It's a Mystery: Why do a few Low IQ Feminists and Mentally-Ill Transsexuals Exert so much Power over the Anglosphere?

According to both Anglo-American tradcucks and the alt-right, Jews and gay men are omnipotent in the Anglosphere.

A Jewish/Gay societal hegemony is at least understandable, if not actual: Jews and gay men have much higher IQs than other lobby groups. Their dominance of many fields is merely testament to their superior abilities, focus and cohesion (women's 'fashion culture' is largely the creation of gay men, for example). However, this Gay/Jewish intellectual advantage is certainly not available to feminists or trannies, whose best response to rational criticism is to quote discredited 'research' from the flabby social 'sciences'. Their more typical response is to launch hysterical, witless tirades against anyone who dares criticise their ludicrous opinions.

Moreover, feminists are infinitely more powerful than all other groups in the contemporary Anglosphere: Jews like Weinstein and Epstein have been the main targets of #metoo allegations aimed at them by the feminist hate-industry.

Which leads to a profound question: How have a handful of low-IQ feminists and mentally-ill trannies wrangled things so that even able, powerful elites tremble before their preposterous claims and accusations? How have they managed to get such omnipotent leverage in so short a time? And how have they managed to normalise views that only a few decades ago would have been considered mentally ill?

Make no mistake - despite their intellectual shortcomings, half-witted feminists and deluded trannies are now the gods of Anglo-American civilisation. The slightest criticism of their views is met with a torrent of rabid invective backed by the strong arm of the law. They are universally lionized by the media, academia and the legal establishment.

5 decades ago, this critter would have been certified.

Many have tried to explain the situation by recourse to anti-Semitic and homophobic arguments. But no one tells the Anglobitch to fuck dogs, murder babies or engage in hyper-hypergamy; such degeneracy is entirely self-created and maintained by Anglo women themselves. Aside from the limitations of racist/homophobic conspiracy explanations, refusing to blame women squarely for their misandry, idiocy and deceit smacks of Anglo-cuckery. Since the Anglosphere's cucked Knights cannot dare to blame women for their crimes, they are forced to blame external agencies (Jews, gays) instead.

In short, Jewish Conspiracy nuts are just losers trying to justify their own life-failings by blaming people smarter and more industrious than themselves. And while gay men exploit female vanity to forge careers in the fashion and media industries, most of them are not especially pro-feminist or even pro-woman. But if feminists and trannies have no elite protectors or sponsors, how did they become so powerful in so short a time?

The Anglosphere is now dominated by 'Petticoat Government'

The Anglobitch Thesis is the best answer to this riddle. Due to the residual puritanism of Anglo-American culture, women are sacred deities who can do or say no wrong, in any circumstance. Women in the Anglosphere are playing life on idiot mode with infinite hacks; indeed, they are now the de facto nobility of Anglo-American civilization. The following extract from my book Hope on Distant Shores explains the historical and cultural origins of this situation in more detail:

As has been well-established, the Anglosphere harbours a deep tendency to Puritanism. The Anglo-American obsession with policing public sexuality for ‘the public good’ owes much to this unstated agenda, as does the long-standing (and bogus) Anglo assumption of moral superiority over other cultures. Of course, Anglo-American feminism has co-opted these agendas, as well as the Puritanism underlying them. It will be noted that Anglo feminists presume the right to ban paid sex work or regulate sex tourism without a moment’s thought, as if this were morally right by definition.

However, Anglo feminism also has a strong misandrist cast distinct from other forms of feminism. Again, this hatred owes much to prevailing Anglo-Saxon values, although it has amplified their misandrist elements a thousandfold. This misandry uniquely defines the Anglo brand of feminism, and explains its adversarial, rapacious and destructive nature.

Not so sure about the 'new'...

Since male sexuality is by definition active, potent and vigorous, it automatically offends the infantile morality of the Anglosphere. In a normal, life-affirming culture, potency and vigour are positive qualities. In a denatured culture which has severed all links to the primal wells of life and joy, these virtues acquire sinister associations. Little wonder then that the Anglosphere now tacitly views men as unwelcome interlopers, party crashers and defective females.

However, Anglo feminism has taken the deep-rooted Anglo-Saxon distrust of male sexuality and twisted it into a creed of hatred. Since the Anglosphere is by definition a matriarchy, feminism has effectively remoulded mainstream Anglo culture into a ‘girls only’ playpen from which men are systematically excluded (despite having to maintain and even defend it). Consider male exclusion from higher education, the burgeoning rates of male suicide and depression, the instant institutional acceptance of ‘#metoo’ hysteria and now calls to imprison all male incels – all products of post-feminist feedback, yet all ultimately rooted in misandrist Puritanism.

So much for the roots of feminist and female power. What about trannies and their burgeoning cultural might, before which even feminists are beginning to tremble? This quote from another chapter in Hope on Distant Shores offers the best explanation:

The privileged treatment white women receive across the Anglosphere is now so obvious as to be acknowledged even by some feminists and cultural Marxists. However equality is defined, men are treated as third class citizens in every Anglosphere country. The whole culture exists to serve white, Anglo-American women who are viewed as faultless deities and the existential benchmark to which all others must aspire. This gynocentric agenda is absolutely dominant in the lamestream Anglo-American media, where straight men are routinely depicted as criminals, abusers or dangerous malcontents. Outside of professional sports, the heterosexual male viewpoint has been largely banished from the media. Gone are the days of Walter Kronkite: newsreaders, talk-show hosts and even weather reporters are now typically female, usually heavily sexualized and indoctrinated by sex-negative misandrist feminism. 

In the Anglosphere, only female sexuality matters: straight males are tacitly viewed as destructive interlopers and their sexuality vilified. Female wants and requirements transcend all other considerations; in sum, society exists to serve them. The ‘Soyboy’, ‘cuck’, ‘White Knight’ or ‘male feminist’ is a disturbing response to this systemic oppression. These sad individuals have completely internalized the Anglosphere’s misandrist narrative, idealising women and shunning all semblance of a healthy masculine identity. However, these men still rank very low compared to gay and transsexual males in the Anglosphere’s misandrist caste-system. In a puritanical society with a reflexive revulsion of the male sex, women are invariably at the top and heterosexual men at the bottom. In between are various types of pseudo-female, who are now the official ‘spokespeople’ for masculinity...

So there it is: the mystery of feminist power deconstructed and explained in a few paragraphs. There is no 'Jewish conspiracy' underlying the exalted status women enjoy in Anglo-American countries; their status springs entirely from the puritanical, repressive nature of Anglosphere culture. Women and trannies could be lobotomized and their inane 'arguments' would still be sanctioned by the Anglo-American cultural establishment.