Tuesday 26 January 2010

Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

Women are absurdly naive. Since the female sex drive is so miniscule compared to that of males, women typically mistake masculine admiration for meritocratic assessment of their own abilities. Many good examples can be found in the field of employment. Most young, attractive post-feminist women like to believe that their pay-rises and promotions are the fruits of talent and industry. One even hears models describing their wealth as the result of ‘talent’, as though being born with alluring physical traits were some product of stupendous toil. However, we all know that these things are typically gifted young women by men in authority who want to have sex with them. Alternatively, their sexual power over men gives them lucrative careers like modelling, ‘acting’ and pop music, where physical charm is the pivotal ingredient.

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. This explains ‘The Guillotine of Bitterness’ that afflicts most Anglo-American women in their late twenties. After 28, their true worth (or lack of it) stands exposed, stripped of all cerements of sexual power.

The foregoing leads me to a profound consideration: by definition, women lack self-awareness. As Alexander Pope opined,

The plainest truth is what we first let fall,
Most women have no characters at all.

A classic test of self awareness involves painting a cross on any animal’s face and observing its response to its own reflection. An elephant, for example, will probe the cross with its trunk, revealing advanced self-awareness. Lions, by contrast, cannot recognise their own reflection. Women – especially young, attractive women – more closely resemble lions than elephants, at least psychologically: they truly believe that men admire their ‘abilities’, not their sexual charms. Other manifestations of female self-delusion can be observed when obese females call themselves 'Big and Beautiful', or creaking crones kid themselves that men like 'the older woman'. Hence the onset of early middle age is not merely the first ‘crisis of senescence’ they must endure – it is a painfully late introduction to self-awareness.

From infancy, right through their teens and tweens, Anglo women are insulated from objective self-realization by the sickly ‘Princess Syndrome’ that pervades the Anglosphere. This explains the common observation that young women are somewhat ‘soulless’ – hollow, programmed beings with little psychic autonomy. By contrast, adolescence is a cruel rite for most Anglo-American males. The stark fact of their ‘social unwantedness’ becomes obvious, along with the realization that achievement alone can cement their status as worthy citizens. Interestingly, anthropologists have noted that the adolescent males of other primate species also experience a ‘crisis of consciousness’ in adolsecence, quite possibly for the same reasons. The adolescent male knows he will flourish only through his own abilities – his intellect, physical prowess or social guile: he has no ‘pussy pass’ to life. Little wonder that acute self-awareness comes so early to men. Notably, there is no female equivalent of Ray Bradbury’s Dandelion Wine, James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man or Yukio Mishima’s Confessions of a Mask, simply because adolescent females have no need for acute self-enquiry of the type explored in these distinctively ‘masculine’ novels.

Armed with objective self-awareness, however, the male is well-equipped for adulthood. It is a common observation that, while females flourish in youth, males reverse those advantages in maturity (for example, while girls outperform boys at school and college, adult males still earn considerably more). By contrast, advantaged young females who mistakenly believe themselves ‘smart’ and ‘gifted’ are doomed to a harsh awakening when The Guillotine falls. Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Thursday 14 January 2010

Untimely Meditations: Beards, X-Factor and the Anglobitch Makeover

FIRST MEDITATION: African Babies - The Ultimate Anglobitch Makeover

In recent years, the celebrity Anglobitch has taken to adopting African babies. Now, we all know what that represents, don’t we? A demonstration intended to present the Anglobitch as some kind of pleasant, 'nurtering' female. Such a demonstration is necessary because 'the game is up': the vast majority of Anglo-American men now know exactly what the Anglobitch is all about: feeding her narcissistic neuroses. The race to adopt an African baby is a conscious attempt by the celebrity Anglobitch (supported, of course, by the Anglo-American mass media) to disguise the true, abject nature of Anglo-American females.

Nowadays, the Anglo-American media are ‘bending over backwards’ to insinuate that Anglo-American women are ‘caring’, selfless and humane. Obviously, this represents an unconscious need to rehabilitate Anglo-American women in the public eye, so tarnished is their public image as grasping, evil harridans. All those Eighties ‘Material Girl’ videos have wrought a corresponding distaste for the Anglobitch among American men verging on mass hatred. As with VAWA - a naked attempt to deny American men access to foreign women - this projection of ‘caring’ Anglo women represents a conscious desire to redefine the Anglobitch as a viable partner across the Anglosphere.

SECOND MEDITATION: Pogonological Investigations - Beards and the Declining Anglosphere

"How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!...For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest - a sign of strength and rule." - St. Clement of Alexandria

What can one say of beards? They are the supreme expression of masculine potency. Only old women with hormone disorders can grow beards among womankind, and they are rightly derided. As a stag has antlers or a lion his magnificent mane, so men and billy-goats have beards. It has been said that MRAs concentrate far too much on women and their faults, neglecting to create or resurrect dynamic archetypes of manhood. In truth, the beard is one such potent, positive symbol and needs to be recognized as such.

It is interesting that in the Victorian era - the last era with some remnant of patriarchy - the beard was almost obligatory among males. Indeed, it seems to have been much more prevalent among the higher social strata, those who defined the shape of that era. The ancient Greeks considered the beard to be an indispensable badge of virility. In many ancient cultures, the beard was held in such veneration that its full or partial removal was accounted a most severe punishment. It is notable that, since the Anglosphere lapsed into absolute matriarchy, the beard has lapsed from the former ubiquity it once enjoyed among the Anglosphere’s greatest men to its present parlous condition, patronised only by hippies and scientists. During the American civil war, every major figure sported a magnificent growth of facial hair. Even Generals without full beards still cultivated alternative facial displays, for example exotic moustaches and lyrical sideburns.

Bluntly, male facial hair urgently needs to come back into fashion all around the Anglosphere.

General Stonewall Jackson: A beard to be reckoned with!

General Lee: A beard of quiet, but unquestionable authority!

One for the Union: Abraham Lincoln at his Confederacy-Beating Best!

THIRD MEDITATION: Rage Against the Machine and the Rise of the New Media

The following article raises important issues about circumventing the Anglo-American media (and its inherent misandry) from a dynamic MRA perspective:

In recent years, it had become as predictable as elections in North Korea – singer wins X Factor, singer's debut single goes to No 1. So when Joe McElderry won the TV talent contest, he was no doubt confident he would celebrate Christmas at the top of the charts.

Alas for the 18-year-old from South Shields, it wasn't to be: a song almost his own age denied him the top spot after a successful online campaign. Killing In The Name, an expletive-heavy rock song first released in 1992 by the Californian rock band Rage Against the Machine, won the battle for Christmas top spot on the basis of downloads only. It sold about 500,000 copies last week, about 50,000 more than The Climb, McElderry's earnest ballad.

Depending on your view, the Rage victory was either a delicious dismantling of the X Factor Christmas No 1 juggernaut or a cynical assault on the festive charts. There was, though, some indignation when it emerged both records had links to Simon Cowell, the entertainment industry's favourite pantomime baddy. With the Rage track having been released by Sony, and McElderry's by Cowell's Syco, a Sony subsidiary, some claimed the high-waisted X Factor judge would emerge triumphant whichever act won the chart battle.

But arguably the real victor here was a rock fan from Essex who started a Facebook group a month ago with the (then) pie-in-the-sky idea of usurping the X Factor winner from the no 1 slot.

Jon Morter, 35, a part-time rock DJ and logistics expert from South Woodham Ferrers, near Chelmsford, decided it would be a bit of a giggle to start a campaign to encourage people to buy a record with pretty much the opposite vibe to the X Factor winner's ballad. While McElderry urges listeners to "keep the faith", the Rage track is best known for its now-ironic refrain: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."
He had tried a similar wheeze last year, when he attempted to get Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up to the top of the Christmas charts. Alexandra Burke, the 2008 X Factor winner, won that battle, but having succeeded in propelling Astley to "the lower echelons of the chart", Morter was emboldened to try again. This time, he was helped by the comedian Peter Serafinowicz, who on 15 December urged his 268,000-plus Twitter followers to join in, and it snowballed from there. By the time Paul McCartney and former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein had pledged their support, poor McElderry seemed doomed.

When the Guardian broke the news to Morter that he had won, he was initially lost for words. "Oh bloody hell," he said, as the consequences of what he had done became clear. Composing himself, he said: "I think it just shows that in this day and age, if you want to say something, then you can – with the help of the internet and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. If enough people are with you, you can beat the status quo."

SOURCE: Guardian

This result should give all MRAs hope. Although we are weak in terms of the MSM (Main Stream Media), we are strong (and waxing ever stronger) on the Internet. If an Internet campaign can defeat a massive multinational backed by the mainstream media, then we can beat the mainstream matriarchy, also. This is the clearest proof that the world is rapidly changing, throwing up an entirely new paradigm of media manipulation. And there have been other signs, some of them tangential to our cause, but nonetheless important. The increasing coverage of female paedophiles in the pan-Anglosphere MSM shows that our campaign is now starting to bite. And in the States, overturning the MSM and its reflexive misandry should be much easier, due to the pluralistic nature of the American media.

How are we to maximize this opportunity? Simple: we must make the Internet our own by controlling its 'reconnaissance space'. General JEB Stewart, the Confederate cavalry commander was instrumental in his country's early military successes. Stewart recognised that the old, Napoleonic use of cavalry as shock troops was irrelevant in the era of long-range musketry and effective anti-personnel artillery ammunition. He did, however, see a new and revolutionary use for his horsemen: as a force to occupy the 'reconnaissance space' between two armies. With this space occupied by his cavalry, it meant that all initiative lay with his own side.

In short, Stewart's use of cavalry pre-empted the modern significance of air power as the ultimate arbiter of conflict. In the same way, MRAs have to make the Internet our own in the battle against Anglo-American feminism – an MRA mare nostrum ('our sea'), as Rome dubbed the Mediterranean. We must reach a situation where ALL feminists are automatically and decisively challenged/crushed whenever they venture into cyberspace. Some MRAs have intuitively understood this - but far more need to 'grasp the nettle' and impose action upon themselves, attacking Anglobitch feminism whenever it appears.

Friday 8 January 2010

The Genes of Reversal: The Anglobitch & Our Declining Anglosphere

A British economist has developed an interesting theory about how industrial society developed: genes for thrift and industry proliferated in 18th Century England because the elite had most surviving children. I will present his argument, before discussing its manifold ramifications for the contemporary Anglosphere:

A British economist is causing controversy with his new interpretation of what triggered the Industrial Revolution, writes Roger Highfield.

The Industrial Revolution saw the rise of steam power and mass production, with cotton mills, potteries, foundries and steel works sprouting up all over England's green and pleasant land.

The seismic effects spread from Britain at the end of the 18th century and rippled across the world. It marked a major turning point in history that was as significant as the invention of farming in around 6000 BC.

This period is seen by historians as the point at which modern society was born.
From the bucolic stories of rural villages told by Jane Austen in the 1810s to Charles Dickens's depiction of urban poverty in Victorian Britain, classic literature gives a vivid picture of the revolution's impact.

But scholars still argue about when the revolution really started, when its impact was first felt and whether it was too gradual to count as a sudden overthrowing of all that had been before.

The most elusive element of all, though, is what triggered it in the first place. Now, that last part of the puzzle may have been solved by a British economist. Next week he will tell the World Bank that it was a change in the cultural - perhaps even genetic - make-up of society that paved the way for the machine age. In A Farewell to Alms, published this month, Glaswegian Professor Gregory Clark of the University of California, Davis, argues that the revolution was not industrial at all.

Its roots did not lie in the technologies of Arkwright and Watt but in profound changes that had taken place in society over hundreds of years.

The problem facing all early societies lay in what Clark calls the "Malthusian trap", in honour of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who showed that living standards in pre-industrial societies would always be driven back down to a subsistence minimum by population growth, as long as technological advance was slow.

In pre-industrial societies women typically had five children. If living standards were good, most of those children survived to adulthood and rapid population growth followed. But with limited resources, only two of those five children survived to adulthood and the population remained stable.

Prof Clark explains that advances in the pre-industrial world, such as innovations in agriculture that boosted crop yields, did allow for a larger population to be supported (world population grew from perhaps 100,000 in 100,000 BC to 770 million by 1800) but as long as society was in the Malthusian trap, these innovations could not allow living standards to rise in the long term.

The average person in 1800 was no better off in material terms than in 100,000 BC.
In all pre-industrial societies in the Malthusian trap, some types of people were more successful at survival and passing on their genes, as Charles Darwin argued.
In the case of hunter-gatherer and "shifting cultivation" societies such as the Yanomamo of the Amazon basin, alpha males who killed the highest number people tended to sire the most children.

But in settled agrarian societies, with law and order, reproductive success shifted from the violent to the prosperous. We can see this in feudal England, where the successful reproduction of the richest, not strongest, dates back to the Middle Ages.

Records show, says Prof Clark, that "unusually in England, this selection for men was based on economic success from at least 1250, not success in violence". Later, around 1600, we can use an unusual source - the wills of 2,000 Englishmen, from squires to shepherds - to figure out even more exactly how reproductive and economic success were linked. These wills reveal how rich men were at death and also how many surviving children they had.

Prof Clark concluded that wealth, not social status or literacy, was the best predictor of the number of surviving children. Overall, the rich were leaving twice as many children as the poor. Survival of the fittest here meant survival of the richest.

He argued that this meant downward social mobility, as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the rich produced surplus children who were then forced to take over the occupations of the poor. The more abundant children of the rich had to slide down the social hierarchy to find work, bringing with them bourgeois values. Consequently, today's population is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages.

The downwardly mobile had a radically different outlook from the poor, who were more attuned to the outlook of the early agriculturalists, whom Prof Clark regards not as noble savages but "impulsive, violent, innumerate, illiterate and lazy".

The spread of the progeny of the wealthy introduced characteristics such as hard work, patience and peacefulness. The rise in the preference for saving money over the instant consumption of it was mirrored by a steady decline in interest rates from 1200 to 1800.

We see in England, from at least the Middle Ages, that the people who succeeded in the economic system - who accumulated wealth, got skills, became literate - were increasing their representation in each generation. This was an ideal society to exploit the introduction of industrialisation. As well as passing on these cultural traits, Prof Clark thinks the genes linked with them began to spread, meaning that in biological terms, people were better mentally equipped to learn about and accept mechanisation.

This resulted in a more organised society and more efficient methods of production. So, in the centuries leading up to the Industrial Revolution, man was genetically adapting to the modern world.

This may seem a short time for DNA make-up to change, but, in support of his thesis, Clark points out that a Siberian effort to domesticate foxes paid off in just 30 generations. Honing traits such as patience can be remarkably rapid, he claims. "The triumph of capitalism in the modern world may thus lie as much in our genes as in ideology or rationality."

Why did the Industrial Revolution start in England and not in the much larger populations of China or Japan? Because their elite classes, the Samurai in Japan and the Qing dynasty in China, had surprisingly few children, Clark argues. Thus they would have failed to generate the downward social mobility that lit the touchpaper of the Industrial Revolution in Britain.

He adds that early English society was also surprisingly stable. "In most English villages, nothing happened from 1200 to 1800." This encouraged the survival of the richest, not the fiercest.

His conclusion is provocative because it revives the old notion that changes in people's behaviour drive events, rather than changes in institutions. Indeed, it may get Prof Clark into trouble, given the implication that other societies are less "evolved".

But he makes a sobering point. In one crucial sense we have changed little: despite material affluence, longer life spans and less inequality, we are no happier than our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Source: Daily Telegraph

In short, the genetic traits that created the industrialized Anglosphere were a fortuitous 'demographic accident'. However, since the Anglobitch was fully 'liberated' by Anglo White Knights and collectivists in the late Sixties, the Anglosphere has experienced the reemergence of the older, 'savage' genes eradicated by informal population eugenics in the late 18th Century. Of course, the UK is the leader of this particular trend, with its massive Welfare State and 'women on pedestals' agendas. This is most clearly expressed in the re-emergence of a vast, work-shy British underclass closely akin to Professor Clark's "impulsive, violent, innumerate, illiterate and lazy" pre-industrial peasants. In short, the specific brand of feminism that now rules the Anglosphere allows women to indulge their ingrained preference for shiftless, low IQ sociopaths and then leech off the taxpayer for the rest of their lives - producing a progeny of idle degenerates, into the bargain.

Clearly, advanced society is built on fragile genetic foundations: little wonder that the matriarchal holocaust unleashed by Anglo feminism is wreaking such havok across the Anglosphere.

Thursday 7 January 2010

The Secrets of a Great Post

Many of my readers are also distinguished MRA Bloggers in their own right. The following letter by the great English poet John Keats gives many clues to the writing of a great Blog post that 'strikes the reader true'. Although he is describing poetry, many of the same principles apply:

I think Poetry should surprise by a fine excess and not by singularity — it should strike the reader as a wording of his own highest thoughts, and appear almost a remembrance — Its touches of Beauty should never be halfway thereby making the reader breathless instead of content: the rise, the progress, the setting of imagery should like the Sun come natural to him — shine over him and set soberly although in magnificence leaving him in the luxury of twilight — but it is easier to think what Poetry should be than to write it — and this leads me on to another axiom. That if Poetry comes not as naturally as the leaves to a tree it had better not come at all.

Letter to John Taylor (February 27, 1818)

These principles have always been close to my heart whenever I write a post, and I apply them thus:

I think a great Blog post should surprise by a wealth of arguments and not by singularity — it should strike the reader as a wording of his own finest thoughts, and appear almost a remembrance — Its touches of Truth should never be halfway thereby making the reader breathless instead of content: the rise, the progress, the setting of the arguments should like the Sun come natural to him — shine over him and set soberly although in magnificence leaving him in the luxury of twilight — but it is easier to think what posts should be than to write them — and this leads me on to a final axiom. That if a Blog post comes not as naturally as the leaves to a tree it had better not come at all.

Anglobitch Blog Post (January 7, 2010)

Wednesday 6 January 2010

Is Left Wing Politics Intrinsically Feminist?

In my previous post, I claimed that people with daughters are more attracted to collectivist, left-wing politics. Here is decisive proof of that claim. Americans, please note that the British Conservative party is the equivalent of the Republican party, while Labour matches the Democrats.

New research by economists Professor Andrew Oswald at the University of Warwick, and Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee at London University's Institute of Education, reveals that the more daughters a family has the more likely the parents are to vote for left of centre parties. Sons, by contrast, make people more right-wing.

The researchers examined the data in the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) - a nationally representative sample of British households containing over 10,000 adult individuals. Individuals were tracked in each year from 1991 to 2004. Left of centre was measured by using individuals? support for the Labour Party or Liberal Democrat Party, and the researchers measured right of centre by counting those who expressed support for the Conservative Party.

The researchers found that 66% of British people with 3 sons and no daughters vote Labour or Liberal Democrat, but that figure increases to 78% among parents with 3 daughters and no sons.

Even after factoring out other characteristics, such as parents? income, education and age, the researchers found that having a daughter was likely to turn political allegiance from right to left of centre parties. They observed 539 switches from Labour /Liberal to Conservative and 802 switches in support from Conservative to Labour/Liberal.

On average, each daughter raises the likelihood of left-wing voting by 2% percentage probability points.

The researchers also looked at similar longitudinal data for Germany -- measuring left of centre as support for the Social Democratic Party rather than the Christian Union Party or Christian Social Democrats. Here they found that for every daughter that a German man has, he is approximately 2.5% probability points more likely to vote for the left.

The researchers believe there are subconscious reasons behind the observed voting decisions. Women, they argue, are inherently collectivist while men are individualistic. They point out that because there is pay discrimination against women, and females put greater importance on public spending on issues like community safety, females are thus intrinsically more left-wing than males. As men acquire female children, those men gradually shift their political stance and, through subconscious concern for their daughters, become sympathetic to the ?female? desire for more public spending and thus a steeper income tax schedule. Similarly, a mother with many sons becomes sympathetic to the ?male? case for lower taxes and a smaller supply of public goods.

The researchers also point out that these results are reflected in the current political complexion of current female Members of Parliament in Great Britain. At the time of writing, there are nearly 130 women in the House of Commons, which is the main legislative body. Of those, less than 20 are Conservative. Approximately 100 of the women MPs are Labour or Liberal Democrat. This contrasts with an approximately equal split among male politicians.

University of Warwick Professor Andrew Oswald said: "These findings are really intriguing. They may be telling us that, even in the privacy of the ballot box, we are all moulded by primitive evolutionary forces that we are barely aware of. It has been a longstanding idea in western society that parents influence the behaviour and psychology of their offspring. This work reverses that habit of thinking. It suggests that children shape their parents."
Source: University of Warwick

Clearly, left-liberal collectivism seems strongly aligned with feminism. In our view, as previously stated, collectivist programs and institutions favor women while excluding and exploiting men. In sum, men pay taxes for these institutions but receive none of the benefits. The British NHS would be a good example: women are its primary beneficiaries, while men are just walking ATM machines who exist to support it.

That is why we need a new, man-friendly conservatism.

Sunday 3 January 2010

Towards a New Pan-Anglosphere Conservatism

McCain and Palin: the same old Puritanical bullshit. Anglo-American men need a new, dynamic conservatism to advance their cause.

OK, guys – advanced Anglobitch class in session.

Promoting Anglo-American conservatism necessarily means clinging to traditional Anglo-American values – yet these very values have poisoned gender-relations across the Anglosphere. Hence, Anglo-American conservatism needs to be extensively reformulated sans those misandrist principles to be of any use to us. Simply extolling the same ‘traditional’ concepts - when these have wrought only crass dysfunction - is utter folly. The 'mythopoietic' Men's Movement arising from Robert Bly's Iron John draws inspiration from ancient or 'chthonic' archetypes of manhood prevalent in non-Anglosphere, pre-modern cultures. While good enough in its way, this movement will always remain the preserve of hippies and drop-outs: a total redefinition of modern manhood is necessary to build a dynamic, influential Men's Movement across the Anglosphere and beyond.

Oliver Cromwell: Cultural Architect of Pan-Anglosphere Puritanism

A cursory glance at Anglo-American history showes the consistent triumph of puritanical values. In the English Civil War (1642-46) the Royalists under Charles I were decisively defeated, the result being a period of austere Commonwealth with a lasting impact on Anglo-American civilization (the same English puritans colonized America, for instance).

The American Civil War in some respects re-framed the same libertarian/puritan distinction. The southern term 'Billy Yank' denoted a narrow minded puritan, the existential antithesis of the libertarian Southerner. Of utmost interest to the Anglobitch Thesis was the specifically matriarchal nature of the Northern States. Since Southern slave owners and other white males enjoyed free sexual access to female slaves, Southern women had far lower sexual status than Northern women – with minimal power of sexual barter and manipulation. Unsurprisingly, Northern women tended to be fervent abolitionists (of course, it worked indirectly to their advantage to restrict the ready ‘sexual supply’ Southern men enjoyed). In short, proto-feminist dynamics inflected the Civil War's conduct and outcome.

The American Civil War Touched on Feminist Agendas

It may be said that Northern women opposed slavery for the same reason modern American feminists support VAWA – a repressive society strengthens their powers of sexual manipulation, binding males in erotic servitude. Indeed, British military historian John Keegan claims that Southern American women remain culturally distinct from other Anglosphere women to this day, resembling females from less puritanical cultures like France or Norway. If so, this surely derives from the libertine nature of the antebellum South. In short, a surfeit of sex weakens women's status as 'owners' of sexual reward, emphasizing their more nurturing and feminine traits by default. On the plantations of the Old South, with countless fertile young women 'on tap', Anglobitch ‘sex-bartering’ as a tool of manipulation would have wrought little effect. Of course, the institution of slavery was entirely wrong from any moral perspective; for all that, it clearly had some positive effects on Southern white women.

Disney Princesses. A Side-Effect of Northern victory in the Civil War?

It must also be noted that the Union victory set a puritan stamp on American society for the next 150 years – popularly expressed in saccharine Disney pap, tedious strip clubs and misandrist Anglo-feminism. It is notable that the worst hotbeds of Anglo-Saxon feminism tend to be in the northern USA – principally New York and the Ivy League Colleges. Those are America’s 'Anglo heartlands' – socially, politically and culturally. While rich in the rhetoric of liberation, such places are in fact more repressive than seventeenth century New England or even Cromwell’s Commonwealth (has anyone heard of Harvard’s Antioch Rules, for instance? For the uninitiated, males have to gain written permission merely to touch women's hands, arms and other extremities. Now, isn't that so liberated?). Just scratch The Sex and the City veneer and you’ll find the same old grasping Anglobitches.

Old English Puritans: The TRUE Cultural Ancestors of Modern Anglo Feminists

In short, the triumphant Anglo-American tradition is puritanism – the very tradition that directly gave rise to misandrist Anglo-feminism. Invoking this tradition (as so many MRAs do, for example American Women Suck) is harming the male cause, not strengthening it.

However, this begs the question: What kind of conservative politics best serves Anglo American men, considering the prevailing puritan tradition is implicitly feminist and misandrist?

Perhaps a mild libertarianism best fits the bill. By 'mild', we mean ‘government small enough for society to function, but not large enough to impinge on fiscal or personal freedom’. In addition, this politics would need to be entirely free of puritanical Protestant Christianity (a major obsession both of American Republicans and British/Commonwealth conservatives), which remains at the root of the Anglobitch phenomenon. From the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, collectivist big government politics is generally allied with feminism (left-liberal politicians are more likely to produce daughters than sons, suggesting a biological origin for most gender-political affiliations). Certainly, in Welfare rich Anglosphere societies like Britain, underclass women have ‘married the state’ as ‘state brides’ and men are essentially taxed to support their profligate, idle and dysfunctional lifestyles. Indeed, welfare-funded institutions retain an active misandrist animus in Anglo-Saxon countries – for example, ‘vulnerable’ women are at the very top of British public housing lists, while men constitute 98% of the homeless.

Britain's David Cameron - another puritanical Anglo-Saxon White Knight. Anglo-American Conservatism urgently needs to be re-defined

In sum, reducing the state is definitely to men’s advantage, removing the White Knight agendas brutally imposed on our wage packets. However, the specifically puritan agendas present in pan-Anglosphere conservatism must be utterly rejected. Finally, the misandrist Anglo memes originating as socio-biological hangovers from the pre-modern need to protect female reproductive potential have to be ruthlessly recognized and excised from the media, law and politics. Indeed, eternal vigilance will be needed to check their spontaneous reemergence at some future date. Enough government must be maintained to do this – but it must be government of a minimalist, incisive kind.

Our aims:

1. That Anglosphere women should have rights or privileges – but not both.
2. If Anglo women opt for rights, they must submit for draft registration and active military service in order to defend those rights. All preferential treatment they presently receive before the law and elsewhere must be removed.
3. VAWA and all state repression of male partner choice must be immediately suspended.

Makes Roissy’s Game rhetoric look rather ephemeral, doesn’t it? He and his ilk are good at what they do, but what does that amount to - telling pimply college boys how to insert their penises into the diseased vaginas of obese Anglo-American females? That is good as far as it goes, but Anglobitch has far loftier ambitions. We know we have cracked the code to Anglo-American feminism and identified the sources of its misandrist agenda. Far from being an aberration, it is in fact a flawless expression of core Anglo-Saxon socio-sexual values. Only a radical redefinition and reappraisal of Anglo-Saxon culture can save the Anglosphere from cultural suicide, and the world in general from the Anglobitch infection.

Now, none of this is work for voluptuaries or morons. Why then, to quote Nietzsche, should I 'look for the noughts'? Some people come here and say, ‘these ideas must be presented across the Anglosphere. Go to the Spearhead and post there if you want to move the masses’.

The question is, do I want to move the masses? Are the masses of any use? If we consider Alexander’s battles at Issus and Guegemala, he effortlessly defeated the Persians – despite being outnumbered by more than six to one. The secret of success lay not in numbers and their dead weight, but in his motivated, skilled Macedonian army. In the same way, I seek only the highest quality readers from the Anglosphere and beyond – men of elite consciousness who can forge a new future.