The Six Forms of Sexual False Consciousness

Joe Buck projects his Sexual False Consciousness...

'Sexual False Consciousness is the widespread male delusion that young, attractive women hand out sex for free. Moreover, not only do they spend every hour of every day handing out free sex, they give it to ageing, blue-collar schlubs in pick-up trucks.'

To some extent, MGTOW is Sexual False Consciousness: autistic neckbeards pretending that women are queuing up to marry them. 'Conservative' MGTOWs (for example, Seung Hui Cho) would have us believe they are deliberately shunning 'promiscuous' women, not studiously ignored by them. Obviously, this is not true of all MGTOWS: some are Boomers stung by Anglo divorce settlements or Crimson Pilled men who want better relationships with non-Anglo women.

That said, many MGTOWs are viewing the contemporary sexual marketplace from the highest peaks of Mount Cope. However, SFC is a complex and curious animal that touches most Anglo-American men at some point in their lives. Without further ado, let us examine the various forms of SFC exhibited by males in the Anglo-American West.

'Shame SFC'

Many males, realising that sexual prowess is a key feature of male status, simply pretend they are having lots of free sex. Is this really SFC? In the strictest sense, probably not; the sexual bullshitter knows perfectly well he is a sexual loser. He is not deluded about his own situation, as in the most extreme forms of SFC. In fact, this form of SFC is so common as to be normal in the Anglosphere: virtually all men lie about their sexual success rates to other men.

'Generational SFC'


GSFC is most common among Baby Boomers, although many Xers also suffer from it (Silent Generation men are on another planet, and so fall outside this analysis). GSFCers simply do not understand that we are now in the Tinder Age, that women have their own jobs and receive endless validation from social media. They also grew up listening to rock music (or early rap music) telling them that women want sex with everybody, which further clouds their understanding of the 21st century sexual marketplace.  Jordan Peterson is a classic example of this type, although almost all Boomer males suffer from the same delusions. Another fiction they cling to is that looks don't matter, mainly because looks mattered much less when women were economically dependent on men in the 50s, 60s and 70s. They also fail to grasp that western society is now openly antagonistic to males and male sexuality (#metoo, #timesup). And then there is the blunt fact that their post-War world was genuinely more sexually liberated than its post-millennium counterpart.

Generational SFC is more impersonal than the other forms, tainting the sufferer's vision of contemporary sexual reality without necessarily warping their own self image. Deluded but not pernicious, they simply do not understand the 21st century and its psycho-sexual conditions. GSFC assumes everyone is white, middle class and having sex all day, completely blind to the the fact that a third of males under 30 are now incels in North America.

It is worth noting that GSFC is frequently 'borrowed' by men of later generations. This can either be caused by cultural osmosis (for example, listening to 60s or 70s rock music) or by direct transfer (for example, listening to the Blue Pilled sexual advice of older male relatives). Whatever the cause, the result is a Millennial or Zoomer completely detached from contemporary sexual reality.

'Conniving SFC'

David Futrelle falls into this category. These are men who peddle SFC in order to build online careers or get media time. Futrelle knows perfectly well that Anglo women are hypergamous and racist; he just pretends otherwise to keep the donations rolling in. We Hunted the Mammoth is his bread and butter, so he necessarily has to placate the assorted trannies, lesbians, post-Wall hags, White/Blue Knights and other coping losers who gather there. 

Again, conniving SFC is a facsimile of the real thing. Futrelle doubtless has a rich sex life with pre-pubescent boys he meets on the seedier backstreets of Chicago, while true SFC requires a high degree of sexual disenfranchisement. 

'Delusional SFC'

Delusional SFC is very much the real thing, however. DSFCers are typically ugly, fat men who seriously think model tier girls are clamouring to have free sex with them (in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence). What are the roots of DSFC? First, self-delusion: apparently, most men think they are more attractive than they are. DSFC is also fed by the lamestream Anglo-American media spinning Baby Boomer fairy tales about 'Beauty and the Beast' relationships and preaching the 'looks don't matter' myth.

Delusional SFC is strongly linked to low IQ, gullibility and low socio-economic standing (see Blue Knights).

'Cope SFC'

This is an important subset of delusional SFC. Faced with a loveless, sexless future, the Coper actually needs SFC to stave off depression and thoughts of suicide. In consequence, Copers have a hysterical rage against reality itself and many are rabid Blue Knights who hate all mention of the Black Pill and those who dare to preach it. In addition, CSFCers cannot endure any criticism of western women. Personally, I hate them above all other breeds of Anglocuck. Seriously, someone needs to take a Black Pill blowtorch to those people.

'Psychotic SFC'

This is the most extreme and Blue Pilled form of SFC. This is not lies, self-deceit or slight self-delusion; nor is it economic self-interest or merely being trapped in the values of a defunct era.  Psychotic SFC involves complete departure from reality. The PSFCer actually believes he is having sex with models all day, even if he is in reality a virgin incel or banging low-tier escorts on the weekend. Many of the posters on the Inceltears reddit suffer from PSFC, especially the noob who runs it (he posts several hundred times a day). Seriously, those people need professional help.



And there they are, the six forms of SFC that daily dupe sexually disenfranchised western males. Unlike Black Pilled incels, I don't have any problem with Chads or Tyrones who are enjoying free sex with multiple women. If someone is gaming the system, power to them. I hate SFC cuckery far more intensely, partly because it is so idiotic but mainly because it is so cowardly, weak and unmanly.

Beyond that, SFC is a vital component in the late capitalist programme. It keeps the system ticking over as sexless mugs toil away like Trojans, thinking they will someday get model tier women if only they 'work a little harder' or 'get a promotion'. This is why the Anglo-American authorities have to stop the Black Pill spreading at all costs and why the Dark Enlightenment is in their cross-hairs.

Are you ready for battle?

Equal Opportunity Evil: Is the Anglobitch Thesis Going Mainstream?

When I began writing on these issues in 2010, I was viewed as a marginalised commentator, even in the manosphere. In 2020, many of my views on Anglo-American white women have already become mainstream. Over the past decade a veritable army of researchers have emerged who openly discuss white North American women's complicity in slavery, racism and other social malfeasance. Check out the following editorial piece from the New York Times, in which 'radical' or 'progressive' white women's complicity in institutionalised racism is openly discussed:

White Suffragist Racism
Last year, Chicago renamed a prominent downtown street for the celebrated newspaper editor and anti-lynching campaigner Ida B. Wells, who also played a starring role in the earlier 20th-century suffrage movement. Less well known in the city today is the estimable Wells contemporary Fannie Barrier Williams, a member of the black elite who had a profound impact on Chicago during more than three decades of civic and political activism.

As her biographer, Wanda Hendricks, points out, Barrier Williams broadened her influence by crossing racial lines, becoming the first black woman admitted to the Chicago Women’s Club, one of the most powerful white women’s groups in the country. She led the charge to get black women politically engaged and worked tirelessly to open the business world to them as well.

As Harper did, she dissented from the white suffrage movement’s gender-centric view of voting rights, arguing that “black women had unique needs that were defined as much by race as they were by gender and region,” making clear that she was less interested in a political candidate’s gender than in what he or she had to say about the plight of African-Americans. Beyond that, she bluntly reminded white women that racism in their ranks represented a prime obstacle for black women, writing “that the exclusion of colored women and girls from nearly all places of employment is due mostly to the meanness of American women.”

When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy, Brent Staples, New York Times, Feb 2, 2020

While it might not be the Anglobitch Thesis in its purest form, the essential lines of the Thesis are present in the article quoted above. In brief, the author asserts that 'progressive' Anglo-American feminists have an uncanny knack of retaining racist and reactionary values from traditional Anglo-Saxon culture even while preaching for 'revolution' and 'change'. Although Ben Staples' focus is narrowly political, the Anglobitch Thesis demonstrates that white women's staggering hypocrisy extends into all other areas of life. For example, they retain giga-levels of sexual elitism, puritanical sex negativism and female entitlement even while marching around with placards calling for 'revolution' and the impeachment of President Trump.

In addition, Anglo feminists strive to hide their reactionary addictions behind a smoke-screen of 'genderism' - the ludicrous fiction that gender transcends all other considerations (status, wealth, ethnicity) in the Anglosphere. This conceptual trick serves to mask their own complicity in slavery and other historical crimes, not to mention contemporary racism.

In sum, white Anglo women's hypocrisy is so total that it almost defies comprehension. 

Moreover, serious academic research is starting to expose the Anglo-American white woman's complicity in slavery and other evils intrinsic to Anglo-American culture. Far from being coerced into obedience by 'evil' white men, white female slave-owners were perfectly capable of performing the most evil deeds on their own account.  Check out the following book review from 2019:

Equal-Opportunity Evil 

A new history reveals that for female slaveholders, the business of human exploitation was just as profitable—and brutal—as it was for men.

Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers opens her stunning new book, They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, with a story about Martha Gibbs, a sawmill owner in Mississippi who also owned “a significant number of slaves.” One of them, Litt Young, described her owner as a woman in total control of her financial affairs, including the management of her enslaved workers. Young remembered, for example, how Gibbs’ second husband tried and failed to convince her to stop ordering her overseer to administer “brutal whippings.” After the Confederates surrendered, Gibbs “refugeed:” She took some of her enslaved workers to Texas, at gunpoint, and forced them to labor for her until 1866—“one year after these legally free but still enslaved people ‘made her first crop.’ ” Then, writes Jones-Rogers, “Martha Gibbs finally let them go.” 

Early books about female slaveholders, written in the 1970s and 1980s by historians of women’s experiences, tended to be about elite, wealthy Southerners who fell into that role when their husbands or fathers died. The women in these histories were depicted as having had a conflicted relationship with their role as slaveowner, and some historians posited that these plantation mistresses themselves were restricted and oppressed by the patriarchal society of the Old South. In this telling of history, the women who owned people didn’t directly involve themselves with the day-to-day management of enslaved workers, and certainly not with the selling and buying of the enslaved. 

It’s these assumptions about female slaveowning as a kind of passive, half-hearted practice that Jones-Rogers is challenging with her book—and with them, the idea that white women were innocent bystanders to the white male practice of enslavement. Her goal, she told me in a phone interview, was to paint a picture of the way white women economically benefited from their own slaveholding. For some women, slaveholding helped them attract husbands. Within their marriages, a woman like Martha Gibbs who owned enslaved people might retain a measure of independence by maintaining control of “her” slaves. And if those husbands died, or turned out to be failures at business, their wives figured out ways to retain the human property that would ensure their continued material security. 

Jones-Rogers began this shift in historical perspective by looking away from letters and diaries of elite white women that formed the documentary basis for earlier histories, and toward the testimony of the people who had been in bondage. Looking at life narratives of formerly enslaved people recorded during the Great Depression by the Works Progress Administration (Litt Young’s was one of these), Jones-Rogers found multiple instances of these witnesses naming the women who owned them—not simply as “mistresses” but as owners, with everything that entailed. She found stories of times when these women “reinforced their property claims in conversations with or in the presence of their slaves” and “challenged their male kinfolks’ alleged power to control their property, human or otherwise.” 

Examining other kinds of records, Jones-Rogers found female slave-owners all over the archive of American slavery: female authors of the advertisements placed in newspapers when enslaved people ran away, identifying themselves as the runaways’ owners; women awarded compensation for the deaths of enslaved people who had been executed or sold away after being found guilty of fomenting insurrection; women compensated by cities who hired enslaved workers for public works projects. Married women, who under the legal doctrine of coverture were not commonly allowed to hold property once they had husbands, petitioned courts to gain economic rights to the enslaved people they had owned before marriage—and judges often agreed with their pleas. 

The stories from WPA narratives show that from the perspective of the enslaved, female slaveholders weren’t much different from their male counterparts. Many of them were just as physically cruel as men, and they didn’t hesitate to make decisions to “sell away” enslaved people or their relatives. Stories of women who whipped enslaved people with nettleweed or fed enslaved children spoiled meat, and an entire heartbreaking chapter about the practice of separating enslaved women from their infants so that they could act as wet nurses for their mistresses’ offspring, make it clear that Southern women who owned people weren’t kind “mothers” making the best of a bad situation. “If we look carefully at slave-owning women’s management styles, we find that these differed little from those used by slaveholding men—and they rarely treated enslaved people as their children,” Jones-Rogers writes.  

To some (let’s be honest, probably mostly white) people, the fact that white women have the capacity to inflict violence and to cruelly manipulate the lives of others—to be what Jones-Rogers, in our conversation, called “evil and dastardly”—is an eternal revelation. That’s why we still get curious, “look at this weird phenomenon” articles about white women at Unite the Right, or within the alt-right movement. Or why we need to be reminded again and again that white women gleefully attended lynchings, flocked in the thousands to form auxiliaries for the Ku Klux Klan, and avidly protested school integration in the South and the North. This history of slave-owning women’s economic relationship to slavery, Jones-Rogers says, should “remove the surprise.” “If you think about the value, the importance of whiteness in their lives, being a source of power, being a source of empowerment and emboldenment, then throughout history these little things make sense,” she said. “Women can hold their own when it comes to violence.” 

Perhaps it’s a particularly American tic to want to believe in white women’s innocence in the cruelty of American history. Jones-Rogers reports that when she would present her work to scholars in Europe, they’d be unsurprised at its contents. “There was this kind of consensus among them that women could do these things. But when I talked to American historians, and American scholars, they were saying—‘What??? Wow!’ ” 

While writing her book, Jones-Rogers read Hitler’s Furies, Wendy Lower’s history about Nazi women’s participation in genocide on the Eastern Front during World War II. “One of the arguments Lower makes is, the reason why we may be shocked is, we hold onto this hope that at least one half of humanity still has some good in it,” Jones-Rogers says. “We need some part of humanity to have this inherent, natural empathy. When we find out women can be just as vicious and atrocious, it’s very disillusioning. Because who else is left?”

Rebecca Onion, Slate, February 14, 2019 

This compelling review also highlights how the pedestalising puritanism of Anglo-American culture inhibits objective assessment of white Anglo women's historical and ongoing crimes. Since European researchers were not steeped in gynocentric puritanism, they accepted Jones-Rogers' research far more readily than their North American counterparts.

While such works are worthy enough, and it is good to see the Thesis taking root in the Anglo-American mainstream, it will be noted by my long-time readers that my first book, Havok, was describing historical Anglobitch perfidy as early as 2009.

And I am still way ahead of the cultural curve. I predict that in 2030, issues like the Dogpill, Hyper-Hypergamy, Sexual False Consciousness and female child abuse will be as 'mainstream' as white Anglo-American women's historical racism is today.

Are Men and the Manosphere Evolving Away from Sexual False Consciousness?

As I have explained in detail elsewhere, Sexual False Consciousness is the widespread male delusion that young, attractive women hand out sex for free. Moreover, not only do they spend every hour of every day handing out free sex, they give it to ageing, blue-collar schlubs in pick-up trucks. All utter nonsense, of course: and yet such delusions are ubiquitous among blue collar males, who truly believe that 18 year old models are gasping for sex with mechanics and road-sweepers.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2015/04/sexual-false-consciousness-and-blue.html
http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2014/07/illusions-and-structures-how-sexual.html

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-great-eye-opener-are-mgtow-and-wall.html

https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2019/11/making-societal-waves-female-sexual.html

Sexual False Consciousness is the erotic expression of the American Dream and it serves the same purpose in neutralising the masses as its economic counterpart. Like the American Dream, SFC encounters little resistance because most American males have bought into the delusion they can achieve it. And because the sexual rewards for success are so alluring (and the price of failure so catastrophic), they cannot accept that most of them will never have sex with actresses, models and other attractive women. Like blue-collar schlubs who seriously think they have a chance with models and actresses, the average American male would sooner wallow in delusions of sexual success than accept his sexually disenfranchised reality. In the following video, the audience readily laps up the  fiction that some fat, semi-ethnic schlub can attract the interest of a young white beauty:

There it is: clear proof that SFC is alive and well in 21st century America. In fact, only with the rise of the Internet has Sexual False Consciousness been offered any challenge since the mid-1960s. Little wonder that males from generations Y and Z are the first to begin throwing off its brain-rotting yoke.

Here's proof:

The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men join the incels

Men from the less extreme end of the misogynistic spectrum are drifting toward groups that espouse violence against women, a new study suggests. 

In 2014, Elliot Rodger went on a shooting and stabbing spree, killing six and injuring 14 at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Rodger was a self-proclaimed “incel” (short for involuntary celibate)—a group of young men who feel furious at their perceived rejection by women and meet online to discuss and spread their ideology. Their toxic misogyny fuels a hatred for women that has led to several recent incidents of mass violence, with many incels citing Rodger’s own disturbing manifesto as an inspiration.

The authorities are taking note. Last month, the Texas Department of Public Safety released a report finding that incels “are an emerging domestic terrorism threat as current adherents demonstrate marked acts or threats of violence in furtherance of their social grievance.” 

Now a group of computer scientists have painted the most complete picture yet of the misogynistic groups that fuel the incel movement online.

The “manosphere,” as it is known, is divided into four broad groups. “Men’s right’s activists” (MRAs) claim that family law and social institutions discriminate against men. “Men going their own way” (MGTOW) take this feeling of grievance further, arguing that society can’t be “amended”; they often avoid women, blaming them for their problems. “Pick-up artists” (PUAs), meanwhile, date and harass women; they believe society is “feminizing” men. 

And then there are the incels, the most potentially violent of the group. Incels abide by the “black pill,” a belief that women use their sexual power to dominate men socially. For that, incels want revenge.

The team’s analysis found that the manosphere is evolving—and fast. Over the past 10 years, the population of men identifying as men’s rights activists and MGTOW—traditionally older and less violent—is falling while younger, more toxic PUA and incel communities have seen a spike.

Worryingly, it seems that there has been a significant migration from men’s rights groups to incel groups. Every year since 2015, around 8% of MRA or MGTOW members appear to have become more radicalized and joined incel groups online.

“The older [groups] are dying off,” says coauthor Jeremy Blackburn, an assistant professor at Binghamton University.

Indeed, it seems that not only are older, less violent groups dying off, but membership in the more violent groups is becoming more toxic. To determine the level of hate being espoused by these groups, the team used a machine-learning tool developed by Google, called Perspective, that looks for keywords in speech. It produces a “toxicity score” to give an idea of how much hate speech is being used in the forums.

The team’s analysis showed that speech in the most extreme manosphere groups on Reddit, known as subreddits, was far more hateful than the speech of a random sample of Reddit users, and more on the wavelength of fringe far-right hate groups like those that frequent the social network Gab. And it’s getting worse. Over time the toxicity score has risen across all manosphere forums. 

To keep track of the various manosphere groups, the team had to skim seven dedicated forums, along with 57 subreddits and a number of specialized wiki groups. Many of these wikis sprang up after the groups were banned from social media for their extreme views. The team built software to scrape information on threads dating back to 2015, encompassing 138,000 users and 7.5 million posts. 

The way these groups use language made the task tricky. Summer Long, a research assistant on the project, says that the extreme end of the manosphere often uses vulgarity as a self-deprecating measure, which can confuse the systems trained to look for such words. 

Incels also often use seemingly innocuous language to sidestep Reddit moderators. One term that appeared often was “smv,” which stands for “sexual market value.” And one common trope is “spinning plates,” used by pickup artists who date as many women as possible. To a casual observer, those words might mean nothing. To a wannabe incel, they are a sign he’s come to the right place. 

“It’s worth noting that this is a big challenge and that [our way of] measuring toxicity is not perfect,” says Blackburn, noting that Google Perspective has been shown to miss problematic language and might even exhibit racial bias. Still, he thinks that this is a major first step toward identifying people’s migration from less violent groups to more violent ones. 

So what can be done? One step might be to create tools to help spot and protect potential victims, along with an earlier analysis of when and how men’s rights and MGTOW groups get radicalized, says Blackburn.

Reddit has taken steps to crack down on incel-sympathizing subreddits. For example, r/Incel has been banned since November 2017, but an alternate subreddit, r/Braincels, quickly took its place, gaining nearly 17,000 followers. It was banned in October 2018. After the publication of Blackburn and his colleagues’ paper on the arXiv preprint server, Reddit put the r/MGTOW subreddit in quarantine, which means that its content is deemed “extremely offensive or upsetting to the average redditor,” it can’t generate ad revenue, and visitors must click a pop-up saying they understand that other redditors find it offensive. But this crackdown has forced many incels toward even more extreme sites, like Gab. 

Long said spending time in these forums and subreddits as a woman was “eye-opening,” and that she could see how minds are “poisoned” in an echo chamber. 

“It’s horrifying,” she says. “But you can see how it molds someone’s view into being fatalistic. [It’s] a no-hope ideology.” 

Tanya Basu, MIT Technology Review, Feb 7, 2020

Yes, it looks like Sexual False Consciousness is on the way out at last. And since SFC is the principal force binding the male masses to the existing social order, the effects of its collapse will surely be great indeed. Over the past decade, many SFC-brainwashed chumps and deluded tradcucks have laughed at me and my words. But of the many who laughed then, not so many are laughing now; and in the coming decade, I doubt many of those who are still laughing will be laughing any more.