Friday 31 December 2010

New Year Game Special I: Alpha Male Impregnates Seven Anglobitches

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

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.

Saturday 18 December 2010

Two of the Best: The Anglobitch Rampant

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.


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.

Wednesday 15 December 2010

Great Essay on Rampant Misandry in Britain - by a Woman

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.

Sunday 5 December 2010

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

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.