Mouse on a Pedestal: Jordan Peterson, Anglocuck Supreme

Jordan Peterson: Anglocuck Supreme

Jordan Peterson - a man who teaches the quasi-science of psychology at declasse Canadian universities - is all the rage among tradcon males across the Anglosphere. His books, televised debates and utterances are extolled as 'revolutionary conservatism', a much needed antidote to the slack minded Social Justice Warriors who presently dominate Anglo academic life.

However, like all Anglo cuckservatives, Peterson is just telling men to return to the plantation. He is just Tommy Fleming lite, a pitiful Anglocuck who thinks men should accept traditional duties while women do as they please; a clown living in the 1950s, telling men to 'man up' and join the ranks of castrated cuckdom in the Anglo-American Matrix. The central problem with his position is that the Anglosphere has moved beyond his tradcon values, never to return. Peterson is still hung up on marriage, 'honour' and fidelity in a world where such things are scorned or ridiculed by women and society at large. Indeed, being an 'honourable man' is now a one-way trip to financial rape in the frivorce courts of the Anglosphere. Here is one of my correspondents, Lawrence, on the reality of the situation in contemporary America:

At one point in my corrections officer job, the incarceration of men for child support and alimony arrears got so bad that a group of us prison guards came to the warden, complaining that we were being unethically ordered to guard men who really weren’t a threat and who should have never been sent to jail. Once imprisoned, they usually lost their professional licenses, their driver’s licenses, became unemployable so they just wound up back there again. The warden just shook his head, he knew how corrupt the system is, how the US family courts, media, politicians, universities, feminists and the prison execs all work hand in glove to profit off the US slave economy fueled by all the husbands and fathers tossed into prison. How it creates sick incentives that encourage divorce and profiteering. (This is another reason the US divorce rate is by far the highest all over the world, so much money is made from it). But the warden knew he was powerless to reform it. Just like we were as guards. The vultures of the Anglosphere want their prison slaves, and husbands and fathers are an easy target.

Like I said, every man in the Anglosphere is a target of this machine, but wealthy American and Canadian men are the hardest hit, because the US legal system gives family court judges wide latitude, which really can’t be appealed, to place arbitrarily high demands on the incomes of men who have been wealthy at any point. This is why Robin Williams committed suicide. At one point he was a very wealthy Hollywood A-lister. But after his two divorces, he was no longer pulling in that kind of money. The family courts didn’t care. They said he once made big money, and in the fantasy unicorn filled land of US family courts, that meant he could just click his feet together and make the same money again. So they made Robin pay out the nose for alimony. By this time he was sick with Parkinson’s Disease he couldn’t make anywhere close to that amount of money, and his lawyer was warning him that prison time was likely coming. So he committed suicide. Here’s another famous case, a guy in New York with same sort of situation, once made a lot of money on Wall Street and became upper class, told to pay alimony every year after that at insane high levels, lost his job in recession== then off to prison when it became impossible.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony Brendan Fraser has been hit with a similar judgement, tens of millions of dollars in alimony.

Wealthy men across the US, Canada, UK and the Anglosphere generally are hit hard like this. And yes, a lot of them wind up in prison. The incarceration rate in Canada and the UK isn’t quite as bad, but this happens there too because the misandrist structure of the laws and family courts is as bad as in the USA, and the legal systems share the same insane practice of imprisonment after court-ordered impoverishing of a man. I found this out ironically after I expatriated and was working as a Web and database planner, when my previous experience led prison systems in many countries to contract me to help with their intake software and legal briefing documents. This imprisonment of men for marriage or kids (or in these #metoo days, just for “harassment” that in reality is “any interaction with women”) really is an Anglo phenomenon uniquely. Whatever stupid idiosyncrasies the rest of the West has with feminism, they don’t throw men in prison for this.

The very worst case I saw as a prison guard was a surgeon, yes an American surgeon who was one of the most respectable guys I ever met, hard working, worked until 2 a.m. 6 days a week to save people’s lives. With all the work hours, his wife got “lonely” and started sleeping around, eventually having 2 kids that weren’t even his as he found out later. And then she filed for divorce so she could take the surgeon’s money, blow it on cocaine and stupid luxuries for herself without doing any work herself (that’s the real destination where the “child support” money goes) and sleep around with her favorite Chad of the week, all on her hard working surgeon ex-husband’s money. She won an insanely high judgment in a US family court, millions of dollars in child support and “alimony” that the poor surgeon would have to pay. Since by the court’s judgment, “she should be entitled to maintain the same standard of living after the divorce”, even though this greedy gold-digging Anglobitch is the one who filed for the divorce to steal from her hard-working husband who was actually saving people’s lives. 

After a few years of doing this, and losing his house and his nice car, the poor surgeon threw out his back while helping a patient onto an operating table. He had to cut down his hours as a surgeon, and went to the divorce court asking for a reduction in the support demands, and ask that his lazy, spoiled brat bitch ex-wife get a damn job herself. But the court refused using the same delusion filled imputation bullshit they pull on other ex-husbands, claiming he could somehow make millions of extra dollars using his surgical wizard skills somehow. Which he couldn’t do in reality with his injured back, something the family court judge couldn’t or wouldn’t even try to understand. So then now the alimony and child support were demanding 120% of his income. You see, the family court system will never let you off the treadmill once they target you, especially if you earn a lot of money. Eventually he drained his savings and retirement, couldn’t make the payments at all—and he wound up in the prison where I was a corrections officer. 

The corrupt American family court-media-feminist-academia cultural Marxist-big business-prison industrial complex had worked perfectly to ruin this poor man, and what a prize they had. A dedicated, hard working US surgeon, saving lives every day, drained of his money and reduced to poverty by a gold-digging, spoiled greedy bimbo who divorced him due to his very dedication, had kids with other men to force him to pay bullshit “child support” in addition to never-stopping alimony, his assets taken by his gold-digging ex wife and the state to grease their own corruption, the “child support” in actuality supporting the ex wife’s corrupt, hedonistic lifestyle after divorce. And then the poor surgeon himself made a literal slave in a US prison, stripped of his license and made a perpetual debtor, worked to the bone but never allowed to profit from his own efforts or hard work. That really is how it works in the US family court and prison system. That poor surgeon was the worst case we ever saw, made us so mad we were talking about how we were going to “free the Bastille” and start a revolution ourselves to stop all the corruption, Robespierre style. And free all the innocent men, and even some women, who were imprisoned this way, to feed more slaves to the machine.

Because if you’re an American man, particularly a rich, well to do, middle class or upper class man with skills, saved money, assets, wealth and a good job, that’s what you really are. Fresh meat for the Anglosphere family court meat grinder machine. Like Legal Eagle said, you are literally a slave with marriage or child-bearing in the US or the greater Anglosphere, from that day on, the state and officials have full purview over all your assets and unlimited ability to seize them. Legal Eagle saw this from the legal debate and court side, I saw the horrible result from the prison side, where men were sent after all their assets had been stolen by the family courts and their only further “value” was as slaves to the prison-industrial complex. This shit’s real, guys.

And now, in the ugly aftermath of #metto, #timesupand #nameandshamehim, you don’t even have to get married or have a kid in the Anglosphere to become a slave. Any interaction with a women, even something as casual as a glance or an innocent conversation, opens you up to charges of harassment and sexual misconduct. And given that as much as half of young white women in America find even innocent male female interactions to be harassment, you’re in great danger at any moment. Many harassment and misconduct changes now are being assembled by our corrupt legal-prison-industrial complex system to become prosecutable offenses. But even short of that, the witch-burning in social media means that any vague accusation, whether recent or months or years ago, will make you unemployable and a social pariah. You’ll lose your health insurance and ability to earn a living, and then the state will have all kinds of additional ways to brand you a criminal and toss you in jail.

https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-wardens-tale-why-expatriation-from.html
https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-wardens-tale-why-expatriation-from_31.html

Peterson tells men 'to be men' - in other words, try to live up to traditional male responsibilities - in a world which despises them, getting nothing but penury and imprisonment in return. Meanwhile, single mothers with four thug-babies live happily on taxpayer handouts across the Anglosphere while Peterson's 'responsible' men foot the bill.

The point is, Anglo conservatives like Peterson have not truly grasped the reality of contemporary gender relations. At heart, they believe we are still living in the pre-feminist era where men are coming home to smiling housewives and discussing the Bible around the kitchen table before a roaring log fire. In truth, the fact that western women are no longer economically dependent on men has entirely obviated those assumptions. With the rise of sperm banks and other post-male reproductive technologies, women don't even need a man to have children. Besides, the Calvinist misandry of the Anglosphere remains unchallenged even while female rights and opportunities advance apace in every sphere - education, the media, reproductive technology and jurisprudence.

This is partly generational; but mainly because Peterson, Tommy Fleming and other 'conservative' Anglocucks are academic fantasists with scant knowledge of contemporary social reality. Boomer academics like him need to leave their post-War ivory towers and do some volunteer work in a hospital or prison to gain some understanding of how the world actually works. Academic Anglocucks like Peterson or Fleming are dangerous because gullible young males listen to their inane opinions, or even base important life-decisions on them. In the 1950s, that was no great problem; in the 21st century, with its #metoo hysteria and no fault divorce-epidemic, such 'advice' should be cursorily dismissed as the rantings of madmen.

The Trans Revolution: Just the Same Old Tune?

 

While the burgeoning Anglo-American LGBTXYZ agenda presents itself as a revolutionary challenge to the existing social order, reproductive sterility and gender confusion are really conforming to the Anglosphere's traditional sexual agenda and dancing to its tune. As I showed in my previous article, the Anglo-American colonial elites imposed puritanical values on subject groups as part of a strategic social control policy, not for religious reasons. By stigmatizing virility as 'unclean' they could keep subect populations low and thus exploit them without fear of revolt. And this programme worked very effectively for several centuries.

Deviants rule the Anglosphere - and always have

When considered in this cynical light, the whole Anglo-American anti-sex, gynocentric and misandrist agenda becomes wholly explicable. It also best explains why the United States - with its overmastering need to regulate the reproductive fecundity of slaves, convicts, non Anglo-immigrants, indentured servants and Native Americans - should be the most misandrist and sex-negative of all the Anglo nations. Further, the well-attested racist and elitist currents underlying American feminism are best explained by its origins in a post-colonial society.

Mere Bland Conformity?

Like feminists, the LGBTXYZ lobby claim to be in revolt against the prevailing social order while identifying with all its primary agendas. Anglo feminists hate sex with all the vehemence of a New England spinster; meanwhile, the non-binary coalition hate heterosexual freedom with all the zeal of an Alabama slave-master... go figure. Seldom in history was anyone more deluded as to their true inspiration or motivations.

Anyway, here's a Happy Christmas to you all.

Heterosexuality is not an Offence...

Anglo-American Globalization Spreading Anglobitch Values

Interesting article broadly arguing that Anglo-American sexual repression and hypocrisy is poisoning other, more liberated cultures through the channels of media globalization:

A few years ago I was driving late at night through the Pigalle area of Paris, which has been known as the city's "naughty" quartier for more than a century. I was, of course, merely on my way home.

Out of the darkness, there loomed a tall, male figure: young, pasty-faced, badly-dressed, obviously drunk, obviously British.

"It's all a fucking con-trick," he screamed as I swerved to avoid him. "It's all a fucking con."

A young British male, aggressive, uptight, determined to be virile but not sure how or where to start, had just established contact with the French sex industry, which had offered much but delivered little, at a high price.

Similar scenes are doubtless acted out, with different national protagonists, in every large city in the world. Pigalle is, in any case, not especially naughty these days. But there was something elemental about my late-night vision of young, British manhood on the streets of Paris, the city of lovers. Britons have long been possessed by a suspicion that foreigners especially "the bloody French" are more sexually liberated and active than we are. To put it crudely, that foreigners especially "the bloody French" are getting it more and doing it better.

Similarly, there is a widespread foreign view that the British are erotically inept. Our men are clumsy and hurried and given to strange inclinations. Our women are prudish and cold. Our teenagers are at it like rabbits but in a joyless and brutal fashion, largely under the influence of drink and drugs.

How true are such stereotypes? Are they changing in the globalised world of contraception, liberated morals, the internet, and frenetic travel? Have national sexual characteristics been eroded in a world in which relationships are often international and where sexual imagery infests everyday life?

To try to answer some of these questions, I made an appointment with France's leading "sexologist", Dr Jacques Waynberg, medical doctor, lecturer, writer and sexual philosopher. Dr Waynberg has studied human sexuality from the Brazilian rain forests to Bucharest. He organises academic studies in the psychology of eroticism, and the treatment of sexual dysfunctions, at the Universities of Paris VI and VII. He is the founder of the Paris Institut de Sexologie. What he had to say was startling. He believes that globalisation and modern industrial society have eroded national sexual characteristics. Far from everyone becoming more sexually confident, the developed world has become more erotically clumsy, even autistic, he says. In other words, other nations, even the French, are becoming, sexually speaking, more like the British.

"The British problem with sexuality is not a question of coldness or clumsiness. The problem is that you Britons take sex too seriously, too ponderously, as something deeply personal and secret, to be hidden and discussed in whispers or, conversely, something smutty to be gossiped about," Dr Waynberg said. "Eroticism in Britain has always been a difficult subject, as, of course, in many ways it is.

"The French traditionally have treated sex and eroticism more lightly, as a game, something to be enjoyed. That, I am afraid, is changing. I see dozens of French people of all ages in this office and my impression is that many French people are no longer having much fun out there. The pressures of modern life, the isolation of the modern couple without a wider family structure, the high expectations of performance, have destroyed the lightness, the playfulness which were characteristic of the French Lover.

"Sexuality in France is, I fear, becoming anglicised."

Dr Waynberg blames a paradox of the modern world: the obsession with glorified, or exaggerated, or over-simplified sexuality simultaneously arouses and destroys the true erotic impulse, he argues. As Shakespeare said of drink: "It provokes the desire but takes away the performance".

Jacques-Alain Miller, France's most celebrated Freudian psychoanalyst, makes a similar argument. He points to the systematic media hypocrisy now spreading from Britain and the US to France which glorifies and cheapens sexuality while tut-tutting or sniggering at any manifestation of sexuality in politicians and celebrities.

The Max Mosley affair was much reported in France partly through the device of mocking the prurience of the British press while providing the salient details. M. Miller said that this was symptomatic of changing attitudes in France: "Globalisation is universalising some of the worst aspects of Anglo-American puritanism: a hypocritical fulmination [by the media] against the smut which it encourages and then uncovers," M. Miller said "It is as if orgasm is no longer acceptable in the public domain."

International sex surveys suggest that Dr Waynberg and M. Miller are wrong (but also right). Such studies suggest that there are still great disparities between sexual activity and enjoyment in different parts of the word. A survey for Durex last year of 26,000 people in 26 countries claimed that the Greeks were the world's randiest people. Eighty-seven per cent of Greek adults said that they had sex at least once a week, compared with 34 per cent of the Japanese. The "Anglo-Saxons" came out badly. Only 55 per cent of Britons said they had sex weekly and 53 per cent of Americans.

Source: Independent, September 2008

The NAMWO* Conspiracy (*New Anglo Matriarchal World Order)

The UK police recently revealed that they squandered nearly a million pounds of British tax payers’ money on the fruitless search for missing Madeleine McCann, the girl-child abducted from a Portuguese hotel in 2007. However, if the victim were male or non-Anglo, their expenditure would have been precisely ZERO. In fact, a missing male child would probably not even have made the news. However, we must be grateful to these bumbling, spendthrift poltroons, for they have revealed the NAMWO to us.

The NAMWO is the tyrannical matriarchy the Anglo-American bloc seeks to impose on the world – a world where mindless female drones are exalted while men are ridiculed and exploited. As the figures show, most of this exploitation is financial – men pay through the nose to support public services that largely benefit women. For example, the Police are far more concerned about crimes committed against women (try googling Pretty White Girl Syndrome) – yet men comprise the vast majority of murder victims in every Western society. In addition, the police and the Anglo-American legal ‘profession’ exhibit an inarguable bias against men, acquitting women for serious crimes that men would be imprisoned for. Men also foot the bill for public healthcare programmes, yet Warren Farrell shows that THREE TIMES more is spent on women’s heath (see his MRA masterwork, The Myth of Male Power). Indeed, it could be argued that the whole infrastructure of post-industrial western societies is intrinsically misandrist – Glenn Sacks’ superb site cites strong evidence that male children less than six months old are far more prone to fatal accidents (this is most unlikely to be the result of male adventurism, at that tender age). Moreover, in the UK and many other Western countries, public broadcasting bodies like the BBC exhibit a clear misandrist bias, but happily leech up obligatory funding from males – even as they wage ideological wage against them!


In short, in NAMWO men foot the bill for a whole range of public services that exhibit antipathy or indifference towards them. And this is the matriarchal nightmare the Anglo-Saxon nations seek to impose on the rest of the world via State-sponsored, UN-sanctioned hegemonic terrorism.

What are men trapped in the NAMWO or its Western affiliates to do?

Above all, we must withdraw all financial and political consent from NAMWO. If at all possible, avoid paying taxes or funding NAMWO-controlled public bodies (that is, virtually all of them). In Britain, this is relatively easy in the case of the BBC – just refuse the TV inspectors entry to your abode - or better still, get rid of your TV. After all, the whole of the mainstream Anglo-American media now serve NAMWO, and cutting their misandrist garbage out of your life will be no great loss. In the case of American men, above all do not marry (or even associate with) Anglo-American women – Marriage in America is now a State-sponsored misandrist wealth-redistribution policy . If you have to, marry a foreign woman from a Traditional culture - and better still, set up residence in your wife’s country of origin. This will prevent her becoming infected by Anglo-American feminism. As for the rest of it, don’t participate, don’t conform, don’t listen - this is the only approach a sensible man can take towards the NAMWO conspiracy. And if any members of the NAMWO Establishment are reading - if you don't like us, then don't take our taxes.

The Anglobitch Debate II

It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm Joe T.

novaseeker -

The brand of feminism prevalent in Sweden is completely different than that which exists in the USA. It is a much less pernicious kind. What we have in America is an asexualizing society built on appying hypermasculine values to everyone — male and female. This results in hyperambitious females obsessed with competing with men. But what are they competing at? They are competing at selling themselves out — being perfect elements of the soulless, competitive capitalist machine.

In Sweden, you have a society built on essentially female values, which I actually think is far superior to the US model. Sweden may be very feminist in orientation, but it is very beta-friendly. While in the US, what you have is the tactical alliance of feminists and alpha males, which freezes out and marginalizes beta males.
Being essentially a beta (like about 80 of males), I don’t think I should have to tell you which society I would prefer.

Also, a point which is actually not much cited on this blog, but which is significant, is that the USA has *by far* the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per thousand. The second highest is the UK, still significantly less than America’s, at about 3.8 per 1000. Sweden ranks around 3rd, but only half of the US rate, at about 2.5/1000.You actually have to look at the statistical groupings of the list of countries, and their divorce rates, to appreciate how the US ranks in a classy by itself.

I am *not* equating a low divorce rate necessarily with policies and society that favors males, but it so happens that the countries with the *lowest* divorce rates are considered by social scientists to be the most patriarchal. I know Roissy rails against marriage, and he would probably say the men in countries with low divorce rates — Italy, Portugal, Brazil, etc. are “suckers” for staying married, or for being married in the first place. But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

So, America presents the absolute worst of all possible worlds for the beta male (80-85 percent of males, according to even Roissy’s numbers). American Turbo Capitalism endorses all of the following simultaneously:

1) Militant feminism and the “empowered”, male-suspicious female
2) Asexualism and the obliteration of traditional gender roles, passed off as “progress”
3) Promotion of broadly pro-Alpha Male values, as an overall societal value system (which includes libertarian capitalism as the preferred method of economic organization)
4) The marginalization, devaluation, and debasement of what are essentilly the broad masses of the male sex
5) Female sexual “empowerment” and the pressure to form “female-led” relationships, either out of economic necessity, by default, or because of pressure from the prevailing propaganda line promulgated by the corporate media

Rookh Kshatriya writes: Marriage in Anglo culture is overloaded with significance because of the puritan temper of Anglosphere societies. Anglo Marriage is a pycho-social lifestyle adjunct, not a realistic relationship-contract. Because it is so charged with insoluble psychic baggage (the usual Freudian issues and complexes), Anglo-American Marriage is an enormously stressful Institution for both partners - a psychic pressure cooker. However, Marriage originated merely as a functional institution to produce children in a patriarchal culture. In such cultures, the religious/spiritual/philosophical/sexual features of life were dealt with by relevant institutions, such as organized religions or Temple-prostitutes. Anglo marriages are those most likely to fail because the Anglosphere now has an unrealistic understanding of that institution, asking it to bear responsibilities it was never designed for.

As an aside, it is odd that the author considers feminism to be partly fostered by Alpha males, since Alpha Males are those most likely to be fleeced in misandrist divorce settlements. The sociobiological arguments of the British author Moxon often seem to be invoked in these debates, but many of his assumptions are riddled with errors. For example, criminal underclass males have the highest fertility rates in modern society, not upper-middle class alphas. It is much more likely that Anglo culture fosters feminism and misandry as a function of its puritanical obsessions than its sociobiological imperatives.


1.on June 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm doug1

Joe T.
But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

Although you’re of course right about the sharply different attitudes towards extramarital sex particularly for men in Anglosphere versus other Euro societies, you’re wrong about the reasons. It is not primarily greater prudishness. For instance, in Victorian England it was widely assumed that many married men would need the release valve of extra marital relations, particularly with prostitutes where it was mostly winked about, but sometimes with others.

Early feminism was all about two things most of all. First was getting women the vote, which they felt (rightly) would end up being of key importance it getting a lot of other rights for women. Second was greater rights in divorce, and social acceptance of the idea that male infidelity was absolutely grounds enough for not only a divorce, and one in which the woman made out handsomely if the man had any bucks. Feminism was lead by women whose men did by and large. American women in particular have always been militantly against male extra marital affairs as a women’s rights and dignity issue. This united women of a wide variety of political persuasions.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: We cannot assume that the original feminists thought exactly as modern Anglo feminists do. In the late Victorian era, patrician women believed in religion literally and implicitly. Also, they harbored right-wing ideas that would broadly be seen as unacceptable today. Actually, most early Anglo feminists were upper-class Nazis. Most of them were avowed racists and eugenicists (Woolf, Stopes) and some of their preoccupations (contraception for instance) were motivated by eugenic concerns and a desire to eliminate troublesome sections of the working class. Early Anglo feminists were also Puritanical Christian Protestants with an obsessive desire to impose moral continence on the masses – partly intrinsic, partly motivated by eugenics and lastly by a yearning to ‘ration’ sex, thereby rendering men of their own class easier to control. While Victorian gents were having sex with whores (and each other) the puritan ‘standard’ was still there, even if no one held to it. In other countries, the ‘standard’ just wasn’t present. For example, the Germans made extensive use of official field brothels in WWI, something the Anglo combatants never adopted. So there clearly were differences between Anglo countries and their Continental counterparts at a deep, cultural level. Maintaining that Anglo-Saxon cultures are not puritanical and repressed is the height of folly; though, to be charitable, this viewpoint often characterises those who have not lived outside the Anglosphere.

Anglobitch YouTube Channel Launched

Greetings

This is more an announcement than the profound posts you are used to. Don't worry, when the announcement has been made, I will resume my conceptual elaboration of the peerless Anglobitch Thesis.

Essentially, I have created a YouTube channel to express the Anglobitch concept to the multitude in more dynamic, visual terms than is usual on this Blog. My introductory video can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RookhKshatriya

I hope to add more slide shows, films and other multimedia presentations until the Anglobitch Thesis has the same appeal for the masses as it has for the elite thinkers who tarry here. I have engaged in not a few duels in the Anglo-American mainstream media on the issues raised in this Blog, particularly the link between the rapidly burgeoning underclass and the rise of feminism. As you might expect, I have never been defeated on any issue, ever. These tilts, too, will find an ideal home on the YouTube site.

Thanks for listening.

Anglo-Feminism: The New Fascism

Anglo feminism is in no sense a radical or revolutionary movement: to the contrary, all its principal themes – elitism, Puritanism, Calvinism, repression and pretence – are entirely derived from the existing social order. As ever, Anglo Saxon ‘radicalism’ merely represents an extension of existing iniquities (often in more virulent form), conveniently repackaged.

Contemporary Anglo feminism has, for example, a puritanical hatred of sex, the body and physical pleasure that hearkens back to the Seventeenth Century. The supposedly ‘radical’ themes of Anglo feminism derive directly from Reformation Puritanism. They are not ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’ at all.


By extension, Anglo feminism perfectly satisfies all the agendas of Imperium late capitalism. By fooling the masses of disenfranchised women that they have more in common with Hilary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice than men who share their socio-economic exclusion, Anglo feminism ideologically coerces them into abject conformity. It is, in fact, a kind of female-orientated nationalism, racism or anti-Semitism, and serves an identical purpose:

The magazine image of Jacqueline Kennedy/Onassis in American womens’ magazines, is interesting on other counts. The massive empire behind a $30, 000-a-month clothes bill was given no comment. Instead, readers of a dozen women’s magazines were encouraged to identity with Jackie’s emotional and domestic problems. Indeed, the working-class readership magazine hardly even referred to her wealth (Downing, 1980:133).

Above all, Anglo-American feminism remains racist and classist to the core:

Black feminists have been particularly angered by Reclaim the Night marches. Intended to assert women’s right to walk through cities free from the threat of sexual assault, these have frequently taken the form of white women marching through minority and/or working-class neighbourhoods. Critics argue that they reinforce false stereotypes about black and working-class sexuality (Bryson, 1999: 60).

Such marches have little to do with affluent white women’s safety: they descend directly from Victorian crusading Puritanism, rhetorical demonstrations of disgust with the coarse vitality of the urban proletariat. No doubt Proto-feminists like Virginia Woolf would be impressed to witness modern Anglo feminists eagerly maintaining her own sordid intolerance.

Anglo feminism in the present is a marginalized failure. It has little appreciable impact outside the elite and academic feminism. This relates to the fact that Anglo feminism emerged in a class-divided culture, whose elites know little about mass experience. Consequently, Anglo feminism is characterised by idiomatic preoccupations – goddess worship, lesbianism and of course, ‘The Boardroom’.

Surely, the moment is long overdue to 'call time' on this gross cultural aberration.

Sin City: Exalting the Anglobitch

The comic-book and movie Sin City are interesting from the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis. A kind of ‘hyper-real’ depiction of criminal types, women are simultaneously portrayed as angelic victims or gun-toting super-humans. Realism is nowhere in evidence - as in most Anglo-Saxon depictions of women. Instead, females are placed on pedestals where their moral conduct and martial prowess are absurdly inflated and men vilified and devalued.

In Sin City, when men are not depicted as cannibalistic mass murderers, they are sacrificial victims whose lives are wasted preserving stereotypical Anglo-Saxon women. So ingrained are such misandrist assumptions that even the Anglo-Saxon ‘counterculture’ extols them without demur:

An old man dies… A girl lives. Fair trade (Miller, Rodriguez: 2005).

Of particular interest is the Anglo-American counterculture’s preoccupation with portraying women as embodiments of superhuman martial prowess. Examples are legion: comic books, superhero movies and ‘academic’ feminism all have an obsession with terminally empowered women firing outsized guns, overwhelming (male) opponents with obscure martial arts and generally having their historical and contemporary martial prowess inflated out of all proportion to their abilities.


Even the renowned warrior women of history, such as Boudicca and Joan of Arc, had a largely token role. If we look at the greatest Anglo-Saxon warriors – Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV, Henry V, Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson, Washington, Grant and Lee – all were patrician males. None were female. Archaeological research at battlefield sites such as Towton proves beyond question that all combatants were males in their teens, Twenties and Thirties. Only relatively recently, when technology has obviated the obvious need for physical strength, coordination and aggression have women adopted a military role in any numbers. Even so, they are rarely if ever assigned front-line combat roles and remain absolutely debarred from Special Forces because they cannot pass the rigorous physical selection procedures. In sum, only those with a terrible rage against reality itself could maintain that women nurture martial abilities even remotely comparable to those of males. For example, basic differences in leg anatomy meant that women could not complete basic infantry training in the British Army without massive concessionary alterations to the training programme.


Hence the bazooka-toting females of Sin City and other Anglo-Saxon counter-cultural artefacts are fantastic projections with no referent in reality. Even in those few martial areas where women show comparative talent, such as sniping or terrorism (neither considered especially chivalrous, incidentally), the kind of superhuman strength, agility and courage routinely depicted in these mythopoietic fictions is nowhere displayed. So, where do they draw their inspiration?

Like the Golem for European Jewry, these superhuman women tap deep into the myth-creating root of the Anglo-Saxon mass psyche. Anglo-American men are tutored from infancy to place women on pedestals, beyond reproof or rational criticism. However, feminism has released women into the workplace, politics and other areas, rendering the old eidolon invalid.

Endowing women with superhuman competence is an ongoing attempt to modulate the traditional archetype so that it reconciles the old deference with their new authority. Women with exaggerated strength and martial competence represent a spontaneous, organic attempt to reconfigure the 'Pedestal Syndrome' for a new socio-economic reality.

However, because the dual elements involved are so contradictory, the new eidolon is even more absurd than its predecessor. Also, because the new archetype is improperly developed and embedded, its adherents are obsessively insecure about it, defending it irrationally in the face of all objective evidence. Hence if objective facts are raised about women’s non-existent martial record or abilities, a hysterical crescendo of ad hominem criticism and juvenile irrationalism invariably erupts over the critic.


Nevertheless, the ‘superhuman Anglobitch’ archetype is of enormous significance in cultural terms, as it affords a profound insight into the process of mythopoietic formation. Although women toting 500-pound bazookas might seem far-removed from Saint Paul’s turgid epistles, they are both mythic cultural imagos at their earliest creation.

In passing, we must not forget a certain Anglo-American film genre that likewise extols females as supra-physical paragons of competence, virtue and intellect while portraying men as dupes, morons or, at best, cunning monsters. Sigourney Weaver and Jodie Foster are especially prominent in this lame oeuvre, typified by the vastly overrated Silence of the Lambs. These superhuman females defend society from sick, atavistic males bent on its destruction. Of course, the reader who has followed me thus far knows the exact opposite is true: Anglo-American feminists menace society, with males the last bulwark of effective resistance.


A word on the ‘counterculture’: this limping edifice, which sprang to life sometime in the dreary and discredited Sixties, has done nothing but enhance the problems intrinsic to Anglo-American culture. Conventional Anglo ‘Men’s Studies’ are little more than vagina worship. 'Counter-cultural' films, texts and art have merely placed women on even loftier pedestals. This is because the counter-culture never severed its links with the puritanical preoccupations at the core of Anglo-Saxon civilization; never challenged ‘mainstream’ assumptions about society. Rather, it surpassed them: today, the smart money knows its apologists were just shoe-shine boys for the elite all along. Class distinction, repression and counter-democracy have all worsened as a direct result of their lame ministrations.

Only the Anglobitch Thesis truly has the power to transform society as it represents a conscious break with the sterile Puritanism that defines the Anglosphere.