouse' subjects like the humanities and liberal arts - seldom mathematics, computing, economics, science or engineering - that is, subjects with commercial utility. The whole 'dumbing down' of western education into a race where everyone gets a prize and where inferior culture is applauded in the highest seats of learning inheres closely to the rise of feminism (can't upset a real-life princess, can we?). But the blunt fact is, engagement with commercial reality cannot be delayed forever. Employers need graduates in Peace/Women's/Media Studies like they need an investigation by the IRS. There is a place for the canonical liberal arts and humanities in education, but the prosperity of any nation depends on its commercial, technical and scientific skills. Of course, these unpleasant facts are overlooked in the matriarchal Anglosphere where 'degrees' in finger-painting are handed out like confetti to females best-suited to stacking shelves or child-minding (if that). The only 'serious' subject women rule is law - again verbal, non-productive and commercially irrelevant. Is it any wonder that the Anglosphere is headed down the toilet?

But all is not lost. The article's relative lucidity and self-awareness rings a bell of hope. Is reality permeating the Anglobitch brain, at last? It is surely too early to talk about the beginning of the end of misandrist gender-feminism. However, for many young Anglo females the message DOES seems to be sinking in that they are not 'special', not 'princesses' and that employers, men and the world in general do not owe them anything. By confrontation and agitation, all Men's Rights activists must drive that message home: its impact is proven.

Gynotheory: An Interesting New Blog

2011-01-15T06:08:00.020-08:00

An interesting new blog called Gynotheory has recently opened offering a number of interesting perspectives on feminism, men's rights and the impact of culture on gender relations. Gynotheory discusses these issues from a post-modern vantage, refusing to inhere to any one analytical paradigm. I approve of this approach, partly because of its intellectual integrity but mainly because it remains acutely alert to culture - a hugely significant dynamic, in my view, one central to the Anglobitch Thesis.

The men's movement is dividing into old-style and new-style theorists. The old-style masculinists broadly want to return to 'conservative' values and extol 'traditional' gender relations, citing evolutionary psychology or Judeo-Christianity to justify these beliefs. The new-style masculinists - and I am one of these, as is the Gynotheory writer - derive our perspective from cultural analysis and consider both left and right to be equally misandrist in the Anglo-American context. Further, we are wary of invoking biological arguments such as sociobiology, since these can be twisted against men to justify anti-male discrimination, even woman-worship (a grave potential danger of Male Studies, in our view).

The distinction is rather like the distinction between Generals Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant - Lee was the last of the great old-style commanders, while Grant represented the first of the great new-style commanders. In time, I believe more and more MRAs will follow our new-style masculinism out of sheer necessity. Moreover, the old-style project is daily refuted by the simple fact that Anglo-American 'conservatives' are as anti-male as Anglo-American leftists - if not more so. As we know, this is because Anglo culture - being puritanical - is inherently misandrist, reflexively vilifying men as sexualized beings. Consequently, Anglo-American 'conservatism' merely restates the age-old 'gynocentrism' implicit in Anglo culture.

Let us consider the problems of old-style masculinism at length:

Errors Political
While Angry Harry is a brilliant writer and activist, his reflexive conflation of feminism with left-Marxism troubles me. Yes, many feminists profess a strong affiliation to the left but then, a good many of these adopt a rightist affiliation and revert to gender-traditionalism where it suits them - criminal sentencing and lifeboat priorities, for instance. Besides, there is little evidence that 'conservative' governments are 'friends to men' - just consider the British Conservative party, who promote misandrist legislation at every turn and cave in to feminist demands 'at the drop of a (top) hat'. American readers will of course be aware that the Republican party has no better record, tacitly viewing all men as abusive via VAWA while unthinkingly setting all women atop pedestals, whatever their conduct. The Conservative Anglo-American media - Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Sun - all are explicitly misandrist yet all profess a 'conservative' orientation. In short, the old-style MRA obsession with 'conservatism' is absurd, since Anglo-American conservatives are just as anti-male as leftists.

Culture, not politics, best explains the misandrist nature of Anglo feminism. Both the left and the right exist within that cultural context, and it is notable that both Anglo conservatives and leftists remain stoutly puritanical and misandrist. Both the left and the right view men as rapist louts who must be suppressed, while all women are victims who must be exalted. And this misandry has a long pedigree in the Anglosphere, as might be expected - it did not erupt in the 1960s. Gynotheory implicitly accepts this, focussing on the 'traditional' devaluation of males in disasters like the Titanic.

My issue with gynotheory's historical analysis is that it conflates all empires as gynocentric, which was actually not the case. In Rome, for instance, even aristocratic women had very few rights and the Empire's expansion was motivated by a masculine desire for wealth and self-aggrandisement, not any desire to protect women. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon empires - first the British and now the American - fit his analysis perfectly, misandrist empires where men are expendable fodder to shield the rights of hyper-privileged Entitlement Princesses. The difference? Puritanism - the Anglo-Americans have it, the Romans did not.

Errors Scientific
Evolutionary psychology is a powerful modern paradigm, especially in tandem with the more rigorous science of genetics. However, it is fraught with danger for masculinists to extol evolutionary psychology as their only working paradigm, partly because it precludes socio/cultural dynamics but also because it can be used to legitimate female advantage.

For example, it is certainly a fact that men are viewed as more expendable in most western nations. Evolutionary psychology can partly explain this - a small number of survivor males can re-stock a ravaged community, while a similar group with few females will die out. However, the presence of such misandry in modern civilization might be partly the result of social complexity processes embedding archaic mores in modern contexts. Besides, cultural factors also play a part - in the anglosphere, a female must also be white, young, upper middle-class, Anglo and virginal to be fully bewailed by the Anglo media (i.e. Madeleine McCann). None of those things are 'biological' factors as such - all are cultural.

It is also notable that Evolutionary Psychology tends to be an Anglo-Saxon discipline, and thus strongly inflected with puritanical and gynocratic Anglo values. In my two previous posts I posited an alternative interpretation of evolutionary history to explain the inchoate nature of female sexuality - and predictably drew flak from Anglo numb-skulls trying to impose matriarchal values on the slaughterhouse of prehistory. In short, the Darwinian paradigm can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the culture of the interpreter, and not all these interpretations accord with Anglo gynocentrism. To patriarchal Asiatics, for whom the rule of 'strong men' like Tamerlane and Stalin has been the norm, female mate-selection seems a rather more ephemeral force than it does to Anglo-Saxons.

Ultimately, the very fact that Evolutionary Psychology exists as a science shows men can transcend our biological programming - or at least regard it as rational outsiders. Were it not the case, there would be no men's movement the question the manifold injustices men experience. The better Game writers all acknowledge this conceptual self-transcendence, promoting a mocking, post-modern detachment from their own activities. If we just accepted that all men are expendable and all women are angels, why are we bothering to be MRAs? We would just accede to the misandrist propaganda and become manginas like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle. The fact that we don't proves the limits of evolutionary psychology. Post-feminist women have in any case reneged on their primary biological function (child-bearing), creating an entirely new social compact beyond the scope of Darwinian thought. The New-Style MRA programme is a supra-biological response to supra-biological conditions: we can do no other.

Errors Existential
Old-Style MRAs hold a delusional view of feminism. They broadly believe it can and will be 'rolled back' to be replaced by an archaic patriarchy where all men are respected and allowed to reproduce sans Game or sperm banks. All this is juvenile thinking. Societies are complex entities ruled by non-linear processes that are effectively irreversible. Female contraception, careers and 'rights' will never be rescinded and any assumption that they will is naive and adolescent. Given this reality, invoking 'conservatism' and unqualified biological determinism are potentially dangerous, lending support to the 'rights plus privileges' agenda that women already enjoy.

What really impressed me about the Gynotheory blog is the author's implicit acceptance of the new conditions. Most men have no reason to be chivalrous in the modern context; invoking traditional chivalry in an era when most men are third class citizens is a suicidal project. Instead, the author calls for western men to build a new lifestyle that negotiates the whirlpools of misandrist gender-feminism while retaining fidelity to masculine objectivity and independence. As T S Eliot wrote in the wake of the First World War (a specific disaster for western manhood), 'these fragments I have shored against my ruins'. This is surely a commendable approach and one which will bear much fruit in the longer term.

While we are discussing blogs, I really like the turn Scarecrow's Men-Factor blog is taking. Dick Masterson taught the manosphere that humour could be a devastating weapon in the fight against misandrist gender-feminism and Men-Factor has certainly taken that lesson to heart. In the presence of humour a fool understands her stupidity instantly, partly because humour elides exposition while demanding considerable 'deconstructive' prowess on the part of the reader/viewer.

Feminists (and women generally) lack the capacity for sophisticated humour, partly because of the lower female median IQ but also because of their crass inability to think 'outside the box' - a by-product of their miniscule amygdalas. The images on that blog are worthy of Monty Python and have clearly upset the witless Peter Futrelle with their puckish drollery.

And that's got to be good.

Anthony Ludovici (1882-1971): Precursor of the Anglobitch Concept

2011-01-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

Throughout his thirty-odd books on subjects as varied as ideal marriage partners, Nietzschean philosophy, private property, the sculptor Rodin and elitism, the penetrating and well-informed Ludovici always lays his cards on the table. Every page he wrote sparkles with incandescent ideas that stimulate debate.

Virtually alone among Western thinkers, Anthony M. Ludovici unravels the sickness afflicting modern art; argues that men should never have given the vote to women; and discusses the evolutionary ethics that mankind needs for survival in a hostile universe.

Perhaps Ludovici's favourite among his many subjects was the relationship between the sexes. He treated it in over a dozen works of fiction and non-fiction, arguing that men differ sharply from women in their psychological make-up.

For Ludovici's attack on feminism and his belief that Anglo-Saxon feminism represents a misogynist agenda, read Enemies of Women and the 10-part essay, Woman's contribution to Britain's national decline.

Most of Ludovici's ideas and arguments are eerily relevant today. He touches on such perennial issues as: -

- Why 'boyish' women are the Anglo ideal (this preference derives from the homoerotic undercurrent in Anglo culture, NOT 'patriarchy' as feminists aver).
- Why Anglo feminists, NOT men, are misogynists (an entirely obvious observation).
- The influence of Anglo puritanism on gender-relations (Anglo repression leads to the absurd idealization of women so widespread among Anglo males).
- Why anti-feminists are NOT misogynists (entirely self-evident: it is FEMINISTS who hate femininity and - by implication - women).

I envy anyone who has not read Ludovici and is about to...

New Year Game Special II: Does Rape Confound Game? A Frank Exploration of Rape and Female Sexuality

2011-01-02T11:58:00.001-08:00

Game assumes that women evolved sexual preferences for alpha males (however defined). Unfortunately, this argument assumes that female choice actually mattered for most of human history. However, if men's actions alone decided reproductive outcomes, women simply could not evolve advanced sexual preferences. My recent reading supports the argument that female opinion or choice exerted little or no effect on reproductive outcomes, leaving Game a largely peripheral strategy for achieving sexual success. The whole Sexy Son argument underpinning Game is largely neutralised by the overwhelming evidence from history, genetics and archaeology. Let us proceed to that evidence...

This article suggests that Ghengis Khan is the ancestor of 1 in 12 asiatic males, via conquest and harems:

GENGHIS KHAN has been identified as the most successful alpha male in human history, according to a book by an Oxford geneticist.
The Mongol emperor inseminated so many women in his 40-year career raping and pillaging across Asia that he created a pool of at least 16m male descendants who today carry his Y, or male, chromosome.

British men are now being offered the opportunity of genetic testing by Oxford scientists to see if they have inherited Genghis’s “super-Y”, which conferred such power on its originator.

Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University and author of Adam’s Curse, a study of the Y chromosome, believes recent migration could have spread a few of Genghis’s super-virile progeny as far as the British Isles.

Sykes, who runs Oxford Ancestors, a commercial enterprise that analyses people’s DNA and traces their geographical origins, said: “Genghis Khan was probably the most successful breeder of males ever, and there is every possibility that men here will carry his chromosome.”

The Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son and, in the 13th century, Genghis’s empire stretched from Mongolia to Afghanistan, Russia and Iran.

Oxford scientists took samples of male DNA in 16 locations across Asia and found the same Y chromosome in 8% of the population.

The idea that the chromosome could come from Genghis appeared to be confirmed by the finding that it was carried by a third of the Hazara tribe, which lives on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tribe has always claimed to descend from Genghis.

The Mongol ruler was born into a local clan that had lost most of its influence by the time he was in his teens. He set about rebuilding a power base that grew into a 200,000-strong army of legendary brutality.

Entire cities were slaughtered while the Mongol hordes looted their way across Asia. But while Genghis allowed his commanders their pick of the material spoils, he demanded the women were brought to him for systematic rape or to serve as concubines.

By the time of his death aged around 65, Genghis’s empire stretched from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf.

His four legitimate sons appear to have continued the family tradition of sexual excess and empire-building, as did two of his grandsons: Kublai Khan conquered southern China and founded the Yuan dynasty of Chinese emperors and Batu sacked Kiev and invaded Hungary and Poland.

Their dissemination of Genghis’s chromosome no doubt helped to make it the most successful in history, which is why it appears to be carried by more men on the planet than any other version.

Researchers have also established an apparent link between frequency of sexual intercourse and the birth of sons, which is why Genghis would have produced more male progeny. More boys than girls are born in the first year of marriage when couples are assumed to have more sex.

Other studies have found that frequent intercourse raises testosterone levels, increasing the chances of the Y chromosome being successful.

This link suggests why the Y chromosome is comparatively lacking in variance – Stone Age males competed violently for women, allowing only a small minority of males to mate:

A group of Linearbandkeramik people at Talheim, Germany were previously found to have died at the same time, probably in a massacre, and the authors were able to ask some searching questions of their skeletons. The isotope signatures of strontium, oxygen and carbon, which gave information on diet and childhood region, showed up three groups which correlated with hereditary traits (derived previously from the analysis of the teeth). In the local group, there were many local children but no adult women, suggesting they had been selectively taken alive at the time of the massacre.

This review of Jonathan Gottschall's The Rape of Troy, argues Homer’s Iliad reflects inter-male competition for women during the Greek Dark Ages:

His primary concern is with Homeric society, referring ‘not so much to Homer’s fictional construction as to a specific scholarly reconstruction of the real world from which the epics emerged’ (3). In his first two chapters he synthesises classical and archaeological scholarship to build up a persuasive case for reading the Iliad and the Odyssey as offering a reflection, magnified up to the epic scale, of the society in which the poems were composed. Crucially, this is not the society of Mycenaean Greece itself, with its palaces and treasures signifying rich cities and kingdoms. Instead it is that of Dark Age Greece, an impoverished world of small tribes led by chiefs more like the big men of other pre-state societies than the kings of most translations of Homer. It is a world too of pervasive male violence. In his third chapter, which draws heavily on evolutionary psychology and comparative anthropology, Gottschall argues that this violence is directed above all toward the goal of reproductive dominance in a polygynous society.

The next three chapters concentrate on the epics themselves. Chapter 4 points out the crucial significance of conflicts over women in Homer: the Trojan war itself, fought over Helen; the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles over Briseis that triggers the events of the Iliad; the slaughter of Penelope’s suitors, which marks the crescendo of the Odyssey. Beyond these specific fights over specific women, Gottschall notes the pervasive references in the epic to raiding for women and the culmination of the siege of Troy in the mass rape and enslavement of the Trojan women. Chapters 5 and 6 consider the premium on status among Homeric men and the ways in which the ‘mating preferences’ of women in Homeric society reinforce the culture of male violence ‘through an active system of sexual and reputational rewards to men with powerful bodies, combative dispositions, and courageous spirits’ (117).

Gottschall makes a crucial mistake: the mating preferences of women had no bearing on mating outcomes. Men competed for women in Homeric society, the outcomes deciding male reproductive success. Female choice had little to do with it. The strongest males would gather a harem of females and rape them. Simple as that. At no point does female preference have any influence on events whatsoever. As with the German neolithic massacre, men fought and the conquerors raped the women.

And this piece discusses why prehistoric Indo-European invasion of Europe replaced indigenous male populations while leaving female populations relatively intact:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

As it is complex and aimed at scientists, I present the meat of the argument below:

A lot of maternal lineages (mtDNA) also appear to be of Paleolithic origin (e.g. H1, H3, U5 or V) based on ancient DNA tests. What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why:

Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.

Status & Power. Equipped with Bronze weapons and horses, the Indo-Europeans would have easily subjugated the Neolithic farmers and with even greater ease Europe’s last hunter-gatherers.If they did not exterminate the indigenous men, the newcomers would have become the new ruling class, with a multitude of local kings, chieftains and noblemen (Bronze-Age Celts and Germans lived in small village communities with a chief, each part of a small tribe headed by a king) with higher reproductive opportunities than average.

Gender imbalance. Invading armies normally have far more men than women. Men must therefore find women in the conquered population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

Aggressive warfare. The Indo-Europeans were a warlike people with a strong heroic code emphasising courage and military prowess. Their superior technology (metal weapons, wheeled vehicles and warhorses) and attitude to life would have allowed them to slaughter any population that did not have organised armies with metal weapons (i.e. anybody except the Middle-Eastern civilizations).

Genetic predisposition to conceive boys. The main role of the Y-chromosome in man’s body is to create sperm. Haplogroups are determined based on mutations differentiating Y-chromosomes. Each mutation is liable to affect sperm production and sperm motility. Preliminary research has already established a link between certain haplogroups and increased or reduced sperm motility. The higher the motility, the higher the chances of conceiving a boy. It is absolutely possible that R1b could confer a bias toward more male offspring. Even a slightly higher percentage of male births would significantly contribute to the replacement of other lineages with the accumulation effect building up over a few millennia. Not all R1b subclades might have this boy bias. The bias only exist in relation to other haplogroups found in a same population. It is very possible that the fairly recent R1b subclades of Western Europe had a significant advantage compared to the older haplogroups in that region, notably haplogroup I2 and E-V13.

Replacement of patrilineal lineages following this model quickly becomes exponential. Imagine 100 Indo-European men conquering a tribe of 1000 indigenous Europeans (a ratio of 1:10). War casualties have resulted in a higher proportion of women in the conquered population. Let’s say that the surviving population is composed of 700 women and 300 men. Let’s suppose that the victorious Indo-European men end up having twice as many children reaching adulthood as the men of the vanquished tribe. There is a number of reasons for that. The winners would take more wives, or take concubines, or even rape women of the vanquished tribe. Their higher status would guarantee them greater wealth and therefore better nutrition for their offspring, increasing the chances of reaching adulthood and procreating themselves. An offspring ratio of 2 to 1 for men is actually a conservative estimate, as it is totally conceivable that Bronze-Age sensibilities would have resulted in killing most of the men on the losing side, and raping their women (as attested by the Old Testament). Even so, it would only take a few generations for the winning Y-DNA lineages to become the majority. For instance, if the first generation of Indo-Europeans had two surviving sons per man, against only one per indigenous man, the number of Indo-European paternal lineages would pass to 200 individuals at the second generation, 400 at the third, 800 at the fourth and 1600 at the fifth, and so on. During that time indigenous lineages would only stagnate at 300 individuals for each generation.

Based on such a scenario, the R1b lineages would have quickly overwhelmed the local lineages. Even if the Indo-European conquerors had only slightly more children than the local men, R1b lineages would become dominant within a few centuries. Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the privileges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.

The importance of male physical prowess in procuring sex is illustrated in the David Lynch movie Mulholland Drive. Film director Adam Kesher drives home to his mountaintop mansion to find his wife in bed with a low class, southern bad-ass. When he tries to deface her jewelery in revenge for his cuckolding, Mr Muscles breaks his nose and kicks him out of his own house. I recall an interesting post on Roissy's blog about the possibility of physical confrontation in pursuit of sex. The post and its responses ended in some confusion, with fighting being accepted as the only option in certain situations, however honed an individual's Game. Speaking bluntly, the schizoid, high-IQ males frequenting Roissy's Blog are certain to come off second-best in physical confrontations with embodied lower-class males (hence their confusion). After all, few middle class Anglosphere males have had a full one on one fight with another male since puberty, so 'fight' really means 'a beating', as in Mulholland Drive.

In sum, Game can be handily undercut by physical prowess, even in a modern context - let alone twelfth century Mongolia. Roissy and other Game experts persistently refuse to address this fact, a telling omission. Within a limited context, their prescriptions have value; beyond the middle class world, they have none. This is subliminally adumbrated by the British lower-class word for middle-class males: 'wankers' (masturbators). Middle class males are thus pithily denigrated as males reduced to masturbating by virtue of their limited physical prowess in intra-male competition for females. Doubtless there is truth in this assessment: middle class, intelligent males across the Anglosphere perpetually lament their sexual disenfranchisment before lower-class, animalistic sociopaths who 'get more ass than a toilet seat'.

If I were a betting man, I would say that Game represents 20% of sexual success, at best. Coercive male power provides the remaining 80% of variance, both historically and in contemporary society. As I argued in my previous New Year post, the evidence suggests that most women find sex revolting. This sexual indifference is exactly what we would expect if female sexual choice never 'evolved'. Never having 'mattered' throughout reproductive history, female sexuality never 'evolved' since there no reason for it to do so.

Males continually project masculine logic onto female sexual preference since male sexuality is eminently logical - men like youth, large breasts, small features and long legs because those are reproductive advantages. Unfortunately, females never had to evolve such clear-cut, logical preferences since intra-male sexual competition obviated such developments. In sum, female sexual choices are illogical because they lack any coherent sexual instinct - which explains the reproductive success of thugs, bums, retards and other male misfits and the relative sexual failure of the intelligent, articulate and successful. It also explains why most 'alpha' theories of Game are unsuccessful in practice, and often confuse sheer physical prowess for complex psycho-sexual traits like confidence and 'social-dominance'.

Though intra-male competition might have been harsh for non-warrior males, at least it ensured the relative fitness of human populations. For evidence of the genetic and social anarchy attendant on allowing inchoate female sexuality free reign, just look around any post-feminist Anglosphere society.

New Year Game Special I: Alpha Male Impregnates Seven Anglobitches

2010-12-31T02:10:00.019-08:00

As most readers will know, I have a deep and abiding interest in Game. Sex is just about the only positive engagement men enjoy with women, so such discussions usually draw a wealth of interest and commentary. Writers like Roissy in DC seem fiercely insistent that women are attracted to 'alpha' virtues such as confidence and high social status. However, it would be interesting to see what they make of the following case - a British 'omega male' who enjoys not only sexual but a great deal of reproductive success:

He has fathered seven children by seven women in just seven years and abandoned each and every one. Dressed in a tracksuit, jobless 24-year-old Keith MacDonald is enough to put women off men for life. Yet, despite his appalling track record, the man dubbed Britain's worst dad is to marry. And, naturally, the happy couple have already started trying for their first baby.

The binman's son, who lives on £44 ($60) a week income support, has never paid a penny towards the upbringing of his children. Nor does he see them. Apparently it is 'too much of a hassle'. But bride-to-be Clare Bryant, 20, is convinced he has changed and says they plan to have two children together.

'Some people say he's a bad dad - and, as he doesn't see his children, for all I know he might be,' she said yesterday. 'But I think he'd be brilliant with our child.'

They first started dating in March when MacDonald bumped into her at Sunderland bus station and asked her out.

'He was drunk, but knew what he was doing, so I said 'yes',' she said.

Three days later the couple boarded a bus and headed to Middlesborough for their first date. He didn't have any money after walking out on his trolley-collecting job in January, so I got us lunch from Greggs (the bakers),' she added. 'He told me he didn't see any of his kids any more, but I wasn't bothered. I was more concerned about the drinking or if he might cheat. Keith said he was a new man though, and I thought he deserved a chance. My mum and stepdad told me I was an idiot. They didn't think he'd change and told me not to let him get me pregnant. After a few months I decided I'd like to have his babies, so there's no point in using condoms now.'

MacDonald proposed in June after buying a £30 ($50) ring she had previously seen in a shop window.

'He said: 'So, do you fancy it? I agreed right away,' added Miss Bryant. 'I want two or three bridesmaids, and I'd love a honeymoon too.'

The couple have since moved in together in a two bedroom council (Housing Project) house in Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and are applying for joint benefits of around £100 ($150) a week - leaving the taxpayer to pick up the £60,000 ($100,000) bill for his seven children.

'I can keep an eye on him now,' said Miss Bryant, who is also unemployed. 'We only go out to the pub twice a week, and Keith only has one or two pints. Every morning, I watch a few hours of telly, while Keith surfs the web. Then we go around town, and every now and then pop into the JobCentre, but there's never anything going. We'll keep going though, because we want to save for our wedding.'

MacDonald first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women - even claiming to be 'a sex god on £40 ($60) a week'. He first became a father at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 31, gave birth to his now nine-year-old daughter, Jamie Leigh. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 24, who fell pregnant with daughter, Kady, now seven.

MacDonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son together, Angelis, who is now six years old. June Garrick, now 25, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 - just a month after Angelis was born. Then, in 2006, he met 17 year old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son Matt, who is now three.

When their short-lived romance came to an end he started dating Stacey Barker, now 21, who fell pregnant and gave birth to his third daughter, Emily, now two. His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 21, who gave birth to Clio, now one. By the time all of the children are 16 the total bill to the taxpayer will be in excess of £1 ($1.5) million.

MacDonald told Closer magazine: 'When I got with Clare I was downing 12 cans of lager a day. Now I've quit booze and I'm looking for a job. I'll never stray again. Clare says if I go out with my mates I'll just get myself into trouble, so I don't mind staying in with her.'

So - what is the secret of MacDonald's romantic success? Is it his good looks and buffed physique that is generating all these conquests? No - unless the camera is a pathological liar, I don't think so. Could he be the master of some field of science, philosophy or the fine arts, whose dazzling repartee is winning all these female hearts? Well, considering he has no qualifications of any kind, that is decidedly unlikely. Is it sheer wealth - the dazzle of his sequinned lifestyle -that is turning their heads? The fact that he lives on the desultory sum of 60 dollars a week tends to refute that interpretation. Is it his animal confidence on the Serengeti of life that wins womanly approval? Aye, even the coldest woman's heart is often won by the sight of raw courage - surely that's the answer? Hmmm, he looks like he has never thrown a punch in anger, so probably not. Is it his steely self-possession that draws admiring eyes? Considering he drinks twelve cans of beer a day and has never held a serious job, that is also most unlikely.

I recall an interesting discussion on Scarecrow's blog, wherein a Roissy-inspired American PUA took him to task for questioning whether Charles Manson was an alpha in any shape, sense or form. The Gamester's general argument seemed to be that, because Manson somehow garnered a harem of adoring females who were prepared to kill for him, he must automatically be an alpha. I suspect that many PUA's parrot this line without really thinking about it too deeply. By their reckoning, MacDonald - a jobless, ugly, ignorant, inbred bum - is also an alpha.

Let's start thinking outside the box for a moment. The 'alpha' theory of Game takes its cue from the quasi-science of evolutionary psychology. Nothing wrong in that - the Darwinian paradigm is supported by a good deal of tangential evidence. However, it assumes (without warrant) that female preference had a large part to play in shaping male behaviours during human biological history, and that female preference has been shaped by evolutionary necessity. In this view, all men have to do is mimic the 'alpha' archetype embedded in female preference and they will get sex. However, it is quite possible that the well-attested evidence for unequal male reproductive success in pre-civilized eras might derive from intra-male competition and subsequent sexual coercion of unwilling females rather than females selecting males as reproductive partners, as such. If this coercive theory were true, there would be little reason for women to 'evolve' any such 'alpha' archetype, since their views would have counted for little in intra-male struggles for sex. Further, we might expect women to have rather limited sexual drives and interests, since their evolution would be pointless - their preferences would be entirely obviated by the fact of post-conquest sexual coercion.

And frankly, this is what we tend to find (or rather, what serious researchers tend to find). Professor Glenn Wilson of the University of London opines in The Great Sex Divide that female sexual drives are, at their strongest, merely equivalent to those of males in a non-aroused state. That is, 'sexy' women just feel what men feel on a near continual basis. American sexual research indicates that only a quarter of women enjoy sex, and that three quarters have no sexual feelings. Professor Wilson alludes to research indicating that rural women in Ireland (notably ignorant of Cosmo, Sex and the City and other feminist media) have no concept of sexual pleasure whatsoever. So, far from the 'Gina Tingles' beloved of American PUAs, a reasonably strong case can be made out for women never having 'evolved' a sexual preference, never having had to. And if women never evolved a sexual preference for an ideal male sexual archetype, post-Darwinian 'alpha' Game techniques are probably ineffectual, too.

In short, women don't know what they want. Sex is largely meaningless to them at any deep level, and their aversion/attraction to it the product of rational (i.e. material/cultural) considerations. This would explain the well-worn dictum that sex is the only thing men are completely irrational about, and the only thing women are completely rational about. It also explains why so many women fall prey to gamma/omega males such as Manson or MacDonald. In short, they are not unsung, socially dominant 'alphas' at all, merely 'chancers' with little to lose in today's 'post-marriage' moral climate.

Finally, this 'sexless female' interpretation of gender-relations lends much strength to the Anglobitch Thesis and other 'cultural' interpretations of gender relations. If women in general harbour no deep sexual instincts, how they relate to men becomes crucially determined by the cultural values around them. In the case of Anglo-American women, the repressive, puritanical nature of Anglo-Saxon culture explains far more about their casual misandry than any biologically-ingrained psycho-sexual preference - since the latter does not exist, as such.

'Conservative' Anglo Government Declares Open War on Men

2010-12-30T22:20:00.000-08:00

Regular readers will find the following entirely predictable:

Suspected wife-beaters could be banned from their homes for up to four weeks even if there is insufficient evidence for them to be charged under plans unveiled by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The "go orders" will enable police to step in and ban suspected attackers from the victim's home even if they are too afraid of taking action themselves or if no criminal proceedings are possible.

The year-long pilot scheme, which will start next summer in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire and West Mercia, comes as the Government prepares to publish its plans to crack down on violence against women and girls.

A court will then be able to extend the domestic violence protection order, known as go orders, for a longer period, usually between 14 and 28 days.

Figures from the British Crime Survey showed more than one in four women in the UK will (allegedly) experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, with one million women experiencing at least one incident of domestic violence every year and one in 20 becoming a victim of stalking.

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail

There we have it - decisive evidence that 'Conservative' Anglo governments harbour the same rabid loathing of men as their socialist counterparts. Indeed, it must be said that Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' is ultimately more oppressive than its socialist counterpart, since it considers women untouchable by virtue of their sexual 'ownership'.

Moreover, Anglo-American 'conservatives' - be it American Republicans or British/Commonwealth Tories - are intrinsically aligned with Anglo-Saxon puritanism, a 'traditional' Anglosphere value. And as we all know, this puritanism is at the root of the anti-male, pro-female agenda that defines the English-speaking world. The results of this alignment are twofold:

1. Conservative misandry has much greater leverage than its socialist counterpart. That is, conservative misandry can mobilise every aspect of society - law, politics, the media, mass opinion - to promote its oppressive agenda. That is certainly true in this case, where men's basic human rights are instantly waived at the bequest of rabid feminists with the full and uncritical support of the mainstream media, the police and legal profession. The same is true of VAWA in the United States, advanced with the full connivance of the 'Conservative' Republicans.

2. From a hegemonic perspective, it legitimises misandry. That is, by presenting misandry as a traditional agenda, it covers Anglo-American man-hatred with a patina of respectability, even 'normality'. Were Britain's Labour Party advancing these misandrist 'measures', none of this would apply. Consequently, conservative misandry can push a whole society towards pandemic man-hatred in a way socialist misandry never could.

Of course, the whole notion that there is a need to 'crack down on violence against women and girls' is a vast misnomer, since men are at far greater risk of violence than women in every Anglosphere country. Besides, anti-female domestic violence is more often than not the product of female lifestyle choices - women prefer thugs to decent males because of the 'excitement' they bring to a relationship. Well, if women like 'excitement' so much, why interfere with their 'choices'? They want it all, so let them have it - including black eyes, split lips and fractured skulls.

Two of the Best: The Anglobitch Rampant

2010-12-18T07:36:00.002-08:00

As is generally known, Anglo-American women can now commit serious crimes with virtual impunity. Since they acquired 'rights' to go with their privileges in the late 1950s, courts across the Anglosphere have cowered before their lies, sadism and drink-fuelled violence. There can be little doubt that this moral cowardice has contributed to the two crimes described below.

Case Number 1: Robbery of a Blind Man in Coventry, England

A 61-year-old blind man was robbed of £4,000 ($7,000) by a group of women in a "sick and heartless" crime, police have said.

The theft happened in Coventry city centre on Tuesday, shortly after the man had withdrawn the money from the Nationwide in Broadgate at around 2pm.

A West Midlands Police spokeswoman said: "He was possibly followed out of the bank by three women who distracted him by taking him into a number of shops, asking him to try coats on.

"The man was left very disorientated when the women left him and found he had had the cash cut out of his coat pocket."

Pc Mick Rhodes said: "This is a despicable crime. To prey on a vulnerable person like this is sick and heartless. Not only was he robbed, he was left very disorientated and distressed.

"I would encourage anyone with information about this theft to call us and remind anyone planning to take extra cash out of the bank over Christmas to be vigilant."

SOURCE: UK Wakefield Express

What amuses me about this case is that, despite the hysterical response of the British press to this hideous crime, if the miscreants are ever caught (a big 'if', considering the relative indifference of the authorities to crime committed against males) the legal profession will no doubt hand out only the most perfunctory sentences in honour of their age and sex. Which leads us to case number two, where a murderess has been wrongly convicted of manslaughter, not murder, and will receive a far lighter sentence as a result.

Case Number 2: Drunken Anglobitches Stomp and Kill Elderly Man in London, England

A former public schoolgirl who hurled homophobic abuse at a gay civil servant before kicking and stamping on him during a deadly attack is behind bars.

Ruby Thomas, 18, was found guilty of the manslaughter of 62-year-old Ian Baynham, who died 18 days after the drink-fuelled assault in London's Trafalgar Square.

Police later found his blood smeared on her handbag and the ballet pumps she was wearing as she kicked him.

The court heard she smiled as she "put the boot into" Mr Baynham after he was knocked to the ground by another teenager, Joel Alexander.

Thomas's ex-boyfriend told the Old Bailey that the blonde teenager, of Anerley, south east London, was "not the type of girl" to have done it. But jurors did not agree and convicted her of manslaughter, along with Alexander, 20, of Thornton Heath, south east London.

A third defendant, 18-year-old Rachael Burke, of Upper Norwood, south east London, was found guilty of affray at an earlier trial. All three will be sentenced on January 26. Thomas and Alexander were remanded in custody after Judge Richard Hawkins refused to continue their bail applications by their barristers.

Thomas, a former pupil at the £12,000-a-year ($20,000) Sydenham High School for Girls, had a previous record for violence. She was just 15 when she assaulted a bus driver in Northumberland Avenue in December 2007, a short walk from where the attack on Mr Baynham took place.

On that night in September last year she was said to have been "off her face", acting in a "lairy, mouthy" way, and flirting with random men.

The court heard that Thomas screamed "fucking faggots" at the victim and his friend Philip Brown. When Mr Baynham confronted her, there was a scuffle during which she hit him with her handbag and he grabbed it.

Alexander then ran up and knocked him to the ground, causing a severe brain injury as his head struck the pavement. Mr Brown said his friend "fell like a corpse", hitting his head on the pavement with a "crunching noise". Blood was pouring from his head.

SOURCE: MSN News

Which just goes to show, you can educate her in an expensive private school but it really is impossible to reform the Anglobitch. The well-attested Anglo-Saxon Pedestal Syndrome is directly responsible for crimes of this nature. Anglo females are essentially above the law, and this has abetted the Anglobitch thuggery currently submerging the Anglosphere. If repeatedly stomping on a man's head isn't murder, what is?

The second case also encapsulates the vicious cowardice so characteristic of young Anglo women. They stalk the streets stirring up trouble, secure in the knowledge that if any male defends himself against their violent abuse, some White Knight thug will come to their rescue. This certainly happened in this case. Ruby Thomas abused the two men who then defended themselves, whereupon her 'boyfriend' (i.e. White Knight thug) knocked one of them to the ground. While he was chivalrous enough to stay back from the fallen man, the two drunken females could not resist the overmastering urge to kick and stamp him to death. This case shows the visceral hatred of men that festers in the lizard brain of the rampant Anglobitch, forever seeking violent expression.

Finally, the homophobic aspect of this crime is illuminating. Homosexual males generally view women as 'oppressed' fellow travellers in the contemporary Anglosphere (quite mistakenly, in our opinion). After all, Anglo-American women derive all their status from a culture of sexual scarcity that sets them on pedestals and gifts them manipulative power over men. Homosexual men challenge this sexual monopoly by mere virtue of their sexual independence. Little wonder, then, that the Anglobitch attacks such males with the same rabid ferocity she deploys against heterosexual MRAs. Both groups threaten the Pedestal, so both groups must perish: in the Anglobitch mind, the solution is simple. And with the aid of the ever-willing White Knight thug they can effortlessly turn this agenda into brutal, uncompromising reality.

Great Essay on Rampant Misandry in Britain - by a Woman

2010-12-15T07:42:00.008-08:00

Melanie Phillips is a British Sunday Times and Daily Mail columnist. In this thought-provoking piece, she describes the condition of males in contemporary Britain - outrageously oppressed in legal, political and cultural terms:

Why is the British Establishment so Anti-Male?

A SURVEY into women's attitudes this week exploded the official line that they are vulnerable to sexual harassment at work. Women may not be universally the victims they are painted.

Yet one of the many mysteries of our age is why the British establishment has declared open season upon half the human race. It is men who are being systematically robbed of their reputation, their children and their purpose in life.

The people responsible for this sexual warfare are sober women and men in suits - pinstripe, rather than boiler - not to mention wigs and gowns.

If what is routinely thrown at men was directed at any of our fabled victim groups - women, black people, gays - society would stand condemned of the most vile prejudice, discrimination and even persecution.

Yet the vast majority of people either don't know how the dice are being loaded against men or, if they do have an inkling, think deep down (or not so deep) that, well, they really do deserve it.

You think this is exaggerated?

Consider the review of sexual offences which is about to be published.

Through judicious leaks, the Government has indicated that it wants to toughen up the rape law because not enough men are being convicted. So it intends to skew court proceedings against them to make them less able to defend themselves against a prosecution.

Just think about that for a moment. Suppose the Government said, for example, that not enough women were being convicted of shoplifting so it was going to make it more difficult for them to mount a defence.

Unthinkable, isn't it?

That's because the implication that women were naturally shoplifters would be preposterous, that artificially inflating the number of convictions for shoplifting to fit this false stereotype would be grotesque, and that it could be done only by junking our most precious legal maxim: that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Yet this is precisely what is being proposed in rape cases.

The Government intends to change the definition of consent to sex, the common defence against the charge of rape, so the defendant will have to prove that the woman did, in fact, consent.

LAWYERS are divided over whether this would technically mean reversing the burden of proof. All agree, however, that it would make it much more difficult for a man accused of rape to defend himself. And that's because the Government assumes that all men accused of rape are guilty.

In fact, the evidence suggests this is completely untrue. Home Office figures for 1996 showed that 25pc of rapes reported to the police were false or malicious, or the complainant withdrew the charge.

In a further 39 pc of reported cases, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service took no further action because the complainant and suspect knew each other and so the circumstances were ambiguous. And a further 7 pc of cases resulted in an acquittal.

Yet the Government not only fails to acknowledge this, but also uses statistical jiggerypokery to produce a false picture of soaring rapes and thousands of rapists escaping conviction.

True, there was a fall in the conviction rate from 24 pc in 1985 to 9 pc in 1997. Yet that may be because freer sexual behaviour makes rape claims more untenable.

While 'stranger rapes' are rare, 'date rapes' between acquaintances soared from 1,300 in 1985 to 5,000 in 1996, almost half of all reported cases.

Rape is without doubt a most heinous crime. Yet most reasonable people would probably think that being jumped on in a dark alley is a completely different matter from having second thoughts, sometimes in retrospect, about a bloke with whom you've gone home after a party or with whom you've already been sleeping.

Anti-man prejudice, in fact, runs through government thinking. Baroness Jay and her Women's Unit constantly bring out the old chestnut that one woman in four is assaulted by her partner.

In fact, most British domestic violence studies on which the Government relies for such claims are effectively rigged; they ask only women, not men, for their domestic violence experiences, mainly from self-selecting samples of abused women.

Yet reputable international research shows overwhelmingly that acts of domestic violence are initiated by women upon men at least as frequently as vice versa.

Asked why the Women's Unit had made no reference to all this research, Jay replied that the Government couldn't get involved in such 'subtle' issues.

Instead, it resorts to unsubtle threats to pursue feckless 'deadbeat dads' for child support, promoting the impression that fathers routinely desert their children.

In fact, many fathers desperately want to continue to parent their children after divorce, but find that the courts put huge obstacles in their way, even if the men have acted blamelessly.

Family court judges tend to force fathers to prove they are fit parents, prove they are not violent or feckless. By contrast, they assume that a mother is generally the best parent for the child to live with, regardless of how she has behaved.

Of course, some men do behave very badly towards their wives and children.

Divorce barristers, however, estimate that no more than about a third of the husbands they see are violent, and that women and men cheat on each other in equal proportions.

YET THE courts are institutionally biased against husbands, ousting them from their homes on the slightest pretext, stripping a man of his children and his assets even if his wife has gone off with a lover and his own behaviour has been exemplary.

The judges will also accept a wife's claims that the man is violent on the basis of no evidence, in a system where it is impossible to mount a proper cross-examination of her allegations. Yet on this pretext they will deprive a man of contact with his children.

Lack of contact with their children is a source of immense injustice and misery for many fathers.

Lawyers say a typical scenario is this. Mother decides to divorce because she's got a new man. The easiest way to get rid of the father is to claim he's been violent to her or the children. The father leaves or is ousted. His access to the children is governed by a contact order made by the court on the advice of a court welfare officer.

Yet the mother has the whip hand in controlling the father's contact. He finds regularly that the children are too busy to see him. Yet somehow the mother seems able to persuade the court that she is entitled to move the contact goalposts without redress.

The new president of the High Court's family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, denied earlier this year that fathers got an unfair deal on contact although, she added ambiguously, a small minority of non-custodial fathers 'gave rise to real problems'.

How could she possibly be so complacent when fathers are routinely denied contact on grounds produced by welfare officers that are so spurious as to be incomprehensible?

There was the father who, in McDonald's, spread his arms to his daughter and said 'Bet you haven't seen me in a suit before', a watching welfare officer misinterpreted the gesture, decided the child had refused to return the father's proffered embrace, and he was denied all contact with the child as a result.

Then there was the father whose overnight contact with his five-year-old was stopped because 'the child had many milestones ahead of him'; another who was denied contact because he 'had to prove his commitment'; yet another because 'the child fell asleep in his car on the way home'.

One child of 13 hadn't seen his father for eight years because he was led to believe that an injunction against his father prevented it. No one - certainly not his mother - had told him that the injunction would last a maximum of three months and that for most of that eight years he had every right to see his father. And so on and so, appallingly, on.

The impact of fatherlessness upon children is well- documented. The impact on fathers is less well-known.

Some are driven to nervous breakdowns or suicide: others lose their jobs as they try to visit their children who have moved to a different part of the country.

Of course, there are men who walk out on their wives and bust their families. But the majority of men are divorced against their will.

The pain of family breakdown becomes unbearable when compounded by the gross injustice of a legal system that, under cover of impartiality, so often rewards the offending spouse and punishes her victim.

HOW CAN this happen? Welfare officers' conclusions about divorcing spouses are rarely questioned by judges, who regard these officers as the only source of expert advice in such cases.

Until now, they have been probation officers; henceforth, they will also be drawn from the children's branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and from guardians ad litem.

Yet this reform is unlikely to do much to counter their prevailing ethos, encapsulated by a document produced by the National Association of Probation Officers in 1996.

Entitled Equal Rights: Anti-Sexism Policy, this proclaimed that marriage subjected women to male tyranny; that society was based on patriarchal male control over women and children which extended into all institutions; that the oppression of women must be challenged in the courts; and that therefore the aim of the welfare officer was to 'challenge the discrimination against women in contested residence and contact decisions'.

Such sentiments may seem extreme; but the presumption of male violence which underpins them is common throughout the family law system.

The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law said last year that the courts should stop fathers seeing their children simply on the basis of allegations of violence by their ex-wives. The board's extraordinary presumption of male guilt was backed by its claim that domestic violence research indicated 'in the great majority of cases the abuser is male and the victim female', and that fathers were overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Yet the research certainly does not show this. Most violence against children, moreover, is perpetrated by mothers or boyfriends. A child's natural father is least likely to be violent towards it.

The courts should actually be giving fathers, not mothers, the benefit of the doubt.

Many judges think mothers are intrinsically vulnerable and must be protected, as they are generally to be the parent with care of the children.

Yet why should this be? If a mother has gone off with her lover, jeopardising the wellbeing of her children and demonstrating infidelity to their father, promise-breaking, deceit and selfishness, why should she be automatically regarded as the fitter parent to bring up the children?

The answer is to restore issues of conduct to divorce and the subsequent care of the children. The spurious argument that 'children's needs' must come before any other consideration means children are being used as hostages to protect adults from facing the consequences of their own behaviour.

Children's needs are, in fact, best met by having both their parents to look after them; failing that, by living with the more responsible parent.

This may even bring the divorce rate down, as has happened in American states where mothers no longer get automatic custody.

Men are terrified of being thought prejudiced against women, not least because of an old-fashioned sense of chivalry. They look at the absence of women among captains of industry or MPs; they look at the football hooligan and the burglar from hell, and they think it must be true that men are basically vile victimisers.

But life's a lot more complicated and the result of such browbeating into false stereotypes is that everyone ultimately becomes a loser.

SOURCE: UK Spectator, 2010

My only criticism of this article is its theoretical naivety. Phillips seems surprised that the British Establishment promotes a gender-feminist agenda when, as the source of Anglo-American puritanism, Britain would be expected to embody such national misandry.

Since puritanism reflexively denigrates males as sexualized beings while exalting women as 'owners' of scarce sexual resources, the puritanical meme inevitably promotes misandry in any culture where it takes root. Given this fact, Phillips' list of injustices becomes perfectly explicable. Indeed, we should expect such iniquities to be promoted by the Anglo-American Establishment: where puritanism reigns, men are always oppressed.

Prince William's Marriage: Truth, Lies and Anglo Fairy Stories

2010-12-05T03:43:00.007-08:00

With the Anglosphere's interest in all things British and Royal, a great deal can be gleaned from the recent announcement of the wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton. The press are swooning over Kate's wedding dress, not just in Britain but across the Anglosphere. It were as if we lived in a culture where marriage remained a central feature of British people's lives, when if fact Marriage rates in 2010 are at their lowest since records began:

The number of people getting married has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1862. For the first time ever fewer than 2 in 100 women, over the age of 16, got married in a single year. In 2008 the marriage rate for women fell from 2 per cent to 1.96 per cent, less than half the rate 25 years ago.

The rate for men has shown a similar decline, according to the annual figures published by the Office for National Statistics. The figures highlight how marriage has substantially fallen out of favour. From a peak in 1940, when 426,1000 young couples – spurred on by the urgency of World War II – married for the first time, just 147,130 marriages in 2008 were where both partners were getting wed for the first time.

In total, just 228,204 marriages took place during 2008 in England and Wales. The escalating cost of weddings, and the failure of the Government to support the institution of marriage were among the factors blamed. Though, long-term changes in society, especially the increase in the number of women working and their desire to get married later in life, are also key factors.

The average age of women marrying for the first time has nearly hit the symbolic 30-year-old barrier, at 29.9, up from 29.8 during 2007. For men, the average age of getting married for the first time was 32.1 years, up from 32 the previous year.

Many expressed sadness at the statistics.

Dave Percival, a campaigner for marriage, said: "Living together and marriage are increasingly seen as the same by the public, yet the outcomes are radically different. Two thirds of all the first marriages in 2008 can be expected to last a lifetime. Less than 10 per cent of cohabiting relationships last even to their tenth anniversary."

SOURCE: Daily Telegraph, 11 February 2010

So, given the fact that we now live in a post-Marriage era (as American Game experts aver), why all the hysteria about this Royal Marriage? I would argue that we are seeing puritanical Anglo-Saxon memes at work. Like the ever-popular Disney franchise in the United States, the British Royal Family is an archaic residue of core Anglo values: repression, puritanism, misandry and feminism (in no particular order). Consequently, it reflexively exalts events and persons who advertise this agenda. Moreover, the popular appeal of such saccharine fairy tales to the Anglo-American masses shows that, in attitudes at least, puritanism is alive and well across the Anglophone world. If it were not, why does the pan-Anglosphere preoccupation with 'white weddings', 'princesses' and 'happy ever after' remain so perennially popular?

Moreover, the marriage gives us a deeper understanding of Anglo feminism. Kate Middleton is a fairly average girl: average looks, average intellect and distinctly average accomplishments. When swept up in the Royal Marriage tornado, however, she suddenly becomes an exalted goddess striding down the aisle of Westminster Abbey in a (faux) virginal white gown, set high above all others. Even Prince William becomes a mere dramatic prop in her all-pervasive psycho-sexual drama - and he is the heir to the throne of England! And so we see who Anglo feminism strives to stifle male sexual self-expression with all the forces at its disposal, why it vilifies male virility at every turn and why it does not differ one jot from Victorian puritanism: because those agendas exalt women and diminish men. It really is that simple. And this is the fountainhead of all that oppresses men in the contemporary Anglosphere. While draconian punishments are meted out to males for the least infraction (or no infraction, in the case of divorced fathers) women are essentially above the law - guiltless goddesses on pedestals, one and all.

But really, given the Royals' abysmal record at long-term relationships (very much in line with the rest of the British population), the likelihood of Kate and William becoming a long-term symbol of wedded bliss are slight indeed. Understandably touchy about this very fact, the British Establishment (composed of women, White Knights and Gay White Knights, from all I can gather) has recently suspended an Anglican Bishop for daring to even mention this possibility:

A leading bishop has been criticised after publicly denouncing Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton and predicting that their marriage will only last for seven years.

Canon Peter Bruinvels, a Synod member and former Tory MP, said: “This is deeply disappointing and disrespectful. The Bishop should be reminded that we are an established Church in which the Monarch plays an integral role.”

The Bishop’s immediate superior, the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, is a close friend of the Prince of Wales and sources have suggested that he may be asked to conduct the wedding service.

But Lambeth Palace played down the furore, insisting that the bishop was “entitled to his views”.

Bishop Broadbent made his comments about the engagement on Facebook, shortly after it had been announced last Tuesday.

He wrote: “Need to work out what date in the spring or summer I should be booking my republican day trip to France.”

He went on to say: “I think we need a party in Calais for all good republicans who can't stand the nauseating tosh that surrounds this event.

“I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears (Prince Charles) and the Porcelain Doll (Lady Diana), and hope to avoid this one too.”

He said the wedding should belong to the family, as opposed to becoming "national flim-flam” paid for by tax payers. And he criticised the media for descending into “fawning deferential nonsense”.

“I wish them well, but their nuptials are nothing to do with me,” he wrote. “Leave them to get married somewhere out of the limelight and leave them alone.”

He later added: “I give the marriage seven years.”

Source: UK Daily Telegraph, 21 November 2010

Beneath the predictable Anglo-Saxon hysteria and 'fawning deferential nonsense', of course, lies a very serious ideological agenda. The good Bishop has dared to challenge the inane puritanical meme that still exerts such a pernicious influence over the Anglosphere and for that, he has to be publicly pilloried.

In our view, seven years is rather too long for this marriage; three is a far more accurate assessment. This is largely because Anglo-Saxon repression brings unrealistic expectations to marriage, which is paradoxically why the institution is crumbling across the Anglosphere. It is fanciful and cruel to expect still-virile males to rely on past-prime wives as their sole sexual partners. More rational, less puritanical peoples (the Latins and Japanese, for example) allow husbands sexual escapades beyond matrimony with prostitutes and other women of 'easy virtue'. This erotic pragmatism actually maintains the institution of Marriage by introducing a safety-valve to dissipate accreted sexual tensions. By contrast, Anglo Marriages crumble under the weight of unrealistic, Disneyfied expectations. And then, of course, there is the thorny issue of Anglo men refusing to marry at all for fear of post-divorce penury at the hands of feminist judges...

So much for puritanism.

Remembrance Day: A Time of Anglobitch Hypocrisy

2010-11-25T01:18:00.002-08:00

In Britain, November 11 is the annual Day of Remembrance for military personnel who died in the two world wars. That date marks the end of World War One, in which Britain lost a million men, the heaviest losses in its long history (though the medieval Wars of the Roses and later English Civil War killed a much higher proportion of its citizens). Poppies are duly worn by all and sundry and wreaths are laid at The Cenotaph and other important public buildings. In Britain and the Commonwealth (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) that conflict has the same impact on the public psyche as America's Civil War - a disastrous 'war to end all wars'.

The warrior's craft is intrinsically respectable and the bravery of Anglo-American troops commendable. Indeed, some military organizations from the Anglosphere have won eternal renown - England's New Model Army and the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia, to name but two. However, in the present socio-political context it must be said that no credible MRA should consider military service as a career option, for a number of reasons I will outline.

While First World War German recruitment posters emphasised comradeship and national responsibility, Anglosphere recruiting posters invoked women - appropriately enough, given Anglo-Saxon deference to women and their ubiquitous exaltation on pedestals. Further, women are a fitting symbol of the Anglosphere, since the Anglo-Saxon world is essentially a matriarchy in all respects - women have all the rights, no responsibilities and receive preferential treatment in education, before the law and throughout the media.

Despite the Anglo-Saxon focus on women in recruiting posters and other propaganda, Anglo women are notable for their absolute indifference to returning 'heroes'. Of course, this is a function of their sexual selfishness and unconscious contempt for men. When soldiers return home, where are those cheering, flag-waving maidens? The English World War One poet Wilfred Owen summed them up well:

Disabled

He sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,
And shivered in his ghastly suit of grey,
Legless, sewn short at elbow. Through the park
Voices of boys rang saddening like a hymn,
Voices of play and pleasure after day,
Till gathering sleep had mothered them from him.

About this time Town used to swing so gay
When glow-lamps budded in the light blue trees,
And girls glanced lovelier as the air grew dim, -
In the old times, before he threw away his knees.
Now he will never feel again how slim
Girls' waists are, or how warm their subtle hands.
All of them touch him like some queer disease.

There was an artist silly for his face,
For it was younger than his youth, last year.
Now, he is old; his back will never brace;
He's lost his colour very far from here,
Poured it down shell-holes till the veins ran dry,
And half his lifetime lapsed in the hot race
And leap of purple spurted from his thigh.

One time he liked a blood-smear down his leg,
After the matches, carried shoulder-high.
It was after football, when he'd drunk a peg,
He thought he'd better join. - He wonders why.
Someone had said he'd look a god in kilts,
That's why; and maybe, too, to please his Meg,
Aye, that was it, to please the giddy jilts
He asked to join. He didn't have to beg;
Smiling they wrote his lie: aged nineteen years.

Germans he scarcely thought of; all their guilt,
And Austria's, did not move him. And no fears
Of Fear came yet. He thought of jewelled hilts
For daggers in plaid socks; of smart salutes;
And care of arms; and leave; and pay arrears;
Esprit de corps; and hints for young recruits.
And soon, he was drafted out with drums and cheers.

Some cheered him home, but not as crowds cheer Goal.
Only a solemn man who brought him fruits
Thanked him; and then enquired about his soul.

Now, he will spend a few sick years in institutes,
And do what things the rules consider wise,
And take whatever pity they may dole.
Tonight he noticed how the women's eyes
Passed from him to the strong men that were whole.
How cold and late it is! Why don't they come
And put him into bed? Why don't they come?

Let all young fellows consider these lines well. Anglo women won't reward a returning soldier with sex, especially if he is crippled or mentally damaged. Instead, they will handle him like a 'queer disease' (if they stoop to touching him at all). In Germany after World War One (and some experts consider Germany a part of the Anglosphere), young whores were stepping over legless heroes begging on the side-walk, for all their medals. More recently - last week, in fact - we had more evidence of the Anglo-American female's profound gratitude for male military sacrifice:

Wolverhampton cenotaph vandal's mum billed for £780

A mum who shopped her daughter for vandalising a war memorial was landed with a £780 bill to remove the obscene graffiti yesterday. The 14-year-old girl was given a nine-month referral order after admitting she sprayed the memorial with bright pink graffiti - daubing a crudely-drawn penis and the words "I love Luke x".

But after the case Royal British Legion volunteer worker Mike Morris claimed the sentence was too soft. Mike, 69, said: "Really she's not had a punishment, it's her mum that's had to bear it."

Veterans were reduced to tears by the damage to Wolverhampton's cenotaph last month. The girl was caught when her mum found a paint can in her bag. Passing sentence at the city's youth court, JP Sandy Gough told the girl: "I think it's a despicable act that you did at the memorial."

The girl, who cannot be named, said: "I'm disgusted with myself."

SOURCE: The UK Daily Mirror

Of course, that is just how women are. We cannot blame rats for living in a sewer. However, the self-aware Anglo-American male can use his knowledge of their selfish iniquity to negotiate a more constructive lifestyle for himself - one that avoids the tender mercies of the Anglobitch. Instead of wasting his time defending the misandrist Anglosphere, he must withdraw all consent from Anglo-American civilization and turn to new, foreign horizons for life, work and sex.

Increased male singleness across the Anglosphere has opened men's eyes to female insolence and ingratitude. When males were married or in relationships (or at least sought those outcomes) they could hardly afford such clear-eyed objectivity. However, the 'new male realism' has fed a number of post-feminist agendas, including the Men's Rights Movement. The old Anglo propaganda exhorting men to defend 'precious' Anglobitches is certainly wearing very thin - since female approval no longer matters, smart middle-class men across the Anglosphere now consider military 'White Knighting' the height of folly.

Indeed, those Anglo nations with active military commitments are lowering intellectual requirements for new inductees to near-subnormal levels. Not only is the Anglosphere witnessing a Marriage Strike in response to feminism, but quite possibly an Intelligence Strike too (somewhat akin to the elite's 'opt-out' in Ayn Rand's magnificent Atlas Shrugged).

Simply put, smart Anglo-American guys are no longer willing to risk life and limb for ungrateful, misandrist Anglobitches who despise men and deface war memorials. The word is out, as with marriage and chivalry: stay on the outside, never commit. In any case, contemporary wars to defend the Anglosphere are wars to defend matriarchal misandry, a Kulturkampf directed specifically against men. Why should men take part? It's women's agenda, let them fight for it. As ever for the Anglo-American male, progress depends on unlearning everything he has been told about Anglo women.

What's Wrong with David Futrelle: A Comprehensive List

2010-11-17T01:42:00.017-08:00

The execrable David Futrelle recently 'subjected' one of my posts to scathing and ignorant 'rebuttal'. However, his schoolboy attempts to comprehend (let alone rebut) my arguments merely highlighted the shortcomings of this errant White Knight. His puerile efforts were not wasted, however. Obscurely, Futrelle's ignorance illuminates certain features of the Anglobitch Thesis, while simultaneously showcasing the extent of his own folly.

Although clearly a liberal progressive, Futrelle displays the same pro-female self-abasement that defines Anglo-American conservatives like Thomas Fleming. One wonders whether this tendency has masochistic undertones - and whether his public utterances partake of a troubled private life.

Below, I engage with Futrelle's piece point by point. I don't see a single valid point in his juvenile fulminations, let alone authentic understanding of my position.

1. Introductions

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog -- devoted to the notion that "Anglo-American Women Suck!" -- has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an "inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men" in the "Anglosphere."

Florid references to a "rambling, loopy rant" indicate a specious argument is on the way - and David does not disappoint. After all, he misrepresents my argument from the first. I do not say hate crime legislation is inherently misandrist, I merely argue that men are seldom (if ever) beneficiaries of it, when considered solely as MEN... yet, as numerous examples demonstrate, men ARE extensively discriminated against as MEN, for example in the media and before the law. Far from decrying hate crime legislation, I call for its extension to protect men as men. And why is Anglosphere mockingly enclosed in speech marks? Isn't David aware that many reputable academics in economics, law and politics accept that the English-speaking nations are bound by more than language? Ask a silly question...

2. Murdoch's Agenda

His first example of this is ... Rupert Murdoch's media empire. I'm not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind...

Murdoch does not need to be elected as head of state to promote the latent misandry implicit in pan-Anglosphere civilization. I think Futrelle is getting confused by structural/cultural issues (somewhat expected, since he is confused by most things). Anglo culture and its puritanical memes will utilize the media to promote its agendas, whether Murdoch or his minions are aware of it or not. Since Murdoch is the Anglosphere's premier media mogul, his media empire necessarily promotes the core memes of Anglo culture, prominent among which are misandry and soft-feminism. Nor is this mere conceptual rhetoric on my part - Nathanson and Young's excellent study Spreading Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture proves beyond doubt the presence of misandrist agendas in the Anglo-American media. Murdoch's lurid offerings are not exceptional, but certainly characteristic.

I don't remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from "the outcast group (in this case, men)" spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there's Gretchen Carlson, but she's got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can't see Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?

But 'reactionary nonsense' is, in the Anglo-American context, closely allied with feminism. This is because 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture, being puritanical and repressive, reflexively vilifies men and exalts women. Because these presenters are men forwarding a nominally 'conservative' agenda does not make them opponents of feminists, or automatic allies of ordinary men. The British 'Conservative' party recently retracted its earlier pledge to grant accused males anonymity in rape cases, under 'pressure' from left-wing feminists. Is Futrelle really trying to tell us that - were Madeleine McCann a male, working class child - the British media (including Murdoch's) would have batted an eyelid? Is he really that stupid? Isn't Missing White Woman Syndrome a self-evident fact in the Anglo media? Moreover, one that neatly conflates endemic Anglo misandry, racism and puritanism.

Further, Futrelle's distasteful observation about there being few Jews at the top of the Nazi party is irrelevant (and possibly wrong, as someone pointed out). There are many historical examples of people oppressing and abusing their own kind. Does he really think that, in Medieval England, all the male peasants were 'high-fiving' with the Lords, presenting a united bloc to oppress women and gays? What nonsense: most men throughout 'patriarchal' history enjoyed few or no rights, with the added dangers of gendercide and conscription.

3. Legal Matters

Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that: many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

Well, so it is. That's why American men don't get married, any more. But it's worse than that, David...

Ex-husband of Italian heiress forced to wait tables by 'manifestly unjust' divorce settlement

A waiter who married Italian multi-millionairess but had to return to waiting tables after their relationship collapsed is seeking to overturn a "manifestly unjust" divorce settlement under which he is forced to pay her maintenance.

Francesco Traversa's marriage to Carla Freddi ended after 20 years in 2008 and he was ordered to pay her maintenance and vacate the home they shared despite the "enormous" divide in their wealth, top judges were told.

But now, in a case which puts both prenuptial agreements and sexual equality under the spotlight, he is arguing his treatment was "manifestly unjust" - and would never have been meted out had he been a woman.

Mr Traversa, 51 - a restaurant waiter from a "modest" background - in 1987 married Miss Freddi, 45, an independently wealthy member of a monied family of industrialists, with a personal fortune estimated at between £1.7m and £4.2m.

Ms Freddi relocated to London where the couple had two children and the first of a series of restaurants in the capital, financed by Ms Freddi's family money, was opened in 1993.

In 2008 Ms Freddi divorced Mr Traversa, of (25) Conniscliffe Road, Palmer's Green, north London, in an Italian court, which - after taking a prenuptial agreement into account - ordered him to leave their matrimonial home in London where he had lived for eight years.

On top of that, he was "required to pay maintenance to his wife, despite her enormous economic advantages," his barrister, Frank Feehan QC, told London's Civil Appeal Court, and is now almost £57,000 in debt to her.

Mr Traversa is now trying to win financial relief in England, but has already been rebuffed by a High Court family judge, despite arguments that "Mr Traversa was economically dependant on Ms Freddi" and that "were the husband a woman" the outcome would have been very different.

Source: Daily Telegraph, 17th November

And there we have it, the 'patriarchal', 'misogynist' machinery of western (and Anglo-American) law in operation. Divorced female millionaires take maintenance from waiters while divorced male millionaires end up on Skid Row... ho hum.

4. Welfare and Conscription

After a brief denunciation of the welfare state -- men pay the taxes and women benefit! -- Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register "despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media." Hey, I didn't like having to register, and I don't think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.

I do not denounce the Welfare State as such, merely the fact that women are its primary beneficiaries (that's why 95% of the UK homeless are male, David, a figure doubtless echoed across the Anglosphere) while males are its primary contributors (at least don't deny the feminists' awful 'wage gap' - even though it is the fruit of too many female toilet-roll 'degrees' in flower-arranging and Womyn's Studies).

Whether anyone has been drafted since Vietnam is irrelevant. You really mean, no one has been drafted YET, but that might well change. I doubt David will be feeling such a chipper mangina after losing both his legs to a Taliban roadside bomb in Afghanistan, although it would furnish us all with considerable amusement... specially after his 'caring' Anglo-American feminists leave him sexually disenfranchised for the rest of his days (a 'loser'). But I digress... the US male-only draft remains a potent symbolic weapon held against men, tacitly telling them: women have rights, you have obligations. And this mantra is echoed everywhere in American society. A footnote: American female 'conservatives' fight the female draft tooth and nail, while reaping the many benefits of post-feminism. Again we see Anglo-American 'conservatism' in its true, misandrist light - a heady cocktail of feminist self-interest and semantic manipulation.

5. Try Conclusions

So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes "that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere."

David's adumbration is so riddled with conceptual errors it is actually amusing... vaguely. Nowhere do I say Murdoch is the State, although his media empire abets the misandrist, pro-female agendas shared by all Anglo-American States. He is not a conscious left-liberal feminazi, but his media promote feminazism, anyway - by complexity-driven social processes and mere replication of puritanical, Anglo-American memes implicit in the dominant culture.

6. Homophobia

Oh, but he's not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing: It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Note my words: adopt homosexuality. Anglo-American homosexuality (especially its English variant) is a cultural, not a biological product. The biologically-determined male homosexual is the product of late birth order and hormonal levels in the womb altering the foetus' brain structure. However, due to repression, misandry and feminism, many males in Anglo countries adopt homosexual lifestyles contrary to their true heterosexual nature. For example, many English privately-educated males report homosexual orientation in post-adolescence, due the homosocial nature of the schools they attend. While biologically-ordained homosexuality can be seen as a natural outcome, the culturally-determined form so common in Anglo countries must be seen as a dysfunction since it warps an individual's true nature. This insidious perversion of native instinct is identical to feeding a rabbit meat, or a wolf carrots. My use of the term 'healthy' merely denotes a male who eschews the sickly, culturally-determined homosexual role, not all homosexuals. Indeed, I broadly approve of full civil rights for all gay people. Speaking of homosexuality, Futrelle might do well to address the rabid homophobia that characterizes Anglo-American women in general, including feminists. This arises from their primordial fear of sexual redundancy (a natural corollary of male sexual freedom), a fact even admitted by Andrea Dworkin in Right Wing Women.

Thus, my 'healthy potent male' is not presented in conceptual opposition to biologically-configured transsexuals and homosexual males (thus connoting them as 'unhealthy'), but only their culturally-shaped facsimiles. All other conceptual oppositions exist only in Futrelle's fevered and uninformed imagination.

7. Parting Insults

Dude, you're an Anglodouche.

And you're a moron. I know which I'd rather be.

Surprise, Surprise: Conservative U-Turn on Men's Rape Anonymity

2010-11-13T01:59:00.008-08:00

The Anglobitch Thesis is unique among MRA theories in that, being cultural, it transcends the vagaries of politics. In our view, there is no difference between pan-Anglosphere conservatism or liberalism, at least on men's issues. Both political wings are inherently misandrist and matriarchal, because the Anglo-Saxon cultural architecture underlying both is misandrist and matriarchal.

Now we have thunderous confirmation of the Anglobitch Thesis in the British Conservative government's climbdown on the issue of male anonymity in rape cases. Predictably, the government crumbled before 'pressure' from 'feminist Labour MPs', despite Labour having been routed in a General Election this year. Ever and again we hear 'conservative' MRAs rambling on about 'Marxist-Feminism', wilfully refusing to acknowledge the rabid misandry that also characterizes pan-Anglosphere conservatism (consider the recent American calls for bans on porn and masturbation).

I am getting tired of repeating this - but I will do, anyway: men cannot look to Anglo-Saxon conservatism for help. Anglo-Saxon conservatives extol a sexless, repressive puritanism that reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings. Women, on the other hand, being sexually disinterested and manipulative, are reflexively set upon pedestals of deference and virtue whatever their conduct. While this misandrist agenda also characterizes Anglo-American left-liberalism, Anglo conservatives - being closer to the traditional puritan meme - fully embody these iniquities.

Anyway, here is the sorry tale:

Plans to give anonymity to men charged with rape were abandoned yesterday (12th November 2010). The decision marks a dramatic U-turn and abandons a key pledge in the Government’s coalition agreement.

Justice Minister Crispin Blunt announced the proposal would be ditched because there was not sufficient evidence to justify a change in the law. But at the same time he published a report which revealed that between eight and 11 per cent of rape claims are fabricated.

Just 36 per cent of rape trials result in a rape conviction and more than half result in no conviction at all, even for a lesser offence. That fuelled accusations last night that the Government had caved in to a chorus of protests from women’s groups and Labour (Democrat) MPs.

Women who accuse a man of rape will continue to receive anonymity, a legal right they have had for 35 years. Meanwhile more than 200 men every year who face false claims will continue to have their reputations damaged. Victims of false claims such as snooker player Quinten Hann, who was acquitted in 2002, have seen their lives derailed by false accusations.

The reverse is embarrassing for David Cameron, who endorsed plans to give men anonymity between arrest and charge at Prime Minister’s Question Time in June. But even that limited protection was ditched yesterday. In a ministerial statement yesterday, Mr Blunt said: ‘The Coalition Government made it clear from the outset that it would proceed with defendant anonymity in rape cases only if the evidence justifying it was clear and sound, and in the absence of any such finding it has reached the conclusion that the proposal does not stand on its merits.’

Mr Blunt said there was not enough evidence to overcome concerns that ‘the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light’.

Officials say Attorney General Dominic Grieve has been a supporter of the policy of anonymity for men. But one source said Mr Blunt and his boss, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, had taken ‘the path of least resistance’ by abandoning the plans.

The policy was included in the coalition agreement because the Tories (Republicans) believed it was formal Lib Dem policy before the election, but Nick Clegg’s party claimed to be surprised by the inclusion. The plan created a backlash in Westminster from feminist Labour MPs.

Shadow minister for women and equality Yvette Cooper said: ‘It was a deeply unfair plan to single out rape defendants to remain anonymous and would have sent a message to juries and to victims that uniquely in rape cases the victim should not be believed.’

But George McAulay, of the UK Men’s Movement pressure group, said: ‘I can’t say I’m surprised by this because the feminist lobby is extremely powerful.’

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail, November 13th 2010

To us, the climb-down comes as no surprise. Anglo-American misandry perennially sprouts across the Anglosphere, whatever the political weather. While it may be beaten back awhile, it always returns: for misandry is the default agenda of any puritanical culture.

The Masks of Hate: Misandry and the Anglo-American 'Hate Crime' Industry

2010-11-07T00:58:00.009-08:00

Stamping out 'Hate Crime' is a prominent political theme across the English-speaking world. Hatred of ethnic or religious groups, homosexuals and even the disabled is now strictly illegal. The following description of Hate Crime is taken from the British Home Office's official website (although analogous homilies can doubtless be found across the Anglosphere):

A hate crime is any criminal offense that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:

* disability
* race
* religion or belief
* sexual orientation
* transgender

All hate crime is important. No hate crime is too minor to report to the police. Anyone can be the victim of a hate crime. We all have a racial identity, all have a sexual orientation, all have some sort of beliefs. Anyone of us could be targeted because of some aspect of our identity. Tackling hate crime supports each and every one of us.

Hate crime is different to other forms of crime:

* hate crime targets people because of their identity. It is a form of discrimination that infringes human rights and keeps people from enjoying the full benefits of our society
* research has shown that hate crimes cause greater psychological harm than similar crimes without a motivation of prejudice
* hate crime creates fear in victims, groups and communities and encourages communities to turn on each other

If the Anglobitch Thesis is true (which it is), the Anglosphere must have an inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men that undercuts these lofty pronouncements. And this is exactly what we find. For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.

Examples? We do not have to look far. The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews - but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. As Gauleiter Julius Streicher observed: "The steady drip hollows the stone." And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.

Misandry is also enshrined in Anglo-American law. In its practical application, the law invariably delivers pro-female outcomes, with women usually receiving half the male sentence for the same offense. Moreover, divorce laws are absurdly biased in favor of women, with the male frequently reduced to penury or suicide by the courts' shameless misandry. The fact that many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

In Anglophone nations with extensive welfare programs such as Britain, the deployment of welfare invariably favors women, despite men contributing the overwhelming bulk of taxes. Over 90% of homeless persons are male. Moreover, the British National Health Service spends vast sums on female-specific health issues like breast cancer. By contrast, male-specific health issues such as suicide receive little recognition, let alone funding. In the United States, males have to register for the draft to be eligible for certain state scholarships. By contrast, women (who already reap the benefits of a female-biased education system) do not. Indeed, draft-registration is still nominally compulsory for all American males, despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.

In light of the foregoing discussion, it must be said that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere. Despite this, all the noble pronouncements about the need to 'eradicate hate' never address the cloying misandry endemic in Anglo-American institutions.

This is a telling omission that strongly confirms the Anglobitch Thesis. While the Anglosphere nations can redress repressive race, class and creed agendas, misandry is too deeply embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture (as a function of its puritanical ethos) to be similarly challenged. Indeed, to do so would effectively disparage the entire conceptual thrust of Anglo culture, which is why we can never trust our governments or other formal institutions to defend male interests.

It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Anglobitch Jailed for Three Years for False Rape Claim

2010-11-01T07:49:00.013-08:00

Where do we start with this one? The Judge in the case is clearly an aged White Knight steeped in the Anglo-Saxon myth of female moral infallibility. Indeed, it is only with considerable reluctance that he jails her at all, even after almost ruining a man's life. He then uses the case to exalt 'authentic' rape victims - when this very case surely casts doubt on the veracity of all female rape claims. The Judge also suggests this slack-mouthed harridan is somehow acting 'out of character' - when, as we all know, vituperative misandry is the true core of the Anglobitch.

It is also notable how Woodhead reflexively avoids all responsibility for her crimes, even blaming her former partner for her sordid career as a prostitute. Seldom was the well-worn Anglobitch agenda of 'privileges without responsibilities' more shamelessly displayed:

A woman who falsely claimed her ex-boyfriend raped her after giving her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam was jailed for three years today.

Kate Woodhead, 31, carried out her "devious" revenge against Paul Joseph after he told her their 18-month relationship was over, Guildford Crown Court was told. Woodhead, who ran livery stables in Surrey, went to police with a friend in April 2009 and told them Mr Joseph had drugged her before attacking her.

She then stole belongings of his worth about £25,000, including an expensive stereo and art prints, and transferred ownership of his Porsche 911 sports car and BMW motorcycle to her own name, intending to sell them. Mr Joseph was arrested and questioned by police but the rape allegation was dropped when officers became suspicious that Woodhead had made it up. She was then arrested herself and was found guilty after a three-week trial.

Judge Neil Stewart told Woodhead, who remained impassive during the sentencing, that the offence was so serious he had no option other than to send her to prison.

He said: "It seems to clear to me that the implication of the jury's verdict is that they accepted the prosecution's case, which was that the offences which form the indictment were all part of a deliberate, and indeed vindictive, campaign waged by you against Mr Joseph as retribution against him in order to secure personal gain for yourself. These offences therefore must be seen as devious and manipulative and you are wholly unrepentant."

Woodhead, of Bracken Lodge in Wisley, Ripley, Surrey, had denied perverting the course of justice, two counts of theft and one of fraud by abuse of position, but was convicted by a jury earlier this year. The court also heard that Woodhead falsely claimed her former partner had entered her details on a prostitution website.

Judge Stewart told Woodhead during the sentencing: "You claimed you were enrolled by him on a prostitution website when the evidence strongly showed that it was you who did that as a means of making some additional income."

The judge told Woodhead that falsely accusing a man of rape can have "very serious" consequences, not only for him but for genuine rape victims. He said cases such as Woodhead's may make a jury more reluctant to convict a man of rape, as it could put doubts in their mind.

The three-year sentence given to Woodhead for perverting the course of justice was intended to act partly as a "deterrent", Judge Stewart added. She had shown a "different side" to her character, leaving her friends and relatives "surprised, astonished and appalled", he said.

Woodhead, who had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a total of 12 months for the theft offences and three months for the fraud. The sentences will run at the same time as the three-year sentence for perverting the course of justice.

Mr Joseph was arrested in May 2009, with the case referred to the Crown Prosecution Service that July. It was the beginning of September the same year that he was told no charges were to be brought.

Speaking after Woodhead was sentenced, IT consultant Mr Joseph said: "I spent most of the year not working. You can't work being on bail. They may say it was £25,000 of items, but it was everything I owned."

None of Mr Joseph's belongings were recovered, the court was told.

He said he thought the sentence was "about right", and added: "She stooped pretty low. I've just got to get on. At the end of the day, she brought it upon herself. Relationships end every day. If someone wants to walk away, you've got to respect it."

SOURCE: UK INDEPENDENT, November 2010

Andrew Gardener: Victim of Anglo Marriage 'a la mode'

2010-10-22T06:32:00.021-08:00

Domestic abuse is a 'hot topic' in the MRA community these days. Why, at this very minute, Paul Elam and David Futrelle are engaged in torrid debate over the 'whys and wherefores' of domestic violence (check out 'A Voice for Men' on my Bloglist). Of course, their fascinating debate will grind on indefinitely, since both parties are dependent on social 'scientists' for their information, and sociology is not a science. Indeed, as my regular readers will know, sociology tends to attract extrovert-unstable personality types more interested in advancing personal agendas than seeking objective truth. In a few areas such as education or consumer behaviour, where vast amounts of published electronic data exist, sociology has some interpretive validity. However, domestic violence is not one of these areas (in fact, crime is not - most crime is not reported or recorded). I would submit that even the most rigorous sociological enquiry into this murky, ill-reported area can produced no conclusions not heavily inflected by the pre-existing assumptions of the researchers.

Given the limitations of sociological research, I prefer to follow Sir Karl Popper in my own methodology - that is, presenting a case that definitively refutes a prevailing climate of opinion. In the Anglosphere, 'women can do no wrong' is equivalent to the statement 'all swans are white': that is, universally accepted 'common sense'. The statement stands as valid until a black swan is found, whereupon it is either qualified or dismissed. Well, I'm sure Clare Nichols is quite sufficient to forever refute the Murdocratic assumption that all women are flawless:

TWO people are today starting life sentences after being found guilty of the brutal torture murder of a man at the home they shared in County Durham.

Clare Nicholls, 28, will serve a minimum 32 years for the torture and murder of her patrner Andrew Gardner and her brother, Simon Nicholls, 24, will serve a minimum 25 years. Her on-off lover Steven Martin, 44, is also facing a life term. He will be sentenced in February following the results of tests by a psychiatrist.

Mr Gardner’s battered and burnt body had more than 120 injuries on it when paramedics found him in his living room on March 13 last year. The 35-year-old had been starved, whipped, scalded, slashed, kicked and punched before he died in agony from a catalogue of horrific injuries.

Doctors found he had suffered 21 rib fractures and associated tissue damage as well as a fractured skull, bleeding on the brain and blood poisoning. Crude abuse had been scrawled on his back in nail varnish, and marks on his torso were described in court as “a grotesque game of noughts and crosses”.

His girlfriend, her brother and her former lover denied murder but were this afternoon convicted by a jury at the end of a harrowing three-week trial. Nicholls shook her head, laid it on a glass barrier in the dock and wept when the verdict was announced, but the two men showed no reaction.

The court heard how Clare Nicholls ruled the home in Arthur Street, Chilton, and how the men of the household were terrified of her temper. She repeatedly attacked Mr Gardner – the father of her youngest child – for what she saw as him being lazy or “stealing” food from the cupboards.

Some jurors wept during the trial as they heard how children saw the punishment beatings and, at times, were encouraged to join in.

Nicholls’ brother and Martin – an ex-lover who moved into the house three weeks before Mr Gardner’s death and reignited an affair – also helped. They later told police that Nicholls was the instigator and they were too frightened to stop the attacks in case she turned her violence towards them.

On March 13 last year, Simon Nicholls made a 999 call, saying Mr Gardner had returned home half-an-hour earlier and collapsed unconscious. He told paramedics that Mr Gardner said he had been beaten up by a gang while out for a walk, and was complaining about severe back pain. The story quickly raised doubts and police were called in, and a lengthy investigation followed – which resulted in the three being arrested.

A series of medical examinations showed that many of Mr Gardner’s injuries had been inflicted days – if not weeks or months – before he died. The suspects were released on bail, but were re-arrested and charged with murder in July when the results of the tests were received by police. Clare Nicholls pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the end of the prosecution case, but the plea was not accepted and she was forced into the witness box.

She confessed to inflicting “the best part” of Mr Gardner’s injuries, but also blamed her brother for some of the rib fractures and other beatings.

Martin was accused of “branding” Mr Gardner with a white-hot cigarette lighter, and scalding his feet and leg with boiling water from a kettle. He also owned up to repeatedly holding his lover’s boyfriend against a piping hot radiator for up to 20 seconds, causing three separate burns.

The court heard how the rib fractures were probably caused when former charity shop worker Nicholls jumped on her partner with her knees. A pathologist told the jury that the injuries were the kind usually associated with victims of car crashes or falls from “considerable” heights.

Prosecutors are seeking a 30-year starting point for the killers, but defence teams will argue this afternoon that the tariff should not be as high as that. The jurors who heard the harrowing details of Andrew Gardner's death will be spared jury service for the next 20 years.

Judge Peter Fox, QC, told the seven men and five women: "This has been a case of particular responsibility and heavy responsibility in its discharge. What I can decide and, indeed, pronounce my decision about, is to say as a reflection of my appreciation of the responsibility you have carried out, you are excused jury service for at least 20 years, with my thanks."

Source: the UK Northern Echo

Why did Mr Gardner not leave the abusive household? According to police, he 'adored' his young daughter. This was his main reason for remaining, although it ultimately meant his own death. Such is the current state of the Anglosphere: for maintaining the father's traditional protective role, a man can face ignominy and murder with the tacit approval of the state.

Michael Gilbert: Victim of the New Anglosphere Matriarchy

2010-10-20T07:00:00.016-08:00

A horrible but instructive tale, the murder of simple-minded Michael Gilbert in January 2009 shows us where the Anglosphere went so tragically wrong in allowing women rights without responsibilities. Read the following carefully, and you will find a misandrist, matriarchal subtext of alarming proportions. As Professor Daniel Amneus argues in The Garbage Generation, matriarchy leads only to the Stone Age. The Anglosphere's decline into neolithic matriarchy is already well-advanced (at least among the ever-expanding socio-economic underclass), and misandrist barbarism is the only possible outcome:

A FAMILY of bloodthirsty sadists were facing life in jail last night for the hideous torture and murder of a vulnerable youngster they kept captive for ten years.

Tragic Michael Gilbert, taken in when he was 15, was treated as a slave by the warped scroungers who inflicted pain on him for fun and used him as a source of income - topping up the brood's £38,000 ($60,000)a year in benefits and dole. When Michael finally died from the abuse aged 26 they beheaded him, cut up his body and dumped the parts in a lake at a beauty spot called the Blue Lagoon.

Michael had led a life of misery at the hands of six abusers, family matriarch Jennifer Smith-Dennis, 58, and her sons James Watt, 27, Richard, 25, and Robert, 20. Willingly joining in the sadism were James' girlfriend Natasha Oldfield, 29, and Richard's lover Nichola Roberts, 22.

Michael, who had learning difficulties and was emotionally immature, was a strapping 6ft plus and nicknamed the Big Friendly Giant. He was taken into care aged 15 after being (falsely) accused of rape. It later emerged the victim invented her story so she would be put in care to escape her own dire home life.

While Michael was at the Brambles Children's Home in Luton, Bedfordshire, he met James Watt, then 15. Watt introduced his new pal to his family who took him in, registered him as unemployed and began taking his dole.

They then started the sickening abuse. Michael was forced to sleep handcuffed to a bed and wear just boxer shorts to discourage him from escaping. He was routinely beaten for pleasure, shot at with an air rifle and made to drink his own urine. Michael had his pubic hair set on fire, was hit with baseball bats, jabbed with dirty syringes, made to stand in boiling water and smashed over the head with snooker balls and fluorescent lighting tubes. James Watt dropped snooker balls from a height on to his testicles.

Michael was also left in agony when James would order him to lie on the floor, shove a piece of wood in his mouth and, putting a hand on each end, do press-ups over him. His tormentors used mobiles to make "happy slap" videos. One released by cops yesterday showed Michael standing against a wall while two men punched him. The family could be heard laughing. Mole grips were attached to his genitals and he was led "like a dog" around the house in Luton.

Natasha Oldfield devised a "game" where participants paid to assault Michael. Police found an entry in her diary reading: "Gilbert ends up dead", adding "£5 (10$) slap, £10 (20$) punch, £15 (30$) kick, £25 (50$)head butt". Nichola Roberts admitted stamping on Michael's chest when she weighed 21 stone (over 200 pounds). She told Luton Crown Court: "He was a bit breathless afterwards - anyone would be, having 21 stone on them."

The constant abuse left him unable to control his bowels and he was punished if he failed to make it to the toilet. He was even made to goad a bearded dragon lizard the family kept until it lashed him with its giant tail. The court heard how Michael was once asked by Richard why he put up with the abuse. He replied: "I love you lot. You are my family."

His last days were spent with a bloated stomach, unable to walk. He died on a mattress smeared in his own excrement in January 2009. When the body was found, Richard, James, Robert and Oldfield cut him up. An vehicle owned by Nichola Roberts was used to take him to the Lagoon. A police camera captured Robert, James and Richard on the way. Four months later his headless corpse was found in a bag by walkers at the lagoon in Arlesey, Beds. It had been weighted down with a stone from the Watt's patio.

Source: The UK Sun, April 2010

Michael Gilbert was in every sense a victim of the Anglosphere's burgeoning matriarchy. He was falsely accused of rape (note how Murdoch's mouthpiece The Sun tries to gloss over his accuser's malevolent intentions). As a low status male, the UK Police and other authorities were entirely indifferent to his plight (contrast his treatment with the feminist media's obsession with 'trafficked women'). He fell into the clutches of a post-feminist kinship-gaggle, comprising the psychotic, criminally-prone individuals routinely produced by such pseudo-families. In the Watt family, only Jennifer's third husband Antonio had a job, and he alone was acquitted of all charges - a tale in itself.

In the coarsest sense, Gilbert was also physically attacked by misandrist underclass women, both of whom actively contributed to his tragic death. As we all know, women can attack men with near-absolute impunity in the post-feminist Anglosphere, as this tragic tale proves (indeed, Natasha Oldfield was actually smirking and laughing in court while discussing her hammer-attacks on Gilbert's stomach. It was, to her, a joke). Finally, the inane institutions of post-feminist civilization (and we use the term loosely) directly contributed to his death, since Oldfield evidently considered his torture a kind of 'game show'.

On analysis, what initially appeared an idiomatic expression of British underclass savagery is revealed to express the core themes of our unravelling culture: institutionalised misandry, matriarchal barbarism, rampant Murdochracy and legally-empowered feminism. Watch well, friends, for the idiomatic events of today can so quickly become the norms of tomorrow.

Murderous Brit Anglobitch Gets Job as Child Protector

2010-10-19T02:04:00.008-08:00

Lynda Barnes: Anglobitch Extraordinaire

We are sometimes told that the Anglosphere is not a matriarchy because a tiny minority of males control all the positions of power in the media, politics and business. This cannot be conceded, as the following case makes plain. In a pragmatic sense, women across the Anglosphere enjoy enormous privileges before the law, in employment and in a plethora of other areas. Consider this: had a man conspired to kill his wife, would he have received such a perfunctory sentence and then been given a position working with children?

A social worker who hired a hitman to kill her ex-husband was given a job with her local councils' child protection unit, it has emerged.

Bath and North East Somerset Council was forced to apologise after it hired Lynda Barnes knowing that she had previously been found guilty of conspiracy to murder. Barnes, 55, was convicted of the charge after offering a contract killer £10,000 to 'take out' her former husband Rodney.

She was given a two-year suspended prison sentence in 1995 and was sacked from her job at Avon County Council. Barnes was later given the job with Bath and Somerset Council, despite admitting to the conviction during the application process.

But her past emerged during a child protection case at Bath County Court last June where she allegedly lied on oath and asked another social worker to lie to the court. The judge ordered an investigation and published a damning report into her 'appalling' actions.

Barnes, from Nailsea, north Somerset, has now resigned from her post where she held a senior job managing 20 social workers. The council has reviewed all cases she handled during her employment. A council spokesman said it has apologised to the families involved with Lynda Barnes and has also offered an apology to the court.

'Lynda Barnes lied to the court under oath. She also asked one of our other social workers to do the same,' the spokesman said.

Barnes was arrested in July 1993 after arranging a meeting with a hitman 'Peter' - who turned out to be an undercover policeman. She met him in layby on the M4 and offered him £10,000 to murder her (allegedly) abusive former husband Rodney, then 33, with whom she had split two years previously. Barnes planned to sell his unique turbo Fireblade motorcycle to finance the hit, the trial at Bristol Crown Court heard.

She initially denied conspiracy to murder but dramatically halted the trial on the second day to change her plea to guilty. On March 24 1995 Judge Peter Fallon said he was imposing a lenient two year suspended sentence as the case was 'the most unique set of circumstances' he had ever seen.

A co-conspirator, who helped set up a meeting with the undercover policeman, received a 38-month sentence.

At the time of her conviction Barnes was a social worker in the Child Care Department of Avon County Council. She tried to take them to a tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, but the case was thrown out. In 1996 Avon County Council was scrapped and the area it covered was split between a number of local authorities, including Bath and North East Somerset Council.

Judge Paul Barclay said he was 'appalled' and carried out his own investigation into Barnes' past, which exposed her criminal past.

It emerged that she had disclosed her conviction during the application process.

But she gave Bath and North East Somerset Council a 'highly sanitised version of events in which her role is minimised compared to what is revealed in the Crown Court papers,' Judge Barclay said. She also registered with the General Social Care Council (GSCC) in January 2006 after they believed her version of her role in the crime without checking with the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service).

Barnes was involved in 17 cases in which 31 children were removed from the care of their parents before she resigned in March this year. Yesterday Judge Barclay's report into the case was made public after Barnes failed in a Court of Appeal application to prevent her being identified.

Bath and North East Somerset admitted it was a mistake to employ Barnes but said no children under Barnes' protection had been unfairly removed from their families. The spokesman added: 'Council managers acted to remove Lynda Barnes from duty and address any possible areas of concern as soon as possible.'

Ah, that makes it all OK, then. What is particularly disturbing that, having been shown enormous clemency by the Court, the offending Anglobitch still couldn't control her sociopathic tendencies, presuming the right to lie under oath. And this remorseless Pedestal Princess probably ruined 31 children's lives, into the bargain.

Oh, that awful patriarchy!

Response to Thomas Fleming, Deluded White Knight and Misguided Conservative

2010-09-30T08:34:00.007-08:00

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.

Male Singleness and the Rise of the Men's Movement (or, the Fringe Benefits of Sexual Disenfranchisement)

2010-09-25T23:28:00.015-08:00

Why has the pan-Anglosphere men's movement exploded into life in recent years? Even in the late Twentieth Century, the movement was fairly marginalized, with a mere handful of male writers daring to criticize feminism.

Since about 2007, all that has changed. We have made the Internet our own, creating a potent network of blogs, sites and fora in every digital arena. We have made some legal gains (consider the limited anonymity granted to the accused in British rape cases). Many female journalists in the pan-Anglosphere press express increasing concern about the decline of masculine chivalry and the rise of Game, MRA activism and foreign dating sites.

Obviously, the Internet has had a major role in this explosion. The pan-Anglosphere 'mainstream' media reflexively project a feminist, matriarchal perspective since (as we all know) Anglo-Saxon culture is implicitly feminist, anyway. The Internet therefore represents a natural medium for counter hegemonic masculinist initiatives - indeed, perhaps the sole avenue. And of course, the 'mainstream' media are atomizing or declining, further strengthening the masculinist agenda.

A new, iconoclastic spirit is abroad. After hating on men for the past thirty years, Anglo-American women are suddenly waking up to the fact that American men don't like them very much. This explains their shrill denunciation of foreign dating sites, Game, activism, the escort industry and other dynamic masculine responses to their casual misandry. American men are saying: "Ok, Anglobitch - if you hate men, that's fine. I'll just jet off to Russia, Venezuela or Thailand to find a woman who likes men - and thinner, prettier and sexier than you, to boot."

The oddest thing about this is the Anglobitch response - when Anglo-American women have directly engineered these outcomes. Freed by singleness from any need to delude themselves about women, American men have addressed their issues with typical dynamic candor. Their reward is a cacophony of abuse from the entitled Anglobitch and her 'mainstream' media apologists, still steeped in infantile subjectivity and mouthing the same tired, feminist mantras: 'You can't handle a strong woman'; 'men are trapped in the past'; 'women know what they want'; 'men just want an unpaid house-servant'; and so on.

However, another factor is at work in this great masculine awakening, not just the expansion of the Internet and its infinite capacity for democratic, rational discourse. With various national modulations, the Anglosphere has witnessed the steady decline of stable, monogamous relationships since the mid-Seventies. Today, over 50% percent of American marriages fail and ever-increasing numbers of singletons of both sexes proliferate. In some American urban centers, most people are now single and unattached. In the UK, a third of households are now headed by single people, something unthinkable only a generation ago.

Interestingly, the men's movement has burgeoned in accord with this demographic shift. This surely relates to the fact that - without close female kin - many Anglo males can now view western women with a clear, objective eye. When men have wives, partners or daughters, they cannot afford this ruthless objectivity; they have too much personal investment in their female kin. But now, with ever more males living in isolation from females and without emotional links to them, they are free to analyze female insolence and entitlement for the first time.

Let us elaborate. When nearly all men had female partners and children, they had a biological incentive to ignore female privilege. After all, their own wives and daughters were the principal recipients of it. Once a large proportion of men no longer had wives or daughters, however, chivalry instantly lost its ulterior biological incentive. Consequently men began to see women in their true light, as state-sponsored tyrants and pedestal princesses. This, I would aver, is the major reason for the recent rise of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement. When one's wife and daughters are safe in the lifeboats, chivalry makes sense; when one has no wife or daughters, it makes no sense whatsoever. Thus the men's movement represents a conceptual revolution comparable to the European Enlightenment, with the same profound implications.

Many more men are asking: "why should I continue apologizing for women? What's in it for me?" When men are single and childless, the answer is simply this: nothing. Gender objectivity is the privilege of the single, never the sexually enfranchised. Hence, the recent explosion of single men has facilitated a heightened objectivity concerning gender-relations and, ultimately, the rise of the men's movement. I think this a very profound and overlooked fact, and one that might be manipulated to further our cause in the fullness of time. It also explains the middle-class, hyper-rational ethos of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement, since such objective self-awareness always defines the educated and intelligent, never sentimental dullards. Calls for female draft registration and an end to to pro-female educational and legal discrimination all spring from the same source: unfettered objectivity.

Repression, Freedom and the Mexicatl One World: Aztec Thoughts on the Anglobitch Thesis

2010-09-18T23:04:00.018-08:00

I know a number of my readers hail from Mexico, that dark, virile land of exotic ruins and glittering mysteries. I recently reread a book I first encountered over twenty years ago, namely Gary Jennings' Aztec. This wonderful novel sheds much light on the Anglobitch Thesis, exposing the repressive dysfunction at the heart of Anglo-Saxon culture and its ultimate, tragic expression in misandrist feminism. Jennings spent over ten years in Mexico researching his peerless novel, even going so far as to learn the esoteric art of Aztec picture writing and Nahuatl, the ancient language of the region. This intense immersion in Aztec culture bore fruit in a book that shows us a sophisticated world of trade, warfare and statecraft entirely free of Anglo-Saxon - indeed, western - repression, and its attendant misandry.

The fictional narrator is a certain Mixtli, the son of skilled artisans who by judgment and good fortune rises into the mercantile class and then, for a brief time before the Spanish conquest, the Aztec nobility. His autobiographical account is full of extraordinary journeys and adventures in the three nations of the Nahuatl One World, not to mention the fascinating peoples of central America, including the Maya, with whom they trade.

The light that Aztec sheds on the Anglobitch Thesis is especially interesting. Aztec culture is gallant, manly and virile, without a trace of feminist misandry or female 'appeasement'. This 'masculine' civilization flourishes because Aztec culture is entirely free of sexual repression. Consequently, women have no intrinsic status in ancient Mexico, beyond their social birth-class. This shows us that feminism does not - indeed, can not - exist in a truly liberated culture. When sex has scarcity value it becomes a sacrament bestowed by women on males, thereby creating a misandrist climate that permits both the rise of feminism and the marginalization of men.

Wherever Mixtli travels, fresh young women are available for his sexual entertainment. Every inn on the road has an adjoining whore-house, just as it has beds, drinks and breakfast. A lissom whore is always available, served up like a glass of wine or a hearty meal, an uncomplaining body for men to enjoy. Sickly Anglo repression is utterly absent from the Aztec world - and with it, misandrist feminism of the odious Anglo variety.

The foregoing illustrates the intimate relationship between sexual repression and feminism. In repressed cultures, female status automatically rises as 'givers' of sex, while male are denigrated for being sexualized beings. Misandrist feminism arises from these imbalanced conditions, then the rabid misandry that defines the contemporary Anglosphere. Indeed, Pan-Anglosphere civilization with its sickly 'homosociality', endemic misandry and rampant 'woman worship' exemplifies the dangers of repression like no other.

Recently, the British press has been bleating abuse against international soccer players Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney for enjoying the services of prostitutes. This hypocritical, hysterical opprobrium highlights the repressive puritanism that still characterizes the Anglo-American world. If virile young males want casual sex, so what? They are merely expressing the healthy instincts of youth. True to their subliminal puritan agenda, however, the British press reflexively excoriate Rooney and Crouch as depraved monsters for merely acting as normal young males. Despite its boisterous rhetoric, Anglo culture inheres to a puritanical ethos that decries healthy sexual appetites as 'sick' and 'sinful', demonizing all males by default. Observe everywhere the results: male educational failure (despite superior intelligence), soaring male suicide rates, the 'feminization' of Anglo intellectual life, and much else besides.

The contrast with Mixtli's world of boundless masculine liberation is searing and absolute. In Aztec society, men enjoy complete liberation and women have no power; in the contemporary Anglosphere, men are erotically suppressed and women have all the power. Clearly, feminism will flourish wherever male sexual freedom is absent, which is why our Anglosphere nurtures the most misandrist brand of feminism of all. And so the Anglobitch Thesis is confirmed yet again, in all its particulars.

Lord Rookh Kshatriya, Revered Speaker of the Anglobitch Thesis

Harvard College a Sexual Desert: Gender Feminism's Bitter Legacy

2010-08-19T11:31:00.016-08:00

This interesting (if irritating) article from the Harvard Crimson suggests the illustrious college is hardly a hotbed of sexual liberation. This finding chimes well with the Anglobitch Thesis. Elite Anglo-American institutions such as Harvard are embodiments of Anglo-Saxon cultural values, namely repression, misandry, puritanism and feminism, so such findings are fairly predictable.

How much more evidence do people need that Anglo culture is deeply repressive? Here we have a substantial proportion of young people in their physical prime contained in a co-educational setting having little or no sex for four years. Note how the author explains this gross dysfunction by 'academic pressure' rather than puritanism, misandry or feminism. Recreational heterosexual intercourse normally takes a few minutes to complete, so even that argument falls flat (pardon the pun). How much time do the students need?

The blunt fact is that decades of homosocial, Anglo-American gender-feminism have poisoned relations between the sexes. Note how the article makes no mention of Harvard's draconian 'Antioch Rules', wherein males require legal permission to hold womens' hands, kiss and so forth. At Harvard, healthy, natural instincts have been comprehensively erased by anti-sex, misandrist feminists. Twenty-first century Harvard College might as well be set in seventeenth century New England or Cromwell's joyless Commonwealth.

What an unmitigated disaster...

The complaint that Harvard is a barren wasteland of sexual destitution is not without merit. According to a Crimson survey of the class of 2009, in their four years at Harvard, 52 percent of the students had one or zero sexual partners, and only 28 percent had even one dating partner. Add these statistics to the blogs, studies, and numerous recent articles about how Harvard students can’t get any, and you can’t help but feel bad about your sex life. Harvardfml and d-hall gossip don’t help either.

Luckily, the illusion that everyone else is having more sex than you is not specific to Harvard, so if your neighbor’s all-too-audible Saturday morning romps have got you feeling blue, take heart. “Go Ask Alice!”—Columbia University’s Dear Abby-equivalent—reports that the majority of polled college students also had zero or one sexual partners in a given year, while believing that their peers were having three times as much sex as they were. Other revealing statistics include that 31 percent of U.S. college women are still virgins at graduation and that college male sexual activity is down from 2.1 partners in 2001 to 1.6 partners in 2006.

These stats are comforting until you realize that Harvard is still only at or below the mean. This perhaps indicates that Harvard is indeed a barren wasteland of sexual destitution. Why? “Because you all are so dang hard to get a hold of!” quipped my MIT friend. It’s true. He and I spent two weeks trying to find a time simply to get coffee. Every cancellation and re-schedule had been my fault, because of lab, section, rehearsal, or work. This type of social avoidance and excuse making is distressingly common in our college’s culture. As has been pointed out in all those “Harvard-doesn’t-have-sex” articles, every Harvard student is chronically over-scheduled. What they don’t point out is that we are over-scheduled of our own volition. Everyone puts their work first, believing that in the long run, an on-time Gov 20 paper will be more beneficial than a potentially-awkward date with last Saturday’s hook-up. This generates a society of isolated academia, and we lose sight of the fact that one year from now, that paper’s grade will mean nothing. And that date may have been the start of something really special.

Guest Post by Chuckew: More Anglo than the British

2010-08-07T06:12:00.008-08:00

This is an excellent essay by an Australian reader lamenting the gulf between Australia's sunny public image and the crabbed, matriarchal reality. It echoes an interesting book I read by the Australian journalist John Pilger, I think entitled A Secret Country. This discussed the astronomical suicide rates for teenage boys in Australia long before the issue touched the pan-Anglosphere men's movement. That was my first intimation that Anglo-Saxon countries stigmatize males as a sex. It is certainly notable that prominent and influential feminists like Germaine Greer hail from Australia, that the country is presently led by a woman and that Australian feminism is especially well-integrated with the state.

Some countries of the Anglosphere are more Anglo than other countries of the Anglosphere. In fact, Australians are more Anglo than the English. Contrast this with Americans, where Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, Spanish and so on had comprised major components in waves of immigration. Whereas in Australia, the White Australia Policy was rendered defunct only in 1973.

To avert any ambiguity, let’s be clear… the “white” in the White Australia Policy related principally to Anglo whites, with “ten quid” cockney immigrants encouraged to settle here. Italians, Germans and other dubious nationals with funny accents were never a part of the “ten quid tourist” program.

It’s been proven to be fiction, but Americans like to entertain the notion that English was voted over German as the national language by only a slim margin. That they sometimes entertain this legend with such fondness suggests that the Anglo influence is not quite as entrenched as some suggest.

Consider Australian politics and laws, and that the Australian mode of regulation has been embraced by bureaucrats the world over. Perhaps they assumed that if draconian laws can work on a people as relaxed and fun-loving as Aussies, then they can be implemented with even greater ease in countries that appear less “democratic”.

Incidentally – the notion of the “easy-going Aussie” is a myth. “Easy-going” is a cultural red herring designed to keep interpersonal relationships at a fun, superficial level, to avoid all that nastiness that more spontaneous, less regulated people the world over are inclined to erupt into at short notice. The lie of the “easy-going Aussie” is great for politics, it makes regulation so much easier. For example, consider the following:

Australia introduced the world to draconian helmet and seatbelt laws:

http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Winter04/australia.html

Our previous prime minister, John Howard, showed George W Bush what he can get away with. And through our Australian example, we brought Americans the Patriot Act and the Iraq war:

http://www.silencingdissent.com.au/
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2006oct28_b1.html

Australia has always had draconian anti-association laws, in one form or another:

http://www.umcwa.org/news.php

Which brings us to Rookh’s thesis regarding Anglo feminism. The good-girl/bad-girl duality is nowhere as strong as it is in Australia. The slut is a dominant women’s stereotype, with its dominant male counterpart, the “larrikin” (the English would be familiar with chads, cads and lads). Obviously it is incorrect to say that “good” girls don’t exist in Australia. They do. But they, like their male counterparts, are 2-dimensional personalities that equate morality with “niceness” and “proper behaviour”, not with courage or standing up for what you believe in. Traditionally, I believe that American culture, at least in the past, accommodated more of the latter. Unquestioning and compliant “proper behaviour”, by contrast, is Anglo to the core, and derives much of its momentum from a secular, materialistic, anti-religious perspective (quite in contrast to Puritanism). I believe that Anglicanism may reflect this more pragmatic, sterile approach to religion (but don’t quote me on this).

We have to worry about Australia’s creeping, insidious impact on world politics. Promotion-seeking bureaucrats the world over are inclined to sneak in regulatory practices that work in foreign countries, so that they can claim credit. And in this regard, Australia’s anti-democratic Anglo foundations, coupled with the attractive lie that we are a hedonistic, fun-loving people, is setting some draconian precedents. That’s my thesis, anyway. Puritanism is too opinionated for Anglo sensibilities, really. It is no accident that Australia (and its “seventh state”, New Zealand) has set major feminist precedents.

Conservatism: the Perilous Flaw in Anglo-American Masculinism

2010-07-31T05:03:00.016-08:00

'When the great fall, the less must lead' - Tolkien

A general distinction has arisen in pan-Anglosphere masculinism. The British wing of masculinism is strong on theory while the American wing is much stronger on practice. This is what we might expect, given the different intellectual traditions of the two nations. America’s great contribution to intellectual life is the pragmatist philosophical movement, while Britain is renowned for inventing things (computers and jet engines, for instance) but failing to capitalise on them. In short, Britain is theory-rich, practice-poor. The British theoretical approach seems very popular with Americans, who perhaps need some conceptual guidance for their practical efforts. However, I have noticed a key problem in the British ‘theoretical’ masculinist movement that may cause untold damage if it continues unchecked: knee-jerk adherence to 'conservatism'.

Certain masculinists are obsessed with trying to reprise traditional Anglo-Saxon values as an antidote to feminism. But – and this is the really, really important thing to grasp – in Anglo-Saxon countries, traditional values ARE the source of feminism. This is because ‘traditional’ Anglo culture is puritanical, demonizing all men as sexual beings. Because women are comparatively frigid and denatured, Anglo culture unthinkingly places them on pedestals, however they act. We see this endlessly played out in American court-rooms, where decent men are fleeced of their wealth and children by husband-beaters and adulteresses on a daily basis.

Anglo feminism is a fearful hybrid, crossing women’s rights with puritanical repression and producing women with vast power sans all responsibility. Given this background, we can see quite plainly why resurrecting traditional Anglo-Saxon values can only strengthen feminism. Anglo feminism expresses Anglo culture – repressive, puritanical and hypocritical. Modern feminism is not progressive, in the least. Its assumptions are essentially Victorian, decrying virility and sexual freedom at every turn.

Devastating proof of this can be seen in Prime Minister David Cameron’s limp-dicked retreat on the thorny issue of male anonymity in heterosexual rape cases. Doctor Snark and other ‘conservative’ British masculinists were excited by Cameron’s promise to grant anonymity to the accused, not just the accuser. They assumed that a ‘conservative’ would uphold men’s rights and freedoms.

None of it!

Cameron immediately crumpled before rabid feminist and man-hater Harriet Harman, reformulating the Bill to only grant anonymity until trial. More worrying still, Cameron has pledged more (yet more!) support for female rape 'victims'.

From the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis, this craven capitulation to misandrist feminism is entirely predictable. In the Anglosphere, ‘tradition’ means repression and, in the end, repression maintains Anglo feminism. Consequently, Anglo ‘traditions’ can only worsen the male situation in the Anglosphere. Yet conservative masculinists persist in trying to resurrect the repressive values that brought us to this desperate pass in the first place.

The same problem inheres to the new discipline of Male Studies, which emphasizes the innate differences between the sexes. While such differences surely exist, without challenging the default contempt for masculinity implicit in Anglo culture such an enterprise is pointless. Men and women are different... well, so what? Most smart people have worked that out by age twelve. Unless Male Studies frees masculinity from its strait-jacket of misandrist contempt, it is a pointless discipline. Indeed, emphasising innate gender differences without reversing the Anglosphere’s default misandry could well be dangerous, legitimizing the further marginalisation of men and boys. This is another variant of the ‘conservative problem’ implicit in Anglo-Saxon masculinism – extolling Anglo tradition merely defends feminist misandry, since traditional Anglo Puritanism promotes feminism by default.

Male Studies can discuss hormonal, physical and genetic differences between the sexes until Doomsday (probably adding little beyond Professor Glenn Wilson’s superb The Great Sex Divide) but if masculine virtues remain reviled by the parent culture, such discussion might merely advance feminist misandry. After all, Anglo feminists frequently invoke innate differences to explain their greater sociality and emotionalism. Male studies will subliminally promote the same misandrist agenda unless masculinity is seen as virtuous. Its apologists cannot perceive this danger because they are mostly soft scientists (anthropologists and psychologists) with little grasp of ideological conflict.

Let us turn now to the true origins of Anglo feminism’s intellectual ancestry. Throughout conservative MRA writings we find an obsession with Marxism and a callow conflation of Marxism with Anglo-American radicalism. This has gone unchallenged for far too long. Marxism has an intellectual heritage quite distinct from Anglo-American radicalism and cannot be simplistically conflated with it.

Marxism hails from the German-speaking world, being derived from Hegel’s metaphysics. Broadly speaking, Hegel thought that history unfolded towards a state of social enlightenment (which he believed was the nineteenth century Prussian state). In sum, his ideas were not leftist or liberal at all – fascists admire Hegel just as much as Marx did. Marx simply transferred Hegel’s concepts into the socio-economic sphere. He believed that socio-economic classes (defined by their relationship to the economic means of production) underwent a similar process of historical development, with capitalism yielding to communism - a society without classes where all were valued equally. At first the State (echoes of Hegel’s authoritarianism) would have to 'manage' this Communist utopia. Eventually it would ‘wither away’ however, leaving humanity in an eternally benign condition.

At first glance, these ideas are quite alien to the Anglo-American intellectual tradition. For Hegel and Marx, the individual is subsumed in collective waves of social change like a leaf in a storm. In short, Marxism is intellectually Germanic, with an ‘organic’ view of humanity that completely denies individualism and private property. One thinks of Nazi marches and Prussian military schools, not the Alamo or an English village pub. This is because Anglo-American radicalism follows a very distinct line of descent from Marxism. What is that heritage and how did it shape feminism?

Long before Marx and Hegel (1215, actually), the English barons made King John sign the Magna Carta, forcing him to acknowledge the innate rights and freedoms of the English people. In the Seventeenth Century, the English beheaded King Charles I for transgressing those freedoms. A century later, the fledgling United States won its independence from the British crown. In sum, the English-speaking world has an autonomous radical tradition quite independent of Marxism and antedating it by centuries.

In the nineteenth century, Anglo radicalism re-emerged as Christian socialism, especially in Britain. In the States it resurfaced as the temperance movement. Of course, the association between Puritanism and radicalism has always existed – consider Cromwell’s repressive Commonwealth, or the Pilgrim Fathers. Much more importantly, feminism also arose in that turbulent era. It was not new, nor was it Marxist; its origins can be traced back to the very origins of the anglosphere. And from the get-go, it embodied the inhuman loathing of sex and pleasure that has long marred Anglo culture.

The sickly repression of the Victorians cohered with radical feminism to produce a ‘women’s movement’ more intent on suppressing masculinity, virility and pleasure than advancing women’s rights – a crabbed agenda still characteristic of Anglo feminism today. Indeed, contemporary feminist hysteria against (largely imaginary) sex trafficking, prostitution, pornography and other legitimate forms of sensual expression could well come from the Victorian era (in fact, I aver that they do!).

So we are back to our principal theme, that Anglo culture is inherently misandrist and matriarchal by virtue of its Puritanism. Marxism is irrelevant to the issue - repressive Anglo radicalism gave birth to feminism, not Marx or Hegel. That tradition has an admirable love of liberty. Crossed with Puritan feminism, however, it became the curse of the Anglosphere. As ever, Anglo repression sickens all it touches.

In conclusion, only a total redefinition of Anglo culture will permit coherent resistance to Anglo-American feminism. Invoking ‘traditional’ Anglo values can lead only to defeat for the pan-Anglosphere men’s movement. A better alternative is a new, revolutionary agenda that severs all links with Anglo Puritanism. ‘Conservatism’ has failed us utterly, as David Cameron has demonstrated.

Having worked hard on this peerless piece, I feel all readers should profit from my pain. Let all readers (official and otherwise;-)) enjoy a fresh young whore this very week. Wherever you walk in the Anglosphere or the world, whatever your mood or pleasure, have this one on me. In one fell swoop you assail feminism, mock repression, strengthen the male position and make me very, very happy.

Excelsior!

On Anglo-Saxon Puritanism: Guest Post by Monsieur Chauvin

2010-07-10T03:36:00.005-08:00

This article appeared on Monsieur Chauvin's inactive blog. Superbly written and with many scholarly allusions, it ably discusses the intimate relationship between Anglo-Saxon sexual repression and strident Anglobitch feminism. Anglo puritanism permitted the rise of 'companionate marriage' which set women atop pedestals and allowed the 'rights plus privileges' agenda to triumph across the Anglosphere. Enjoy!

I am intrigued by the constant literary allusions I keep finding concerning the puritanical basis of much contemporary Western European culture and civilization, with especial reference to the Protestant Anglo-Saxon strain of Western-derived social organization in particular. Richard Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, has written a fascinating book called Sex and Reason. The central thesis of the book gravitates around the subject of how the modern conceptualization of human sexuality can be fully integrated within both a jurisprudential and economic framework. However, Posner also manages to meticulously explore why many of the societies of the ancient past, such as Greece and Rome, as well as many existing Third World and Catholic Mediterranean societies, that happen to be very “machista” in both social atmosphere and tone, tend to be much more liberal towards human sexual expression than either their corresponding Western European complement in general or their Anglo-Saxon equivalent in particular.

Mr Posner’s understanding of the rigid nature of the prevailing Calvinist morality that undergirds the fundamental structure of the contemporary social institutions of the Anglo-Saxon world rests on a distinction he draws between companionate and non-companionate marriage. He defines companionate marriage as being a genuine partnership between husband and wife supposedly based on mutual love and respect, with both spouses expected to participate equally in the daily operation of the household economy. It is chiefly distinguished from noncompanionate marriage by the fact that male-female relations are no longer exclusively organized around the male need for sexual release or the assurance of paternity and patrilineal inheritance. In his book, Posner writes:

Companionate marriage fosters puritanical attitudes generally, so we should not be surprised by the puritanical strain in the Anglo-American sexual culture. A husband’s adultery becomes for the first time offensive , because it undermines love and trust and reduces the amount of time that he spends with his wife, which are elements of companionate but not of noncompanionate marriage. The patronizing of prostitutes by married men is a form of adultery, and so also becomes offensive. Moreover, as a male-female relationship signally lacking in love and trust – a relationship characterized, indeed, by the impersonality of the spot market – prostitution is incongruous in a society that has turned its back on the businesslike model of noncompanionate marriage. But because prostitution is a substitute for forms of extramarital sex that are more threatening to companionate marriage, and thus is a complement to as well as a substitute for such marriage, the effect of a social commitment to companionate marriage is not to condemn outright but to problematize what in a society of noncompanionate marriage would be an unproblematic institution. (Posner, 158)

Posner generally attributes the puritanical undercurrents of modern Anglo-Saxon culture to the rise of companionate marriage during the sixteenth century. This is brought about through the advent of a nascent Western capitalism and the English version of the Lutheran Reformation. It stands in sharp bas-relief to the more traditional noncompanionate forms of marriage which had previously dominated all of the societies of classical antiquity and other non-Western cultures before the advent of European exploration and colonization. As an interesting sidebar, it seems that wherever the shadow of the Pax Britannia fell, so fell the rigidly puritanical values it brought with it.

Consistent with this, many previous scholars and ethnographers once argued that the culture of the Indian sub-continent was positively licentious. As a matter of fact, pre-Mughal Indian culture was characterized by having a highly sexualized body of erotic literature (such as the Kama Sutra) and many of its most sacred temple complexes were decorated in a rich pornographic imagery. After the eighteenth century introduction of the British Raj, the East India Company, and the legions of evangelizing Christian missionaries who came trailing behind from the rear, the Indians became even more fanatically puritanical than the traditionally more repressed Englishman.

Maybe we should also be looking at the notion of the Protestant Work Ethic developed by German sociologist Max Weber. It is evident that much of the socially conservative, morally puritanical underpinnings of Anglo-American civilization (the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand) come from the rigid Calvinist morality preached by the first English pilgrims settling the New World. The reformer John Calvin, the theological idol of the first Puritans, did stress the value of hard work and the full completion of those religious tasks mandated by God as a means of determining who ultimately numbered amongst “the predestined Elect.”

Additionally, the only way any of the believers could be certain of his salvation was on the basis of how much wealth he had accumulated throughout an entire lifetime, eventually culminating in the “time is money” mantra of modern Western capitalism (secularized Calvinist morality). Thus, those who were either financially impoverished or deviated from the average code of conduct prescribed by Calvin and personally exemplified by many a Puritan believer, were regarded as social outcastes condemned to an eternity of hellfire and suffering.

Tales from Sociology

2010-06-10T02:17:00.022-08:00

The Anglobitch blog is running smoothly, but some changes in my approach are afoot. I intend to write less, maybe once or twice a month, but compensate by giving people something of the highest quality.

Why are there no right wing sociologists? Simply, because sociology is not a science. It is merely arbitrary political opinion dressed in scientific trappings. Since feminism is a branch of sociology, it behoves us as counter-feminists to critically examine this intellectual discipline.

At the time of his death, Professor Hans Eysenck was the most widely cited psychologist in the anglosphere. He was an unusual psychologist, in that his first love was physics. He came to England from Nazi Germany to escape persecution for his beliefs. However, he soon found that the Anglosphere harbored quite enough irrationality of its own, as his brilliant work stressing the innate intellectual differences between people began to attract critical attention.

Eysenck is especially well-known for his classification of personality-types. He divided people into four broad types: Extrovert-Stable, Extrovert-Unstable, Introvert-Stable and Introvert-Unstable. These types are fairly self-apparent in our daily lives, so no surprises there. However, he found that certain types are drawn to particular subjects of study, works of art and political affiliations in markedly predictable ways - and that is where things become really interesting.

Extrovert-Unstable people are, according to Eysenck, more prone to insanity, extremism and authoritarianism than other personality types. Again, this is pretty much what we would expect. However, Eysenck soon found that his intellectual opponents in British universities were typically sociology students, many of whom resorted to threats of violence against him. Further research confirmed his hunch that students drawn to sociology were overwhelmingly Unstable-Extroverts, very seldom Stable-Introverts.

Now, these distinctive sociological ‘markers’ – proneness to extremism, authoritarianism and irrationality – also define feminism. And this should not surprise us. Feminism is a branch of sociology - and, as such, attracts the same Unstable-Extrovert personality type. Indeed, prominent feminists like Greer, Dworkin or Harman all represent this type, and the three 'markers' Eysenck found to be associated with sociology also define feminism. Let us consider this in more detail.

Schizophrenia (insanity)
One key characteristic of insanity is a failure to test reality – to let one’s subjective fantasies run unchecked by any objective assessment criteria. This irrational trait clearly defines Anglo-American feminism.

As proof of this, feminism closely inheres to ‘post-modernism’, a counter-cultural academic movement originating in continental European universities, particularly the University of Paris. Sokal and Bricmont, two French scientists, have analysed French post-modern sociology and philosophy in depth, and concluded that most of it is incoherent gibberish. By extension, feminist ‘thought’ takes a severe drubbing at their hands as a farrago of anti-rational drivel. Check out their book, Intellectual Impostures. I can’t recommend this work highly enough.

One of the oddest expressions of feminist ‘anti-rationalism’ is the curious notion that physiological reality is an oppressive ‘social construct’. The oft-stated view that ‘all sex is rape’ is a bizarre example of this position. Sexual intercourse, of course, is no such thing. All male mammals inseminate the female in this manner, from humans to whales, simply because it is physiologically expedient for our species. In short, sexual intercourse is not a social phenomenon, but a purely biological one.

Another example of feminist lunacy I love – and will continue to cite, since it so antagonizes feminists – is anorexia. Feminist ‘scholars’ have claimed anorexia casualties of up to ‘a million’ in the United States alone. Christina Hoff-Sommers has shown that the true figure is a mere 100 casualties a year. Such detachment from reality among feminists is surely indicative of incurable insanity. There are many other examples (Greer’s predilection for drinking menstrual blood, anyone?) but anorexia remains the 'classic'.

So detached from consensus reality is Anglo feminism, indeed, that feminists can no longer engage in rational debate. Their insane insistence that innate physical or biological differences between the sexes are merely ‘social’ is central to this. All reputable scientists now accept that gender differences can be traced to organic factors like brain structure, genes or hormones, and persist unchanged under all social conditions. There are no cultures, for example, where women pay for sex in substantial numbers, simply because women have inherently less interest in sex than men. Were sexuality socially determined, one would expect a far greater repertoire of sexual behaviours than is actually observed. State such facts to any feminist, however, and her only response will be blind rage. This is because feminists, being insane extremists, have no interest in ‘reality’ as such.

Authoritarianism
Feminazis are called that for good reason. Anglo feminists are obsessed with deploying coercive measures to achieve their destructive and misguided goals.

Recent examples would be VAWA and IMBRA in the States, or Harriet Harman’s rabid opposition to male anonymity in British rape cases. Of course, the overriding Anglo feminist agenda is a puritanical obsession with suppressing all forms of sexual self-expression across the Anglosphere; for rationing sex indirectly maintains their status and power. And in grand authoritarian style, feminism has done everything it can to quash prostitution, porn and other legitimate forms of sexual self-expression.

Indeed, it would be fair to call feminists ‘sexual Nazis’, so clear is their authoritarian agenda in such matters.

Extremism
Eysenck found that sociology students tended towards extremism. Unlike liberal arts students (Extrovert-Stable) or scientists and engineers (Introvert-Stable), the Extrovert-Unstable personality is powerfully drawn to radical politics. If we consider Anglo-American feminism, it is likewise characterized by rabid extremism. Greer, MacKinnon or Solanas all share this trait. If they were men (and thus endowed with physical courage and advanced organizational skills) they would undoubtedly be successful terrorists.

In practical terms, feminist authoritarian-extremism manifests itself as physical violence against their intellectual opponents. Of course, violence is the default response of those to whom no rational evidence is meaningful (Nazis, Communists, left-liberals and feminists). When Edward O Wilson of Harvard first began to publicly expound the principles of sociobiology, he was physically attacked by campus feminists on several occasions (shades of Eysenck's experience, there: inane slogans like 'Fascist Eysenck has no right to speak' defiled British campuses wherever he lectured). Brute force is the natural refuge of the deranged because, bereft of the ennobling powers of human reason, rational debate is beyond them.

Conclusion
This analysis represents a revolution in men’s studies. Never before has feminism been viewed as merely the conceptual expression of a given personality type. From this tentative analysis, feminism can be readily seen to reflect a complex of mental disorders inhering to the extrovert-unstable personality. Like sociology, feminism lacks reality-testing. Its adherents exhibit both authoritarian tendencies and an impulse towards irrational extremism. Next time you challenge an Anglo-American feminist, remember that her views have no intrinsic validity, being merely the vacuous expressions of a disordered mind.

In short, the chirps of a cricket are far more meaningful.

P.S.
By the way, to that retarded feminist who emailed me, consider this:
I’d sooner run the bulls at Pamplona with a wooden leg than spend the night with Sarah Jessica Parker.

The Amygdala Prison: Women, Self-awareness and SJP

2010-05-26T01:33:00.000-08:00

'Absolutely indistinguishable'... 'She looks even better now than she did at 22!'... Yeah, right.

I apologize for not writing more regularly, but the time has been well-spent on thinking and thus not wasted. I want to move beyond the raw ideas of the Anglobitch Thesis (which are now quite well-known and accepted) to a new position where we can create a new standard of discourse. It is like climbing a ladder to a new level, then throwing the ladder away. Now, let's see if I can make up for lost time...

It is common currency in Male Studies that women in general suffer from a crushing lack of self-awareness. This is why women delude themselves into thinking that their sexual allure is irrelevant to their status. They truly believe that they appear in films or acquire unmerited promotions because of innate ability or talent. Let's be frank, if Angelina Jolie or Cheryl Cole were tubby 55 year olds would they be in films or on TV? The question answers itself.

Of course, this complex pattern of female self-delusion works at many levels. Secretly knowing that their sole bargaining chip in the game of life is sexual allure, women develope multiple layers of self-delusion to disguise its loss or absence. Indeed, feminism itself is merely another manifestation of this, in that it pretends female 'achievement' rests on other factors than sexual power over men (intellect, creativity and so forth). However, a cursory glance at the female faces in the media shows only young, pretty ones, completely refuting all such claims. Significantly, once women reach 28 their sexual status falls rapidly and new survival themes emerge - 'I'm everybody's friend!' 'I'm the Earth Mother!' 'I'm a feminist!' 'I'm making jewelry from coke cans!'

Of course, all these desperate personas are lies and self-delusions. This may be adduced from the fact that young, attractive women NEVER scrabble for such personas, since their sex-appeal to powerful males obviates the need for subterfuge. The deeper question asks itself: WHY are women so self-deluded? The answer lies most probably in brain structure. Let's take a look at the brain, especially a portion of it called the amygdala:

In the female brain, the amygdala - a small part of the limbic system associated with instinctive responses to events - is relatively smaller in relation to the cortex. In the pan-Anglosphere matriarchies, this is seen as beneficial, since the puritanical, denatured Anglo-Saxon nations fear ‘instinct’ – just as they fear virility, erotic prowess and maleness itself. The well-recognised fact that the average male IQ is marginally higher than the female instantly refutes any assumption that a large amydgala impairs intellectual function, however.

In truth, the miniscule female amygdala has various pernicious effects - blunting sexual response, stunting individuality and rendering women more pliant to social manipulation. In sum, it makes women less self-aware than men – and infinitely more prone to self-delusion.

In his classic text The Great Sex Divide, Professor Glenn Wilson cites compelling evidence that females try harder in tests when being observed, while observation makes no difference to male performance. In short, the healthy male is a free, autonomous agent, while the female is forever bound within social expectation. And we see this difference reflected everywhere – all trail-blazers and innovators in every sphere are men – partly because males dominate the outer reaches of any bell curve distribution, but mainly because the huge male amygdala liberates men from conforming to petty convention (this is also what American PUAs call 'alpha' behaviour. If anyone ever asks you, a large amygdala = Alpha).

The female's 'dwarf amygdala' also explains why women are typically small-minded and inexorably drawn to authoritarian figures and institutions, including Anglo-American feminism (it is notable that unmanly men show similar conformist tendencies). There are no female Picassos, Isaac Newtons or Bobby Fischers because the puny female amygdala keeps women chained to mundane convention.

Because women lack autonomous inward-direction, they are prone to take received opinion as immutable fact – in short, they lack true self-awareness. This is most perfectly expressed amongst teenage girls – mere programmed jackasses mindlessly repeating whatever inane fad the electronic media feeds them. Even when females reach nominal ‘adulthood’, their attention shifts to the narcissistic, delusional trash pumped out by the NAMWO media – Cosmo, Soap Operas, celebrity magazines, Sex and the City, and a host of similar materials. These items successfully present fairy tales as reality because women – lacking inward-direction and alienated from instinct – simply cannot ‘measure’ reality. The well-attested medical fact that most women who claim to ejaculate are in fact merely incontinent underlines this tragic tendency - women cannot even test the truth of their own bodies, let alone complex media artifacts.

Female self-delusion finds particularly amusing expression whenever women see pictures of ageing female 'singers' and 'actresses'. They invariably say things like,

'She's just as beautiful now as she was when she was 18!'
'She's just as sexy as ever!'

Of course, the female concerned is invariably a hideous old hag, living off distant public memories of her youth and beauty. Brigitte Bardot is a perfect example. Were it not for her peerless prime, she would simply never appear in the media - indeed, someone that repulsive would probably be banned from public life, period. However, recent photos of her haggard older self always elicit an 'oh, she's still so beautiful!' chorus from sundry females, in preposterous denial of the hard physical facts.

It’s time to be topical. With Sex and the City predestined to be one of this summer’s blockbuster movies, we will surely see the same process at work. Anglo-American females will fool themselves that normal, healthy males find women like Sarah Jessica Parker – horsey, irritating and old – as paragons of beauty, in the face of all all objective evidence. Armed with our knowledge of amygdala ratios, we now know why they persist in these ridiculous fantasies.

Dorsai Game: a New Mating Strategy for Anglo-American men.

2010-05-08T05:50:00.000-08:00

Gordon R Dickson's Dorsai novels present some interesting ideas of great value to Anglo-American men looking to leave the Anglosphere for more equitable climes (i.e. as far from the Anglobitch as humanly possible), or at least seeking normal relationships. The emerging discipline of evolutionary psychiatry casts an intriguing perspective on these books, and offers some profound insights for Anglo-American men wishing to wash their hands of the venomous Anglobitch.

In Dickson's remote future, different planets have genetically-distinct populations who specialize in different skill-sets. The Dorsai are warriors who hire out their military expertise to other planets at vast expense. Dorsai! the first book in the series outlines the adventures of one Donal Graham, a young Dorsai of great ability, among the planets of this loose economic federation. What is immediately apparent in the novel is his immediate and obvious attraction to women. Of course, he is a young, handsome warrior/near-thug, all qualities intrinsically appealing to women. However, another factor at work is his exotic foreignness. As an outsider among non-Dorsai, Donal carries an inherent mystique into every situation.

If we submit this trope to analysis from the standpoint of evolutionary psychiatry, it makes perfect sense. Initiated by British psychiatrists John Price and Anthony Stevens, evolutionary psychiatry is a relatively new discipline that argues many modern mental illnesses were actually adaptive in a hunter-gatherer context. One of their more interesting claims is that schizophrenia persists in modern populations because schizoid individuals (those most prone to schizophrenia) must have indirectly offered early human communities certain adaptive advantages. Their compelling argument claims that schizoid individuals would have prevented community overcrowding by becoming charismatic leaders and founding new communities. Interestingly, schizophrenia occurs in about one person in a hundred, which would have engendered community splits at beyond fifty individuals, about the right figure to prevent over-exploitation of natural resources and social calamity.

So far, so good. However, for the strategy to work effectively, the schizoid/sociopathic individual (if male) must have been able to woo sufficient women away from the main group to found a new community. This doubtless explains why women have retained a primordial attraction to sociopaths and psychotics - the Rosetta Stone of Game.

The case of Charles Manson is a good example of this psychotic 'wooing' process at work. Clearly a schizoid psychopath deeply alienated from mainstream society, he was quickly able to seduce a number of young, fertile women to his deranged 'cause'. Of course, we all know women are strongly attracted to such 'charismatic' psychotic male types - and evolutionary psychiatry begins to explain why.

Dorsai Game incorporates some of these concepts, permitting Anglo-American males to maximize their sexual success in settings beyond the Anglosphere. Essentially, the foreign traveller is an outsider in wahtever country he finds himself, and this 'outsider' status mimics the alienation of the psychotic, charismatic group splitter of ancient times, naturally attracting women. There is also the messianic frisson of being the wandering, foreign cult-founder come to found a new society.

With all this this evolutionary baggage lighting his way, the wandering Dorsai Gamester will find foreign women putty in his hands. Merely adopt a mysterious, eccentric air, and the women will flock to you. Consider also that non-Anglo women are generally free of the awful Pedestal Syndrome that makes Anglo women so insufferable, are generally thinner and more attractive, not to mention free of Anglo misandry, making the Dorsai Game Plan absolutely indispensable.

In short, travelling to foreign lands and courting their women is a vastly-advantageous option for nearly all Anglo-American men. What is the alternative? Remaining in misandrist matriarchies like Britain, Canada and the United States, where you have a 50% chance of losing 80% of your wealth in the more-than-likely event of divorce, and spending the remainder of your life in a trailer-park?

Besides, when a male travels abroad another biological factor comes into play. For most of history (and indeed, prehistory), a foreigner moving unmolested through any community would have been an elite alpha - a merchant, diplomat or military advisor like Donal Graham: in short, a wandering Dorsai. Hence, just by being a foreigner, you raise your sexual status exponentially. This is especially true for Americans, since America is the world's most glamorised and powerful nation. While American women infused with Anglobitch feminism despise American men, foreign women will see you as a wandering elite knight swathed in exotic radiance. Carl Jung's studies of the animus - the template of male attraction embedded in the female mind - correspond closely to the Dorsai Game concept, in that the animus is usually a wanderer from some foreign, distant city, come to sweep the female away into a new world. Valentino's character in the Sheik also embodies the principles of Dorsai Game - a sociopathic, schizoid foreigner of high social standing, indifferent to Anglo-American mores.

By nature, men must have strong inducements to marry, and a fifty percent chance of losing 80% of your personal wealth is hardly a strong inducement - not when American males can simply jet down to Mexico, Venezuela or Puerto Rico to enjoy a nubile string of Latin lovelies. Moreover, most Anglo-American women are rampant narcissists armed with wholly unrepresentative expectations of life, work, relationships (and pretty much everything else), rendering marriage even more absurd. Armed with the principles of Dorsai Game, and knowing his true power and mystique in situations outside the Anglosphere, the Anglo-American male is now primed to avoid these pitfalls and exploit the unique Game opportunities afforded by exotic destinations.

Canadian MRA Blogger Facing Jail

2010-03-17T11:20:00.022-08:00

The power of an argument can be measured by its resilience. The same bold principle can be applied to a host of activities, from the martial arts to engineering. We put our trust in engineers whenever we board a plane, use a train or drive a car. If their design and construction skills were conspicuously lacking, we would soon perish. In short, engineering as a discipline proves its worth by being continually tested, and triumphing over the most arduous obstacles.

The same can be said of the martial arts. Gracie Jiu Jitsu operates the Gracie Challenge, wherein a fighter from any other combat discipline can challenge a Gracie champion. In this way, Gracie Jiu Jitsu demonstrates its worth as a martial art. It does not hide in theory, or boast unseen victories: like engineering, its exposes itself to refutation in the most demanding arena possible.

By contrast, if we take a look at Anglo-American women's studies, this fearless masculine desire for 'trial by proof' is completely lacking. Anglo feminists live in obscure academic enclaves, talking only to other feminists who share exactly the same opinions. They seldom (if ever) venture beyond these reassuring confines to face public 'trial by fire'. This is because feminist academics invariably have a 'soft sciences' or liberal arts background, where sentiment and opinion outweigh evidence or proof. Indeed, as Richard Feynman argued, 'soft sciences' like psychology and sociology (let alone the liberal arts) are not really sciences at all, since they are not open to disproof or verification in quarantined test environments. Little wonder, then, that feminist 'research' produces such wild claims as, 'a million girls die of anorexia in the US every year' (the true figure is 100). When there are no criteria of objective proof governing an academic discipline, it becomes prey to such preposterous statements. In sum, Anglo-American feminism retains the thought-patterns of the African peasant.

The execrable Jessica Valenti is a prime offender, pushing her witless books to clueless feminists on her tedious website (from which all dissenting opinion is conveniently banished). Then, she has the gall to excoriate MRAs for not 'standing up in their communities' and openly proclaiming their beliefs. Well, the following story shows exactly WHY Anglo-American men must be wary about publicly expressing their opposition to feminism. The Anglosphere is now so matriarchal that even keeping a satirical blog ridiculing feminism can lead to jail:

A Quebec man facing charges of making online threats to kill women has been denied bail after a judge described him as a "time bomb."

Jean-Claude Rochefort will remain in custody until mid-February pending his trial on charges of uttering online death threats against women. The 61-year-old Montreal man has been in custody since December, after authorities arrested him following repeated warnings to stop posting contentious messages on his blog.

During Rochefort's bail hearing Thursday, Judge Claude Leblond described him as a "time bomb" who demonstrates a visceral hatred of women. The public would lose confidence in the justice system if he were granted freedom before his trial, the judge added.

Rochefort's blog, described by observers as anti-feminist, paid homage to Marc Lépine, the gunman who murdered 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989.

Forensic psychiatrists have declared Rochefort of sound mind and fit to stand trial. He is due back in court on Feb. 16.

Source: CBC news, Feb 5th, 2010

Clearly, pan-Anglosphere feminists are so averse to trial by proof that coercive force is their sole response to rational criticism. And in the new Anglo Matriarchal World Order (NAMWO), they have the legal and political backing of 'elite' Manginas to impose their infantile opinions. Unlike engineers or Jiu Jitsi practitioners, feminists will stoop to any depths to avoid the 'reality test' so crucial to worthwhile endeavor. Ultimately, when one's opinions are logically and morally bankrupt, there is no other option.

As Isaac Asimov opined, 'violence is the last refuge of the incompetent': now, what does that tell us about Anglo feminism? The case also reveals another feminist (indeed, female) flaw - their crushing lack of humor or irony. The Lepine blog was quite plainly satirical. Only a poker-faced feminist could possibly take it seriously.

Uber-feminist Andrea Dworkin: in serious need of a humor transplant

GQ: Home of the Anglofag

2010-03-08T12:12:00.010-08:00

While running along the beach in Rio one morning, Helio Gracie – the father of Brazilian Ju Jitsu - saw a man drowning. With no thought for his own safety, he instantly plunged into the shark-infested waters, mastered the raging seas with powerful strokes and ultimately dragged the man to shore. As a tragically-aware Latin male, Helio did not need some magazine to tell him how to ‘be a man’ in that situation – he simply was one. However, a cursory glance around the Anglosphere reveals a plethora of 'men's magazines' - GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair, Playboy and many others - all telling middle class Anglo-American males 'how to be a man' and offering 'role models' of manhood.

Let us examine this. As regular readers of this blog and its associated site know well enough, Anglo-Saxon culture disposes the Anglosphere countries to gynocratic matriarchy - in short, homosociality, misandry and repression. This renders manhood a weak, marginalized force in Anglo culture, with a chronic paucity of masculine role models. Thus, there is little wonder these absurd magazines have arisen, telling Anglo-American males 'how to be men': where masculinity is vilified, such 'how to' guides become tragically essential.

In the Hispanic or Lusitanian cultures, masculinity has never endured such marginalization. This is no doubt why Hemingway set so many of his finest novels in the Hispanic world. As an author extolling a heroic, masculine ethos, the emasculated Anglosphere would have been irrelevant to his purpose. The Old Man and the Sea, for example, necessarily takes a Latin male as its aged but unbowed hero. Indeed, even the concept of fatherhood has been sullied in Anglo-Saxon culture, as an interesting experiment reveals. When Italian people were shown a picture of a man standing in a playground, they thought he was just a father with his children. By contrast, when English people were questioned about the same picture, they all thought the man was a pedophile. When even the universal archetype of the life-giving, protective Father is so besmirched, how can Anglo-Saxon nations expect their men to ever assume a confident masculine identity?

In such disagreeable circumstances, men do not - indeed, can not: and this is where these absurd 'men's magazines' step in, with their latent homosexual 'man of the year' lists and weak, mangina 'role models'. Such absurd 'manhood manuals' timidly negotiate the all-pervasive, institutionalized misandry that rules the gynocratic Anglosphere.

One feature of these magazines is especially amusing. They often feature ‘depth interviews’ with beautiful young women, as though their vapid views held intrinsic interest. As we all know, if Megan Fox were an obese fifty-five year old mother of three, her vaunted opinions would be seen for they are – utter garbage. Sexual allure, however, imbues her fatuous views with some kind of ‘weight’ - as though she were individuated and urbane, not some programmed clothes-horse. One is reminded of those nubile young women who vainly believe they get promotions and pay rises for their brains or ability – not short skirts and high heels. Of course, in early middle age their true worthlessness is cruelly exposed for all to see, which is why so many women suffer a ‘life crisis’ at that age.

To retain any level of manly integrity, these publications should just run porn-shots of Megan and her soulless sisters - after all, their only value is as sexual objects. Beauty is their sole bargaining chip in the poker game of life, without which their vapid opinions would be completely ignored. Thus, parading mindless sluts like Megan and Sienna as mere masturbation objects makes perfect sense – indeed, it displays not primitive animalism but premium existential integrity.

The Anglo Divorce Song

2010-03-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

Lovely to look at,
Lovely to hold,
But if you divorce her
Your ass has been sold!

Nailed by an Anglobitch?

2010-02-23T12:36:00.008-08:00

Anglobitch debating society in session! Well, sorry to disappoint you all, but the following arguments mustered against the Anglobitch Thesis probably wouldn't trouble a Neanderthal - and a pretty dumb Neanderthal, at that. This blistering critique appears on the following feminist website, run by one 'Tangerine Peach':

http://tangerinepeach.wordpress.com/

Below, I intersperse my pithy, inimitable comments amidst her puerile, demented ramblings:

Despite this lameness however (of the Internet - RK), there’s also countless awesome stuff you can do of course – one of my favourites include checking out the blogs or articles of my sisters or friends, or interesting feminist opinions from feministing.com or thefword.org.uk. But it is the freedom of speech and sharing of views that is also a problem: because morons who know nothing about a subject can write any old shit about it and post it on the ol’ virtual noticeboard.

Heh, you knew where I was going with this, didn’tcha. Thanks to “Anglobitch” the blogger for providing hilarious views that I could directly quote (NOT out of context)…

“Why Feminism is a failure”, or, “Why We Don’t Need Feminism” and similar articles dot the internet, newspapers, stupid gossip magazines and even TV reports.

Why IS Feminism a “failure”, hmm? I have yet to come across a good argument for this ridiculous view. The main reason is they didn’t convince morons writing such articles because said morons would not ALLOW themselves to be persuaded, because they are ignorant, stupid fuckers who would rather bash everyone else than be part of something positive and potentially society-changing (we hope), something that actually points out the oppressed opinions and cultures, something that sheds light on issues affecting women. Oh that’s right, women don’t matter.

If people are going to be such pleborons, then frankly, we don’t want you in our movement. And they become bitter. And make up arguments like, “Oh, Feminism hasn’t solved world hunger, OMG ITS A FAILUUUREEEEE”.

Well, has it solved world hunger? Yes or no? In fact, has it has any positive effects on Western civilization at all?

Grow up, idiot. Feminism is for equal rights, for the vote, for equal work experiences and opportunities, pro-choice, stopping rape, incest and abuse, for LGBT rights, anti-racism, access to birth control, smooshing the patriarchy, etc. What the fuck is your problem? Because we’re not living in all-female communes and starting from Year Zero we’re not real Feminists? Because some of us still like to wear make-up and dresses (because it looks lovely) we’re not real feminists? Who the fuck is anyone to say what feminism is when they don’t know anything about it?

“[...]enormous damage has been done to the family, to Marriage and other traditional institutions ” – oh, has it? I wasn’t aware that PLANNED families or families where the parents aren’t married or straight were damaged ones.

Well, what all about the single-parent, Welfare-dependent families that are the direct products of feminism?

“Nearly all the Feministing women who post on YouTube are obvious avatars of bourgeois respectability: straight, pearly teeth, carefully applied make-up and costly designer clothes. If these women were truly opposed to the extant social order, they would dress with complete indifference to traditional female standards. Self-evidently, they retain a knee-jerk affinity to the existing social order and its values. Yet this, according to them, is an oppressive patriarchy that militates against their social and emotional well-being.”

Need I even comment on the above?

Yes, it might be a good idea. If these women are so opposed to patriarchy, why do they insist on retaining its trappings? If your stated goal is to 'smoosh the patriarchy', surely its myriad achievements must be 'smooshed', too?

“Moreover, the computers they use, the publishers who print their turgid books, their cosseted university enclaves – are all products of the patriarchy they profess to despise. If they want to reject patriarchy, why do they not jettison their attachment to these creations of ‘oppressive’ patriarchal society? Why not live in feminist communes in the wilderness and ‘start again’ from ‘Year Zero’ like Pol Pot, using an exclusively feminist science and technology?”

This is so stupid it makes me laugh heartilly. This is…. well, utterly ridiculous. I don’t even feel I NEED to say anything against that – I thought it w just plain commical and entertaining enough to throw in there.

It is interesting how this semi-literate feminist actually refuses to comment on my arguments, claiming that my points are 'too ridiculous' to confront. Clearly, feminists dwell in such an insular cocoon of irrational sentiment that they cannot muster rational arguments against coherent thought. One might as well be arguing with an earthworm or centipede, a creature entirely bereft of reason. In short, they give no reasons for what they believe because they have no reasons for what they believe!

The blogger then bashes Jessica Valenti for a bit: “This is not an African-American male maimed in Vietnam living in a trailer on a pittance; this is a hyper-advantaged individual profiteering from hollow rhetoric.”

Because we all know those are exact opposites. Grow the fuck up.

I don't understand this at all. Can someone with a background in psychotherapy please explain what she is trying to say? Or are we back in earthworm/centipede territory?

I’m glad idiots like this haven’t joined (so to speak) feminism.

Me too!

People like that don’t care to know what they cannot scoff at: if they knew what it was really about, if they had bothered their lazy ass to even research it a little bit, they’d realise that what they have written is complete bollocks. Despite providing hilarious reading material, it is also frigging annoying having so-called “educated” people make such decisions.

If it is 'complete bollocks', why are so annoyed about it? More retarded comments from the Anglo-feminist cult of unreason...

If it’s not for you, Fine.

OK. Fine. I'm sure we can all live with that...!

But don’t talk about shit you don’t understand. If you love the internet so much, how about using it for research than bitching on your blog.

AFTER you’ve done research is when you can bitch all you want.

Bleh.

My regular readers are well-acquainted with my research methods, and their intellectual weight.

You don’t say to an African-American, “Hey, slavery has been abolished, why are you still whining about racism???” Just because most white feminists have been to Uni and don’t live in poverty does not mean they cannot care about all women who have been/going through such times. And why only mention the white feminists?

Well, one reason why Anglo-American MRAs tend to focus on white, middle-class feminists is that Anglo feminists are overwhelmingly white and middle-class. And, in the case of Marie Stopes, racist and fascist, to boot.

The Anglobich blog is… awful. If you read the one on gay people in ”anglo-society” you will get mad, trust me.

Don't worry - if you're an Anglo feminist, you're probably mad, anyway. But remember - sanity is just an oppressive patriarchal construct. Well, so is the Internet, not to mention all great works of art, music and literature, science and engineering. Of course, since feminist 'cherry-picking' is in operation, they like to keep those particular 'oppressive patriarchal constructs'.

And there we have it, pure gold. By the way, don't bother posting any comments on this feminist's blog, as she is too cowardly to allow posts. Obviously, 'smooshing the patriarchy' (what patriarchy, the Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy, for f**k's sake!) is easier to say than to do...