Friday 17 April 2009

Fight Club: Reclaiming Anglo-American Manhood

Fight Club is one of the most interesting films (and books) of recent years. It probes the disillusion of an alienated white collar American (played by Edward Norton) who founds a network of underground fighting clubs for angry, emasculated males. These Fight Clubs do not exist to impart a specific street fighting art, like Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or European Savate. Rather, the men attend to experience true manhood for the first time.

In Fight Club, manhood is seen as something that men have been systemically robbed of by a media-driven society. Everywhere, images of ‘ideal men’ are projected that are utterly bereft of manly virtues – in fact, as Norton’s alter-ego Tyler Durden succinctly argues, most of these ideals are ‘some faggot’s wet-dream’. By contrast, the Fight Club experience restores to men the natural, primordial springs of masculine existence: ‘After a few nights at Fight Club a man looks like he’s carved of wood’.

Fight Clubs are governed by eight simple rules (perhaps a parody of the Buddhist Eightfold Path):

1. You don't talk about fight club.
2. You don't talk about fight club.
3. If someone says stop, goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over.
4. Only two guys to a fight.
5. One fight at a time.
6. They fight without shirts or shoes.
7. The fights go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.

Pointed barbs at the vapid values presently ruling the Anglosphere are skilfully woven into the narrative. The author of Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk, recounts how he jumped though all society’s hoops to impress his parents – high school, college, employment – a lifetime of ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘knuckling down’ – only to find himself in a poorly paying, boring job as a technical author.

There, he says, a festering rage began to incubate: he felt that society had ‘cheated’ him and forced him into a dissatisfying mould without recompense. So Chuck starting fighting: in bars, in the street, whenever he got the chance. For him, the experience was completely liberating. He felt renewed, vital, existentially authenticated. It was this feeling that inspired him to write Fight Club:

Message boards all over the Internet posted requests looking for real fight clubs. Mormon students in Utah brawled; kids in garages started punching each other out; unlicensed boxing mini-boomed; wrestling, the theatrical parody of fighting, outsold real boxing
(Mitchell, 2001: ppXI-XII).

A cultural phenomenon, Fight Club is a distinctly Anglo-American mythopoietic construct. In the Latin, oriental or Slavic worlds, where manhood is unimpaired by cultural vagaries like Anglo repression or latent homosexuality, Fight Club would be meaningless. It derives its meaning and power from the parlous, victimised state of masculinity in Anglo-American culture. This is something that virtually all critics of both the novel and the film have missed (perhaps inevitably, as they are not party to the Anglobitch thesis and its explanatory power).

In Anglo culture, due to its gynocratic, puritanical and misandrist tendencies, masculinity is essentially disliked. This is why normal boys are pumped full of Ritalin in school and college, why men are routinely castigated throughout the media and why masculine values are universally derided. Fight Club represents a belated attempted attempt to reclaim Anglo-American manhood.

Speaking from the heart, this humble blog and its associated website embody the Fight Club ethos. All men worthy of the name are disgusted by the pitiful, latent homosexual matriarchy that is the contemporary Anglosphere. The many emails of support, not to mention the impressive level of interest in the Anglobitch Thesis (100 hits a day) reveal how men yearn to break the matriarchal chains and reclaim their manhood. Like Fight Club, the Anglobitch Thesis was on the tip of everyone's tongue - it just needed a forum for expression. From India to the United States, from Canada to Australia, men warped by Anglo-Saxon puritanism and its gynocratic cult of 'Woman Worship' are crying out for release from centuries of bondage. Gentlemen, the answer is simple: ignore, erase or destroy the puritanical Angloculture or die trying - there is no other way. You are the greatest men in the history of the Anglosphere - not Nelson, not Washington, not Gandhi - no, YOU - because you are ready for the good fight, as no other generation in history. Armed with self-awareness and the peerless confidence of manhood, your potential is boundless. But your potential is currently wasted by a culture that tells you (you, who created it!) that men are worthless, men are stupid, men are criminals and deadbeat dads. Your lives are wasted in white-collar mediocrity, the getting of money to buy things you don't need to impress women you don't like.

Well, tell the Pan-Anglosphere Matriarchy that the change started here... and long may it continue!

Thursday 16 April 2009

Is the Anglosphere a Matriarchy? Is the Pope a Catholic?

In For Fear of the Angels (1996) English Anglican priest Charles Pickstone argues that women have come to embody the spiritual yearnings of men, yearnings that were once addressed by sermon and prayer:

Now it becomes clear that women have become an entire religion substitute (Pickstone, 1996:169).

However, Anglo culture has nurtured such atavistic, matriarchal principles from its very inception. The cult of Queen Elizabeth I, or Gloriana, came tellingly in the immediate wake of the Reformation. With the Traditional relationship between Church and Monarch severed, divinity was now embodied in the Monarch alone. The cult of Gloriana saw the first elevation of Western woman to object of worship since the advent of Christianity. The theme has continued through English history, incorporating the reigns of Anne and Victoria and reaching its recent apotheosis in the cult of Lady Diana.

When a culture has wilfully relinquished its Divine sanction, the way is paved for the worship of false idols. Anglo Saxons have taken Woman as the foremost of their graven images. When all semblance of a link to any transcendental reference point is severed, the way opens for the worship of false gods, however absurd. In Nazi Germany, the idols were swastikas, runes and 'Aryan' pseudo-science. In the Anglo-Saxon nations, and England above all, the idols are women. In Germany, the idols reflected the subterranean psychic demons of the culture. The gynophilia of Anglo culture similarly reflects the puritanical obsessions that strangle it.

The near beatification of females we find in Anglo-American culture is best represented by popular music. In reflexive opposition to all experience, Anglo-American pop musicians routinely describe females as angelic avatars of kindness, understanding and liberation. The narcissistic reality hardly reflects these ideals. In particular, the ‘revolutionary’ Anglo-American music of the Sixties is nauseatingly gynocentric: an insipid extension of existing cultural norms.

Good Vibrations (1966) by the Beach Boys is a perfect example of this puritanical tendency to idealise females:

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears
And the way the sunlight plays upon her hair
I hear the sound of a gentle word
On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air

Close my eyes
She’s somehow closer now
Softly smile, I know she must be kind
When I look in her eyes
She goes with me to a blossom world

The themes extolled in this sickly sliver of aural tapioca are purely mythical. ‘Beautiful’ Anglo-American women radiate arrogant self-love, not ‘good vibrations’. A cursory recollection of one’s youth by any honest Anglo-American will bear testimony to this.

Another famous Beach Boys song, God Only Knows (1966), expresses the numinous potency of women for the repressed Anglo-American male in baroque, almost liturgical tones:

I may not always love you
But long as there are stars above you
You never need to doubt it
I’ll make you so sure about it

God only knows what I’d be without you

If you should ever leave me
Though life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

By contrast, the views of the pre-Puritan Englishman William Shakespeare are utterly bereft of such gynocentric idealism:

I have heard of your paintings too, well enough; God
has given you one face, and you make yourselves
another: you jig, you amble, and you lisp, and
nick-name God's creatures, and make your wantonness
your ignorance.

The only distinction between these two positions is 400 years of Puritanism. Modern Anglo-American culture is subsumed by a puritan animus that affords females semi-divine status. Virtually all cultural artefacts produced in the anglosphere now deify women, be they films, novels or pop songs. However ‘revolutionary’ or counter-cultural’ Anglo-Americans claim to be, they cannot escape these gynocratic assumptions, which apply equally to hippies and Bible-belt conservatives.

It is interesting to note that whenever Anglo women make any kind of humanitarian gesture, for example Princess Diana’s bovine appeals for AIDs and landmine victims, it is inflated out of all proportion. This is because Anglo women typically make such a minimal contribution to the lot of human happiness. Consequently, mundane women like Princess Diana have become the new Saints of Anglo-American gynocracy. When their accomplishments are examined objectively, they are positively mediocre. But within the Anglorama, the least gesture towards female altruism becomes a crowning halo and ornament of grace.

A Few Good Men: Anglo Feminism and the Mythical ‘Man Shortage’

Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s ‘Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman’ (2003):

‘A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.’

This ‘man shortage’ has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no ‘man shortage’ at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead’s figures, there is obviously a ‘woman shortage’, confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focusing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.

The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a ‘man shortage’. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of ‘marrying up’ in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.

Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women’s interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of ‘liberation’ they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When ‘a shortage of men’ is translated correctly as ‘a shortage of men with more wealth than most women’ the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.

Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of ‘patriarchy’. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant ‘Pedestal Syndrome’ neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.

Wednesday 15 April 2009

Guest Post by Monsieur Chauvin

In the history of a movement, there comes a time when the originator (if he has taught well) notices that his admirers are developing his core concept in novel and exciting ways, often displaying greater profundity and economy of style than he himself could ever contrive. The Chinese have a wonderful saying to describe this process: 'Standing on the Shoulders of the Master'. The following post on a celebrated MRA blog by one Monsieur Chauvin is a perfect example of this. Study it well, for this is the finest exposition of the Anglobitch Thesis ever yet created:

All White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Females Are Cunts And Garbage: An Introduction To The Anglo-Bitch Thesis

What is the Anglo-Bitch Thesis? Within the field of men’s studies and the male rights movement in general, a new point of view has arisen, which sees Anglo-Saxon feminism as the driving force behind the institutionalized misandrist discrimination currently being directed towards males, especially males of Anglo-Saxon race and Protestant faith. Thus, the feminism which arose within the Anglosphere during the 1960s and 70s, as distinct from the collaborative partnership feminism of Western Europe, has never been about seeking the emancipation of the human female from the shackles of patriarchal bondage. This sense of entitlement ( the so-called princess syndrome) that is diligently inculcated into the Protestant Anglo-Saxon female from the earliest youth, is directly descended from the Calvinist work ethic of the first English settlers in the New World. From the perspective of Calvinist belief and practice, women were placed on pedestals and held to a separate code of conduct and personal morality that is beyond individual scrutiny or criticism. Hence, it is because of the puritanical basis of Anglo-Saxon culture that women are granted an automatic sense of entitlement, which comes from the female being transformed into a supplier of sex through the market forces of industrial capitalism, where sex itself is seen as a scarce commodity that must be rigidly controlled so as to maintain the privileged position of the human female within all heterosexual transactions.

In other words, modern Anglo-Saxon feminism, combined with the Calvinist belief in the natural purity and chastity of the female (according to the Protestant scholastics of the late Reformation period, the human female was seen as a creature who was void of sensual passion) has granted the female a substantial number of rights, even more rights than the average male. However, what the modern Anglo-Saxon woman has been granted is a series of rights without their corresponding responsibilities, further reinforcing the automatic sense of entitlement and privilege that the overwhelming majority of women have been born and bred into since the dawn of human biological evolution. This exaltation of the Anglo-Bitch to the upper echelons of a once male-dominated status hierarchy has unleashed a wave of institutionalized discrimination against males that is unprecedented in the history of mankind; never before have men and boys been so oppressed and vilified by a medieval Christian-Teutonic code of chivalry which has skilfully been concealed under the gaudy trappings of modern ideological feminism.

Another major contention of the Anglo-Bitch Thesis is that the nations of the Anglosphere (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.) are matriarchies dominated by women and effeminate, androgenized bureaucrats. In the matriarchal tyrannies of the Anglo-Saxon world, the woman leads a life of privilege and luxury, whereas the male is confined to a life of abuse and degradation. Women are so deeply entrenched within the upper socio-economic and political strata of the Anglosphere, that to dislodge them from their positions of comfort and unprecedented freedom would require a considerable amount of coercion in the form of brute force. The problem with modern ideological feminism is that women have been allowed to retain the privileges they had before the advent of female suffrage and emancipation. For example, women wish to join traditional bastions of male patriarchal dominance, such as the military or heavy industry, while refusing to let men become fully integrated within conventional feminine organizations. Even within the judicial system, women are still given preferential treatment; they are seldom prosecuted for criminal offenses and are almost always granted favourable settlements during divorce and child custody proceedings.

Eventually, the Protestant Anglo-Saxon female will have to choose between having unearned privileges on the one hand and having rights with their corresponding responsibilities on the other. However, this is unlikely to occur given the prevalence of Teutonico-Christian chivalry, disguised as modern feminism, throughout the Anglosphere and other Western Industrial societies.

The final solution to the central problem of the Anglo-Bitch Thesis is by having a significant majority of men refuse to marry (aka the marriage strike). When financially solvent, middle-class males refuse to participate economically and politically within the institutions of Western society, only then will the imaginary colossus known as the Protestant Anglo-Bitch be finally brought to her knees.

The male refusal to participate in the affairs of the Western Anglo-Saxon Protestant matriarchy of today will cripple feminism once and for all.

Tuesday 14 April 2009

Anglo-Feminism: The New Fascism

Anglo feminism is in no sense a radical or revolutionary movement: to the contrary, all its principal themes – elitism, Puritanism, Calvinism, repression and pretence – are entirely derived from the existing social order. As ever, Anglo Saxon ‘radicalism’ merely represents an extension of existing iniquities (often in more virulent form), conveniently repackaged.

Contemporary Anglo feminism has, for example, a puritanical hatred of sex, the body and physical pleasure that hearkens back to the Seventeenth Century. The supposedly ‘radical’ themes of Anglo feminism derive directly from Reformation Puritanism. They are not ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’ at all.

By extension, Anglo feminism perfectly satisfies all the agendas of Imperium late capitalism. By fooling the masses of disenfranchised women that they have more in common with Hilary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice than men who share their socio-economic exclusion, Anglo feminism ideologically coerces them into abject conformity. It is, in fact, a kind of female-orientated nationalism, racism or anti-Semitism, and serves an identical purpose:

The magazine image of Jacqueline Kennedy/Onassis in American womens’ magazines, is interesting on other counts. The massive empire behind a $30, 000-a-month clothes bill was given no comment. Instead, readers of a dozen women’s magazines were encouraged to identity with Jackie’s emotional and domestic problems. Indeed, the working-class readership magazine hardly even referred to her wealth (Downing, 1980:133).

Above all, Anglo-American feminism remains racist and classist to the core:

Black feminists have been particularly angered by Reclaim the Night marches. Intended to assert women’s right to walk through cities free from the threat of sexual assault, these have frequently taken the form of white women marching through minority and/or working-class neighbourhoods. Critics argue that they reinforce false stereotypes about black and working-class sexuality (Bryson, 1999: 60).

Such marches have little to do with affluent white women’s safety: they descend directly from Victorian crusading Puritanism, rhetorical demonstrations of disgust with the coarse vitality of the urban proletariat. No doubt Proto-feminists like Virginia Woolf would be impressed to witness modern Anglo feminists eagerly maintaining her own sordid intolerance.

Anglo feminism in the present is a marginalized failure. It has little appreciable impact outside the elite and academic feminism. This relates to the fact that Anglo feminism emerged in a class-divided culture, whose elites know little about mass experience. Consequently, Anglo feminism is characterised by idiomatic preoccupations – goddess worship, lesbianism and of course, ‘The Boardroom’.

Surely, the moment is long overdue to 'call time' on this gross cultural aberration.