Wednesday, 10 October 2012

The Limits of the Anglosphere

Proposed Angloshere Flag

The Anglosphere concept is now widely discussed on the Spearhead and other MRA fora, but few MRAs and PUAs have studied the subject in depth. In short, the Anglosphere concept argues that the English-speaking countries are defined by similar values, laws and institutions, not just language. While that is for the most part true, differences within the Anglosphere often go unstated. It has become fashionable to extol the Anglosphere concept in online discourse because it allows the formation of quick friendships and alliances. Additionally, the Internet reduces experience to the written word, in itself a great and abstract leveller.

We should be wary of the Anglosphere concept, however. While useful, there are important differences between the Anglosphere countries. At one extreme, Britain represents a 'Europeanised' expression of Anglo culture, with its massive Welfare State, strong collectivist ethos, secular values and distrust of liberty. At the opposite end of the Anglo spectrum we have the United States, with its minimal welfare provision, libertarian outlook and philo-semitic Protestantism. The remaining Anglo nations fall broadly between these two extremes.

So, while between Anglo countries have important features in common, there are many differences. This means that the 'Male Crisis' has taken distinct forms in the different Anglo nations. For example, in Britain the major problem is undoubtedly the Welfare dependent single mother and her parasitic, criminal brood. In the United States, with its more litigious, libertarian culture, the main problem seems to be Divorce, or the threat of it. As American readers know well enough, around 70% of Divorces are initiated by women and the Divorced male stands to lose 80% of his assets. Of course, this has led to a 'Marriage Strike' among American men. Since these expressions of feminist dysfunction are specific to individual countries, one must expect different 'Anglobitch Futures' in those countries.

Let's take a look at those probable outcomes...

The United States

It has been said that Anglo-American culture is distinct from the more 'organic', Romanized culture of western Europe. This finds expression in such diverse matters as politics, linguistics and aesthetics. For example, the Anglo-American left-wing tradition has quite distinct intellectual roots from Marxism, which is a movement rooted in the rarefied world of German academia. By contrast, Anglo-American radicalism emerged from a praxis of resistance periodically defined by intellectuals such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or John Milton. This tradition has a distinct lineage of its own, linking modern radicals like Keynes or Mill to the American Revolution, the English Civil war, the Peasant's Revolt, the Baron’s Wars and Magna Carta. At a more populist level, we can detect a nascent radicalism in the medieval guilds (the first Trades Unions) of medieval England. Ultimately, the ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition of social equality, small government and the right to private property that prevailed in Britain until the Norman Conquest are the eternal seed-bed of this rich and laudable tradition. Thus, when American republicans decry Marxism as ‘un-American’ they are quite correct; they are quite wrong, however, to dismiss all progressive discourse as ‘un-American’. After all, the United States only exists because of that tradition – statements such as ‘all men are equal under God’ plainly derive from it, and would never have been formulated without its existence.

That radical spirit still drives the United States. The US is still the Anglosphere's - indeed, the world's - dominant nation. Most of the world's top universities are located in the US. It is beyond doubt the world's richest, most advanced and powerful country. However, a nation's standing is only maintained by a committed, integrated citizenry sustaining its institutions, generation after generation. With large numbers of the best American males – those with most to lose by Divorce – eschewing Marriage, and consequently removing their productive, industrious and high IQ genes from the population, the proportion of Anglo-Americans capable of making a meaningful cultural, social or economic contribution will drop disastrously in coming decades. In addition, the post-feminist explosion of unfettered female mate-choice has led to thuggish, shiftless males fathering an unhealthy proportion of all American children, with predictable results: declining standards of morality, aspiration and decency, a degraded education system and general cultural abasement.

While derided in European nations for its lack of history and Kultur, the American Civil war lent the young nation an epic gravitas that inspired the fabled Gilded Age, the blueprint for Western consumerism. Aside from that, America remains the guardian of the West's distinctive 'Faustian' spirit of exploration and discovery. In coming decades, these glories will wither as shiftless, retarded Morlocks - the products of unfettered female mate-selection - swarm across the land, spreading mayhem.

Australia: Odd Man Out?

Australia is an odd one. Ask most Brits and Americans and they will probably list Australia as the least feminist of all Anglo nations. However, this appraisal is specious. Such misandrist luminaries as Rupert Murdoch hail from Australia, not to mention uber-feminists like Germaine Greer.

That said, Australia is the most classless country in the Anglosphere - and one of the most classless nations in  the world. While the United States prides itself on being free of hereditary distinctions, Australia's social mobility rates are far, far higher. And the quality of life in Australia is generally felt to be one of the highest in the world, if not the highest.

However, this idyll is marred by appalling male suicide rates, especially among boys and young men. These are among the highest in the world. Something distinctly unpleasant is happening to the male sex in Australia, of that there can be no doubt. In my view, Australian culture remains fixated on a kinetic, 'armoured' masculine archetype that dates from the Nineteenth Century, when the vast wilderness (and its aboriginal inhabitants) were tamed by hyper-masculine white men. In the Nineteenth Century, all that was well and good. In the modern world, however, such an archetype is hopelessly unrealistic as a guide to masculine behaviour. For one thing, there are very few jobs left that require kinetic prowess. For another, the rise of feminism has marginalised men in general - and hyper-masculine men in particular. Indeed, immersion in a hyper-masculine code of social behaviour is no longer lauded - it just leaves men ever more isolated and at risk. In my view, this 'gendered anomie' is the root cause of Australian men's many adjustment problems.

The worst danger is for Australian men to retreat ever further into the 'armoured' mindset that has damaged their mental and emotional health. It will only cause them more problems. Unless a more constructive, contemporary masculine archetype emerges Down Under, Australian men run the risk of complete marginalization. As ever, Anglosphere 'conservatism' is no friend to men; in misandrist cultures like ours, 'conservatism' only worsens our position. Without rejecting their 'armoured' archetype of maleness, Australian men will only  destroy themselves in ever-greater numbers.

Great Britain

Britain is rendered distinct from the rest of the Anglosphere by its mind-boggling antiquity, above any other factor. This inflects all aspects of British life. In Britain, the past is omnipresent. Within ten minutes of here is an Eleventh Century chapel, for example. No other other Anglosphere nation contains such relics. Further, Britain is essentially undemocratic, being the only Anglosphere nation with hereditarian aspects to its political structure (the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the 'upper class' and so on). It is also characteristically European, with big government, big taxes and little freedom for the individual (British citizens are the most heavily monitored in the world).

In post-feminist Britain, every woman has a right to a child, whether she is in a position to support it or not. This is all part of the rights-without-responsibilities agenda feminists have engineered across the Anglosphere, of course - but Britain's elaborate welfare state ensures its most total expression. Perhaps this explains Angry Harry's offbeat obsession with 'Marxism' - Britain's Welfare programmes do have a Marxist flavour.

Consequently, Britain is the Anglosphere nation most likely to implode as a result of feminism. The present Welfare bill in Britain runs at £200 billion a year - £200 billion - and the bulk of this maintains idle, criminal morons from underclass families spawned by lone mothers. As is the case with America, unfettered female mate-choice cuts deep indeed. Unlike the American elite, the British liberal Establishment makes no attempt to break down this culture of dependence. As ever, patrician White Knightism panders to female idiocy at every turn.

Without severe intervention in the lives of the matriarchal underclass, expect Britain's economic collapse in the near future.


  1. "the post-feminist explosion of unfettered female mate-choice has led to thuggish, shiftless males fathering an unhealthy proportion of all American children"

    I agree 100% with this statement.

    What bothers me in these circles - is the number of "MRAs" who think that children - specifically male children - are falling behind because schools have been "feminized".

    I would argue that "feminized" schools would simply produce "feminized" males - not stupid ones.

    Bad breeding makes for low IQ's, not the schools.

    Just my two cents.

  2. Another great article Rookh. Feminism has reared it's ugly head in the anglosphere now for hundreds of years.

    Every english speaking country has it's own fair share of feminist garbage. This is why I refuse to get involved or have children with a woman raised in a feminist country.

    More men from the anglo countries need to seek marriage partners from non-english speaking nations.

    I try to avoid anglo women as much as possible. Personally, I wouldn't touch an anglo bitch with a ten foot pole!

  3. About the only hopeful sign I see for the United States is the trend towards marriage with immigrant women. My own feeling is that tendency will create a new middle-class; although balanced against the growing underclass and the entrenched upper-class, we'll probably see a more polarized society along class-lines here in the future.

    Rookh didn't mention Canada in this analysis, but that country seems to be a hybrid: culturally American with British values. The large French and indigenous populations there might shift the country out of the Anglosphere too as birth-rates among Anglo-Canadian women continue to decline.

  4. "Without severe intervention in the lives of the matriarchal underclass, expect Britain's economic collapse in the near future."

    I thought it happened in 2008? It isn't just our cultural relics that maintain the ethos, it's our historical credit rating!

    "I would argue that "feminized" schools would simply produce "feminized" males - not stupid ones."

    Of the kids I see in my area, parochial British, there are two distinct groups of boys: the 'Justin Bieberites', girly-boys; and the chavs.

    I suppose it could be argued that they are just modern analogues of the 'mods and rockers'; but I sense that mods and rockers where a smaller part of the population of 'normal' kids at the time, compared to the present time, where 'normal' is the unpopulated mean between two distinct modes.

  5. I assume the reason you did not do a section on Canada, Scotland and NZ is that they correspond to the given sections?

  6. "Australia is an odd one." Understatement of the century. What I find intriguing is the extent to which Australia is so misunderstood:

    1) Australia is not a classless society... it is a SINGLE CLASS society. Fitting in with the Australian identity is not an option. It's a requirement. Australian culture despises differences, and this is the key to understanding its racism, its sexism, its misogyny, its misandry and its feminism. Fitting in is compulsory. Resistance is futile... you will be assimilated.

    2) Australia's social mobility rates are far, far higher? Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you want an example of crony capitalism, Australia is about as crony as it gets. If you do not belong to the clique of mates (these days the clique of mateship includes feminists with bizz-cut hairstyles in HR departments, as well as unions and boyz/wymyns clubs), then you do not get a look-in. Australia is molasses for the mind... there is little freedom of spirit, you are like an insect trapped in molasses, struggling to get out.

    Perhaps the paradox that is Australian culture can best be understood from the perspective of it's obsession with easy-going. Easy-going is not a liberty, but a requirement. Easy-going establishes the limits of acceptable conversation. It's a form of politeness, and relates to one's duty to maintain propper conduct. You must be easy-going in order to be socially acceptable. If you are not easy-going, you shall be liquidated.

    If you want double-speak that surpasses Orwell's FunnyFarm, then Australia is the place to go.

  7. I'm glad a fellow Australian was here to debunk the myth that Australia's social mobility rates are high. That's rubbish.

    Basically, you can go to university if you achieve highly enough, but that's where Australian social mobility and meritocracy ends. To get into the business world, you either need to be well-connected (that's the only reason why I have a job lined up, pathetically) or you need to win the proverbial lottery and be selected ahead of hundreds of others. The younger you are, the worse it is.

  8. These two guys tell a very true story about cronyism in australasia