Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Kindle version of Havok now available...

Kindle and Paperback versions of Dr Rookh Kshatriya's first book Havok are available on Amazon. 

Now over ten years old, this classic text laid the foundations of his revolutionary vision.


  1. Rookh:
    I plan to get a hard copy soon!

    Speaking of books, have you heard about the results recently released in the US from the 'National Assessment of Adult Literacy' (NAAL)? The US government was boasting that illiteracy rates had supposedly fallen (to 13%); but they skewed the statistics so badly that the rate is unconscionably high.

    After the 13% illerate rate, the researchers deemed another 30% at 'basic level'. However, reading the actual criteria the researchers used; 'basic' actually means barely being able to read without pictures, or things like TV schedules without complete sentences!

    The next level was 'literate' where 44% of Americans qualified. Abilities at this level amounted to being able to read well enough to understand instructions, without any analytical skills.

    Now 87% of Americans are at this level or lower. The top 13% were 'proficient'. Those at this level were able to perform such tasks as 'distinguishing between two editorial opinions' and being able to 'calculate the cost per ounce of a food item.'

    What do you think of that? Americans are again proving themselves the least educated people in the civilized world (although I think it's safe to assume a third-world status for us in the future, at this rate).

    1. We have precisely the same problems here in the UK, Eric; and probably for the same reason: 'equality'.

      It was sold as the 'equality of opportunity', but it became the 'equality of outcomes'.

      Or, lowest common denominator, in 'oldspeak'.

  2. Your Kindle version is only available to UK Amazon customers.

    1. Yuri

      I think this is the American version:

      I wanted to make it free to my regular readers but I have no access to the Authorhouse account.

  3. Rookh,

    I had a read of the preview of your book last night and it was an interesting read. However, there's one criticism that I have is the inclusion of Sweden as one of the countries where relations between men and women are better than in the Anglosphere. Anybody with a brain knows that Sweden is a hotbead for militant feminism and some of the most misandrist laws ever written are on the books in that country. Also, one has to look at what happened to Julian Assange to see that consensual sexual relations with a woman in Sweden can land you with a rape charge if the woman changes her mind a regret having sex with you. In addition, its legal for women in Sweden to sell sex but its illegal for men to buy sex in that country.

    In many ways, gentlemen. Boycott Sweden outright. That country is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.

  4. Jase,

    Although Sweden's laws are indeed the most ridiculously feminist on the planet, what differentiates it from the Anglosphere is its relative lack of puritanism. Hence, Swedish women (outside of the feminists that Assange ill-advisedly slept with) are apparently not as uptight about having sex with normal guys as Anglo women are. They also don't have a neurotic, bipolar attitude to sexuality like Anglo women do; IOW, their sexuality doesn't switch on and off like a light when coming into contact with guys who don't fit the hypergamous fantasies that most Anglo women collectively seem to share. Anecdotal experiences by other Anglo guys bear this out.

    That being said, I don't doubt that Sweden is the worst place to find a partner/wife outside of the Anglosphere.

  5. DaRick,

    Here's a few links that will make you re-think your views on Sweden and Swedish women quick smart...,00.shtml

    My advice to you and the rest of you guys here is to boycott Sweden and Swedish women outright as the vast majority of Swedish women are equally (if not more) misandrist and feminist as the women of the Anglosphere.

  6. Jase,

    Do we actually disagree on anything? I'm not sure.

    I did say that Sweden's laws are the most laughably feminist on the planet and that Swedish women are probably the least worthwhile women outside of the Anglosphere.

    Certainly, I have no intention of marrying a Swede or recommending one to anybody else. It's just that Anglo women are seemingly even worse (Anglo guys who are items in Sweden are often non-entities back home).

  7. My apologies, DaRick. I didn't read your post properly.

    As an MGTOWer, I see Sweden as "enemy territory" that needs to avoided at all costs. Also, the men in that country get the "rough end of the stick" from the women of Sweden on a regular basis (who also have the full force of the government and the law behind them).

    As least we agree that Swedish women are not worth it and that there are far prettier women than Swedish e.g. Eastern European women.

  8. Sorry, this is off topic.

    Over at a voice for men, this article was posted:

    In it, there is a link to this video:

    The woman in the video talks about how women despise getting older, even though it is part of nature - and they (at least many of them) also strive to achieve the "perfect" or "ideal" female form.

    What are your thoughts on this mentality?

    I am asking because, I vaguely recall something about "a physical loathing of the beauty in life" being part of the anglobitch thesis...

    Is this feminism - women who criticize other women for "trying to be more beautiful"?

    Or - is this something else.

    I watched the video - and - well - I was honestly confused why such a video was listed on an allegedly "pro-men" site.

  9. It is interesting that the video seemed to harbour a general dislike of any kind of natural differentiation at all - ugliness and beauty, the sea and the sky, rocks and trees. In my view, Anglo feminists would like to erase 'reality' completely, in favour of their own whims and prejudices. Men have evolved to find certain physical traits attractive - youth, symmetry, large breasts, a certain waist-to-hip ratio - but much modern feminism wants to deny that fact. This is why the feminist-orientated press tirelessly extols the physical virtues of fat, old women, in the face of all rational evidence.

    Ugly, obese women in the Anglosphere are desperate to maintain their 'control' of sex, since it is their only bargaining chip in dealing with men. However, their 'commodity' can be easily undercut by porn, hookers and young, attractive foreign women. This is why feminists reflexively oppose all these things. I think that Anglo feminist attachment to ugliness has the same basic origins - if there is no differentiation between females, if beauty doesn't 'exist', then fat, ugly women instantly have the same status as young, attractive ones.

    And that is their deepest desire.

    Unfortunately, the male preference for youth and beauty won't simply vanish because they want it to. The close alignment between feminism and puritanism principally involves a shared 'hatred of life/reality', albeit for superficially distinct reasons.

    1. I am starting to think there are also people out there who simply hate sex.

      I think it frightens and confuses them.

      Just a speculation...

    2. Perhaps many Anglo women simply hate sex with men:

      "Heterosexual women, Dr. Chivers and her colleagues found, were no more excited by athletic naked men doing yoga or tossing stones into the ocean than they were by the control footage: long pans of the snowcapped Himalayas. When straight women viewed a video of a naked woman doing calisthenics, on the other hand, their blood flow increased significantly."

  10. Finally, a modern book I want to read. Think they'll put this on the self-help aisle?

    Been lurking here since 2010, I wish I'd found out about this stuff earlier.

  11. "Puritanism alive and well in UK"

    As if Rookh needed any more evidence of the anglobitch thesis.

  12. This is interesting, too:

  13. "Dr Hakim, a former London School of Economics social scientist who has also written a report for the think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies in the past..."

    Jealousy, like sexuality, is not cultural, but biological.

    She equates adultery to causing a 'caged fighter' mentality; i.e. something synthetic, 'puritanism'. She could have equally compared it to rutting stags, i.e. a natural phenomena. Her pseudo-science smells of typical Marxist-Feminist anti family propaganda.

    Families are breaking down more today than 50 years ago, and her thesis fails to relate the change of 'puritanism' in that same period. I would suggest that feminist 'slagification' correlates more to the breakdown of marriage, than does 'puritanism'. Because if it were 'puritanism', then the divorce statistics would be reversed.

    1. Yes, feminists tend to be very big on anti-essentialist explanations of everything pertaining to gender. However, the Anglo female's gender narcissism and casual misandry also explain many of our present difficulties.

    2. I think in the final analysis, be it the religious theocracy, the State, or the Bureaucracy, the family has represented a social bedrock that resists the dominance of any of the above systems that want exclusive mind control over their minions. The family represents a state within a State, and therefore attracts a jealous response from totalitarian regimes.

      Puritanism is the obverse side of the same coin as licentiousness; both are used to oppose the family. Puritanism restricts the formation of a loving family by making the natural mechanics of love, a licensable act, and licentiousness undermines the cohesion of the heterosexual bond by frustrating natural jealousy within an extant heterosexual relationship.

      The Jimmy Savile farrago illustrates this point, for his meteoric rise was on the crest of the feminist wave of 'free love'; followed by his subsequent fall by the same agents that are now the bastions of 'false rape'.

      Similarly, the homosexuals that ran the "paedophile information exchange", and thus representing every families nightmare, are now the same 'people' that advocate the right to equal marriage status, and State sponsored gay fostering.

      It is not just puritanism, it is 'any-ism' that will undermine the biological and cultural state of the natural independent heterosexual family.

    3. Oh, and here is a good article describing how radicals against the State can become 'radicals' for the State:

      The puritan / licentious pendulum seems to be a feature for lots of 'radicals'. Consider how puritan England after the civil war, became the licentious Georgian period of the brothel.

  14. Not Thomas Fleming1 March 2013 at 17:36

    Submitted without comment:

    "If you have fallen into the trap of the misnamed "Men's" Movement (no men in the movement so far as I can tell), please do not waste our time with your revanchiste fantasizing. Nothing is to be gained by whining, certainly not manhood."

    1. So much written and so little said. I suppose to Thomas Fleming the laws that exist that create an inequality don't exist and claiming that they do is "whining".

      This is why I have a hard time continuing to care about anglo men as time is going on. 80% don't give a shit, and those that do are the ones who are protected from it and usually marry an Asian woman or expatriate.

      I find it hard to continue to care about the Thomas Flemings of the anglosphere who would deny that cupcake could drop the hammer on his head with a single call to the police and there isn't a damn thing his "manliness" could do about it.

      Masculinity is meaningless in an age of laws such that exist today. Whether or not Thomas Fleming considers me a "Man" for identifying this legal inequality does not matter to me. But it does make it difficult to care when anglo men with attitudes like his are ground up in the legal system they help perpetuate.

    2. Tommy seems trapped in a kind of cultural solipsism that prevents him seeing that - in the Anglo nations at least - women have long since opted out of traditional 'feminine' responsibilities. Yet still he persists in expecting men to 'step up' and 'act like (traditional) men' without reward, respect or encouragement. In fact, 'chivalrous' males of the Robert E Lee type are nowadays shunned by women in favor of thugs, morons and misfits. Those that form relationships generally do so after several decades of sexual disenfranchisement; and can expect to lose 80% of their assets after a 'no fault' divorce.

      Yet Tommy still tries to sell Anglo-American men the old silver armour, lance and white charger, as if none of these changes had occurred.

    3. Many of the game hucksters fall into the same trap as these New-Order Chivalrist types do. All negative consequences of the legal and socio-cultural apparatus that anglo men are subject to is dismissed as their fault for not having enough 'Game' or not being 'Alpha' enough.

  15. Rookh & NotFleming:

    Not only do thugs and misfits monopolize the sexual action over Robert E. Lee types, but according to the latest statistics on female obesity, here's how the Old Confederacy ranks:

    Mississippi 35% (1)
    Louisiana 33% (2)
    Alabama 32% (4)
    Arkansas 31% (7)
    S. Carolina 31% (8)
    Kentucky 30% (9)
    Texas 30% (9)
    Tennessee 29% (12)
    Virginia 29% (12)
    N. Carolina 29% (13)
    Delaware 29% (15)
    Maryland 28% (18)
    Georgia 28% (20)
    Florida 27% (25)

    So much for all of Tommy's talk about 'Southern Belles' and defending 'the flower of Southern womanhood'! With one exception, the Southern states all fall into the top half of the list.

    It sounds like Fleming's doing most of the fantasizing here (unless he's in to 'big and beautiful' types himself, and hasn't told us so yet).

    1. In Reno, Nevada - it seems like the only skinny women are on drugs...

  16. Not Thomas Fleming2 March 2013 at 16:48

    Tommy-boy's obtuseness is fascinating in many respects.

    I would speculate that his fanaticism regarding sex relations is a proxy, or, if you prefer, a mask for a more deep seated hatred of differently defined social groups.

    If it is inconvenient or impolitic to attack a social or ethnic group frontally and openly, Tommy-boy attacks them obliquely through his assinine White Knight posture.

    In this he shares both a fundamental motive and method with feminism proper.

  17. Not Thomas Fleming2 March 2013 at 16:52

    "So much for all of Tommy's talk about 'Southern Belles' and defending 'the flower of Southern womanhood'! With one exception, the Southern states all fall into the top half of the list"

    Eric, Big Tom is impervious to observable facts and nice reasoning. He'd simply blame the girth of Southern gals on Yankees and decadent male Southerners.

  18. Bought the Kindle version of Havok, and must say I loved it. Kinda hard to watch "Deliverance" now without seeing the metatextual significance of the male rape scene. You are a good writer with some powerful insights. I hope you keep on writing, it is much appreciated.

    Oh and one other thing. I am an American and I've never been to Britain, but everything you wrote about it confirms what I have always suspected: that is a hellhole with bitches with attitudes far worse than American bitches, with bad teeth and translucent skin.

  19. Sir, thank you for your kind words. I think the chapter on popular culture in the Anglosphere is definitely the best.

    The title Havok! was the old Norman-French battle cry given to signal that the defeated enemy were to be massacred. As we all know, this sums up feminist attitudes perfectly.

  20. Some remarks:

    1] While I applaud the even-handedness with which you describe the ‘debate’ over the Germanic invasion of these islands it should be borne in mind that the truth of this matter went unquestioned until the emergence of ‘assimilationist’ dogma in the 1980s. This was quickly adopted as orthodoxy by the BBC and by any mainstream ‘scholar’ with an interest in renewing a research grant. Today English schoolchildren are told their ancestors were a ‘minority’, a lie intended to buttress others, as lies are so often required to, in this particular case the ideology of multiculturalism then bedding in just as a push to globalize the economy and attacks on the nation state were gathering pace towards the end of the last century.

    A cabal of dishonest academics and internationalist outsiders whose loyalties lie elsewhere - Scots, Irish, Welsh, aided by an increasing number of black and asian ‘peers of the realm’ – has England in its grip. The party system means we have few genuinely English MPs, while there has been no truly authentic ‘Anglo elite’ of the kind you refer to for the better part of a thousand years.

    2] I like the sheer brass neck of asserting homosexuality’s ‘prevalence’ in the Anglosphere when the incidence is positively miniscule compared to the picture of frustrated male sexuality to be had from visiting Islamic countries [something I suspect you know but won’t say].

    3] The missing million 20 to 40 year olds left because people like you came to take their country from them. Immigrants have been and continue to be aided by globalist bankers and their political apparatchiks among the non-existent ‘Anglo elite’. There is a ‘pedestal syndrome’ for immigrants too. No mention of this. No complaints about it either I dare say.

    Furthermore it is a pointless boast that some white males occasionally find women elsewhere in the world more congenial. Mixed race liaisons are almost the exclusive preserve of white females. It is men, not women, who prefer their own kind, and this genetic component - a sense of England as occupied territory, no longer a fit place to raise a family where whites are second class citizens in their own country - which is by far the most influential factor in any decision to leave. Feminism has nothing to do with what the less coy among writers have labelled ‘white flight’. In the river of slurry slowly engulfing us feminism is just one of its more important tributaries – a symptom of a deeper malaise, and a serious one, but not the disease itself.
    Since determinism is good enough to bolster claims of a sex differential in IQ it should be good enough to extrapolate to the inherently damaging racial inter-breeding you seem keen to encourage [perhaps the Asian Tourist Authority sponsored your book I don’t know].

    At all events, and setting aside attempts to rationalize, ‘Anglo bitches’ is a little close to pure [racial?] spite for my liking, such that I suspect your subject matter might be a convenient mask for anti-English, anti-white sentiment. Since indebtedness breeds resentment, and our fiercest critics almost always simultaneously demand to be allowed to live among those they pretend not to hate, a title like that should certainly boost sales. But if that is how you actually feel – if my suspicions are correct - then it vindicates wider concerns over your much narrower ones. The blog asserts an ulterior motive, an unacknowledged misandry, behind feminism. What is YOUR ulterior motive Dr. Kshatriya?

  21. Just learned of this book today, and with a click, it's on it's way to my Kindle right now!

    Can't wait to read it!

    1. Thank you sir. The wonders of technology...!