Same Shit, Different Shovel: Shemale Spokespeople and the New Gender Caste System

In the contemporary Anglosphere, a cultural bloc in its death throes, the underlying caste system has become painfully apparent over the past four or five years. In a puritanical society with a reflexive revulsion of the male sex, women are at the top and heterosexual men at the bottom. In between are various types of pseudo-female, who are now the official spokespeople for masculinity:

The Pan-Anglosphere Caste System

Rulers: White, Anglo-American Women

Sub-Rulers: Non-Anglo Women

Administrators and Apologists: Gay and Transsexual 'Men'

Slaves: Cucks / White Knights

Outcasts: Heterosexual Men

There it is, in five lines: a neat summation of the contemporary Anglosphere. The whole culture exists to serve white, Anglo-American women who are viewed as faultless deities and the existential benchmark to which all all others must aspire. In the Anglosphere, only female sexuality matters: straight males are tacitly viewed as destructive interlopers and their sexuality vilified. Female wants and requirements transcend all other considerations; in sum, society exists to serve them.

This gyneocentric agenda is absolutely dominant in the lamestream Anglo-American media, where straight men are routinely depicted as criminals, abusers or dangerous incels. Outside of professional sports, the heterosexual male viewpoint has been largely banished from the media. Gone are the days of Walter Kronkite: newsreaders, talk-show hosts and even weather reporters are now typically female, usually heavily sexualized and indoctrinated by sex-negative misandrist feminism.

So total is this gyneocentric fixation that the new spokespeople for 'men' are either castrated, whining Anglocucks or the new breed of transsexual 'hyper-cucks'. Authentic heterosexual men are ostracised from public discourse in the Anglo-American world: of course, this is why the manosphere has expanded to fill the gap. This was never more obvious than in the wake of the Alek Minassian massacre, where 'lamestream' media discussion was dominated by absurd cucks such as Mack Limoureux and David Futrelle, deluded Boomer women and lesbian deviants (like the fabled 'Alana' who supposedly founded the incel movement in 1993). The few 'males' consulted were transsexuals who 'ascended' to surrogate female status in the Anglosphere's gender-caste system.

Fortunately, the gulf between the rulers (Anglo women) and the sub-rulers (non-Anglo women) is widening into a hostile schism:

Clouded by Accusations of Anti-Semitism, the Third Women's March loses Ground 

Women across the U.S. are preparing to head to Washington, D.C., for the third annual Women’s March on Saturday, braving forecasts of bad weather and a location change due to the government shutdown. But these are the least of the problems bedeviling the march, as sponsors including the Democratic National Committee, the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign are withdrawing their support. Ugly accusations of anti-Semitism appeared first in the online publication Tablet and then in the New York Times, and they have only been exacerbated by the refusal of Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory to distance herself from the anti-Semitic statements of the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. On the television show The View on Monday, Mallory pointedly declined to renounce Farrakhan, although in a subsequent appearance on the podcast “The Breakfast Club,” she spoke out against anti-Semitism. Calls for Mallory to step down are being heard, and a Change.org petition demanding that she do exactly that has nearly 4,000 signatures. 

Forbes, 17-01-2019

An expatriate American poster called Lawrence first described the post-colonial influence on Anglo feminism in his brilliant and oft-quoted 2018 essay:

Still, I think there’s something else at work in the Anglosphere which has to do with Anglosphere history. Most countries in the Anglosphere were settled by invading British colonists who pushed out the natives and took slaves. That’s the history of North America in essence. But this all changed in a nasty and bloody way for the Anglosphere that was very different from Latin America, where there wasn’t the history of open and hateful group conflict like there was in America’s civil war in later history. It just seems like the lines are more blurred in Latin American countries. So North America, in particular, has had this nasty history of rival ethnic and racial groups, displacing the natives and fighting bloody wars against each other, and never came to an understanding about it. And then cultural Marxism came, whipping up and playing on these conflicts as a wedge against the West, and it found its most fertile ground in the Anglosphere. The malicious Anglo feminists of US divorce courts and #metoo seem to borrow a lot of that group warfare language, and maybe that combined with the Puritanism has made the Anglo strain very ugly and hostile.

True enough, but while the colonial heritage might fuel misandrist white Anglo feminism, it is also a dangerous weapon for white feminists to utilise. Since deep ethno-cultural divisions undercut all levels of Anglo society, not even the dominant female caste can escape its destabilising influence. 

Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

Women are absurdly naive. Since the female sex drive is so miniscule compared to that of males, women typically mistake masculine admiration for meritocratic assessment of their own abilities. Many good examples can be found in the field of employment. Most young, attractive post-feminist women like to believe that their pay-rises and promotions are the fruits of talent and industry. One even hears models describing their wealth as the result of ‘talent’, as though being born with alluring physical traits were some product of stupendous toil. However, we all know that these things are typically gifted young women by men in authority who want to have sex with them. Alternatively, their sexual power over men gives them lucrative careers like modelling, ‘acting’ and pop music, where physical charm is the pivotal ingredient.

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. This explains ‘The Guillotine of Bitterness’ that afflicts most Anglo-American women in their late twenties. After 28, their true worth (or lack of it) stands exposed, stripped of all cerements of sexual power.

The foregoing leads me to a profound consideration: by definition, women lack self-awareness. As Alexander Pope opined,

The plainest truth is what we first let fall,
Most women have no characters at all.

A classic test of self awareness involves painting a cross on any animal’s face and observing its response to its own reflection. An elephant, for example, will probe the cross with its trunk, revealing advanced self-awareness. Lions, by contrast, cannot recognise their own reflection. Women – especially young, attractive women – more closely resemble lions than elephants, at least psychologically: they truly believe that men admire their ‘abilities’, not their sexual charms. Other manifestations of female self-delusion can be observed when obese females call themselves 'Big and Beautiful', or creaking crones kid themselves that men like 'the older woman'. Hence the onset of early middle age is not merely the first ‘crisis of senescence’ they must endure – it is a painfully late introduction to self-awareness.

From infancy, right through their teens and tweens, Anglo women are insulated from objective self-realization by the sickly ‘Princess Syndrome’ that pervades the Anglosphere. This explains the common observation that young women are somewhat ‘soulless’ – hollow, programmed beings with little psychic autonomy. By contrast, adolescence is a cruel rite for most Anglo-American males. The stark fact of their ‘social unwantedness’ becomes obvious, along with the realization that achievement alone can cement their status as worthy citizens. Interestingly, anthropologists have noted that the adolescent males of other primate species also experience a ‘crisis of consciousness’ in adolsecence, quite possibly for the same reasons. The adolescent male knows he will flourish only through his own abilities – his intellect, physical prowess or social guile: he has no ‘pussy pass’ to life. Little wonder that acute self-awareness comes so early to men. Notably, there is no female equivalent of Ray Bradbury’s Dandelion Wine, James Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man or Yukio Mishima’s Confessions of a Mask, simply because adolescent females have no need for acute self-enquiry of the type explored in these distinctively ‘masculine’ novels.

Armed with objective self-awareness, however, the male is well-equipped for adulthood. It is a common observation that, while females flourish in youth, males reverse those advantages in maturity (for example, while girls outperform boys at school and college, adult males still earn considerably more). By contrast, advantaged young females who mistakenly believe themselves ‘smart’ and ‘gifted’ are doomed to a harsh awakening when The Guillotine falls. Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Only in England: Elite Anglobitch Murderess escapes from Open Prison

Murder someone with a cricket bat, get your sentence reduced for no reason, fake a drugs overdose to get into a cushy 'open prison' that resembles a stately home, escape over the wall - and no one bats an eyelid! Why couldn't I have been born an Anglobitch? Hey, only in England...

Former Royal aide Jane Andrews escaped from prison just four days after parole chiefs caved in to her demands to switch to an open jail. Murderer Andrews, 40 - the Duchess of York's ex-pal and dresser - is believed to have "bunked over a wall" after a therapy session.

Panic-stricken bosses at HMP East Sutton Park in Maidstone, Kent, locked down the prison and called in support from police search teams and helicopters. But they were later forced to admit she could have vanished at any point during an EIGHT-HOUR window.

Andrews, who escaped on Sunday, was still at large last night despite a huge search.

Andrews - who was moved to East Sutton Park after convincing a parole board of her "remorse" - had just come off suicide watch. She swallowed a handful of paracetamol tablets last Wednesday three hours after arriving at her new jail and had to be rushed to hospital.

A prison insider said: "Jane Andrews has only just arrived and she's already managed to escape. Maybe that tells you something about the state of prison security. She is easily the most high-profile prisoner here and so she should have been monitored. It's embarrassing that no one noticed she was missing until nearly 9pm, and she couldn't be accounted for after around 1pm."

Prison insiders said last night the alarm was raised over Andrews being missing at 8.45pm on Sunday, when a roll-call showed she was not in her cell. After a full search of the grounds, she was deemed a fugitive and the police were called. A helicopter arrived at about 11.45pm.

The former flunky was jailed for life for the murder of her lover Tom Cressman, 39, in 2000. She clubbed him unconscious with a cricket bat and then stabbed him to death with a kitchen knife because he refused to marry her. Victim Tom's brother Rick, 58, said last night: "She has moved to an open prison and what has she done? It was too early to be doing it. I suspect she will try and leave the country."

Meanwhile Tom's mother told today of how police have increased security around her house after the killer escaped. Barbara Cressman, 81, said she thought that "a life sentence should be for life" and that Andrews should never have been moved to a low security prison to begin with.

She said: "I think it's public knowledge how I feel about Jane Andrews. She should never have been moved to a low risk prison after the horrific crimes she committed. It was especially surprising to hear she's escaped after she tried to kill herself during the week by taking an overdose. I found out from my victim liaison officer - there is increased security around me but I feel quite safe. She shouldn't even have the chance for parole, she deserves to serve a proper life sentence. Look at how many people are released too soon. Her 12 years are not enough to pay for what she did."

Andrews was eligible for release in 2012, despite being jailed for life in 2001. She was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years, which was reduced to 12.

Source: The Sun

Only in England: Female Child Killer 'Rewarded' on the Public Purse

Now I've heard everything: a female child killer serves a two year sentence for cold blooded murder of a male baby by dashing his brains out against a wall. On release, she is then given public funding to build a new life. Now, can you imagine the male killer of a female baby being treated so leniently? How can those suckers on sites like Feministing.com and EqualWrites seriously persist in arguing that males are 'advantaged' citizens in the contemporary Anglosphere? Note the outrage at this deranged decision in China, a non-Anglosphere country where male life has value.

Warning - content disturbing:

An immigrant convicted of the horrific killing of a 17-month-old baby has been given £4,500 by the Government as a 'bribe' to leave the country. Malaysian Agnes Wong, 29, was jailed for five years in 2008 for the brutal manslaughter of a toddler she was supposed to be child-minding.She was let out of prison in July this year, and two weeks ago was put on a plane at Heathrow and sent to Malaysia with a 'voucher' worth £4,500 to spend when she got there.

Wong was jailed after a court heard how she had swung the boy, Hugo Wang, by his ankles and smashed his head. He died of brain injuries. Wong's payment has sparked disbelief and outrage, coming just days after the Prime Minister said he understood the public's mounting concerns over immigration. Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'Only last week, Gordon Brown said he "gets it" on immigration but this is proof he doesn't get it. For an immigrant who killed a child to get taxpayers' money to help with her future life is nothing short of appalling.'

Mr Green demanded to know why Wong had not been automatically deported without a penny of public money. 'Even while Labour repeatedly boasted about introducing automatic deportation for people like this, it now appears they have been using public money to help people get round that very system,' he said. The horrific story of Hugo's last hours caused national revulsion when Wong's sadistic behaviour was exposed in court.

The unregistered childminder, who came to the UK in 2003, was paid £120 (c. US $200) a week to look after Hugo in her home in Salford, Greater Manchester, while the boy's parents worked 16 to 20 hours a day to make ends meet. She was accused of waging a 'regime of terror' against him, torturing him with a hairdryer and hitting him so hard with a ruler that it snapped.

Hugo died in January 2007, a day after he was taken, unconscious, to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery. He had been struck with such force that his brain had shifted in his skull and caused internal bleeding. Doctors also found bite and burn marks on his body. Wong, who denied murder, was found guilty of manslaughter but was sentenced in May 2008 to just five years in prison. The Mail on Sunday has now learned that Wong served only the minimum jail term of two-and-half years, including her time in custody before and during the trial.

Just two weeks ago, she was deported to Malaysia under a controversial 'Facilitated Returns Scheme' under which foreign prisoners are paid up to £5,000 if they agree to leave the UK as early as possible without fighting their deportation using human-rights laws or by claiming asylum. So far, around 1,000 have left the UK and been given the money.

It is not known for certain whether Wong - who used the anglicised name Agnes, although her Malaysian name is Siew Teng - entered Britain legally or illegally. However, any immigrant who commits a serious crime can forfeit their right to remain in Britain and can be deported.

As Wong boarded a plane at Heathrow on November 2 bound for Kuala Lumpur, immigration officials handed her a letter confirming that she was entitled to a 'reintegration fund' payout of up to £4,500. The letter informed her that the money, provided by UK taxpayers but administered by an international migration organisation, could be 'invested' in training for a new job, housing, education, medical treatment or to help set up a small business.

Friends have now spoken of how Hugo's father, Jian Lin Situ, never got over the death of his son and how he had taken the baby's ashes back to China. They also voiced their anger that the boy's killer would get thousands of pounds of public money to build a new life. One said: 'It is an absolute disgrace that she has got this money. That sort of money will go a long way in Malaysia.'

The friend recalled how Hugo's father had been distraught to learn that some of his son's body parts were initially retained by the coroner in case Wong appealed against her conviction. 'When Hugo died it was big in all the newspapers in China. We followed the proceedings and were all horrified by what happened to that poor boy,' said the friend. 'Jian and Hugo's mother Zhen split up soon after. I think they both blamed each other for their son's death.

'I think Zhen went back to China. Jian never got over Hugo's death. He was absolutely devastated. He took Hugo's ashes back to China, to the Canton district, the family's ancestral home. After that, Jian moved on to a restaurant in Liverpool. From there he went to another restaurant in Blackburn and we lost touch.'

The friend added that Mr Situ would be 'horrified' to learn that Wong had already been returned home, especially as he protested that she should originally have been given a 15-year jail sentence.

'Jian thought five years was too lenient. This is just an insult to Hugo's memory. What are they playing at, letting her out so early? They should have thrown away the key.'

Saint Peter and the Eternal Anglobitch

We all know teenage girls are horrible people. Moreover, they have ALWAYS been horrible people. A cursory glance at the New Testament will demonstrate this eternal truth:

Peter Disowns Jesus (Matthew, 69: 74)

69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. "You also were with Jesus of Galilee," she said.
70 But he denied it before them all. "I don't know what you're talking about," he said.
71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another girl saw him and said to the people there, "This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth."
72 He denied it again, with an oath: "I don't know the man!"
73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, "Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away."
74 Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!"
Immediately a rooster crowed.
75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly.


Of the three people trying to make trouble for Peter, two are teenage girls! This is quite remarkable, when considered objectively. However, if we cast about us, we can see quite readily that contemporary teenage girls are equally obnoxious. Though millennia pass by, they are scum eternal, forever poking their noses into other people's business and stirring up trouble.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the second girl ‘said to the people there’ that Peter was a follower of Jesus. Not content with this knowledge, she had to disperse it in order to raise problems for Peter. Teenaged girls act this way because no one can touch them: at their peak of sexual appeal, they perch on pedestals above all reproof or criticism.


Of course, the true Pedestal Syndrome never arose in ancient Palestine: misogynist theology and Hebrew patriarchy saw to that. However, in modern Anglo-American civilization, with its repressive Calvinism and Disneyland ideals, conditions have been uniquely created to shape the most obnoxious teenage girls in history. Indeed, by sheer dint of owning a vagina in this stilted culture, any teenage Anglobitch can expect to get away with literally anything. Whatever she attempts, the NAMWO (New Anglo Matriarchal World Order) authorities clap like performing seals; even assault, child abuse and murder are regarded with complete indifference and met with perfunctory sentences. Had Louise Woodward (the English nanny released by the American authorities after killing baby Matthew Eappen) been male, the NAMWO media would have been calling for his blood.

In short, the teenage Anglobitch is like James Bond: she has a license to kill. The specific context of Anglo-Disneyland repression has amplified the sense of entitlement inherent in teenage girls to hideous dimensions. Painted princesses treading on flowers, expecting the world to dance to their neurotic whims, these narcissistic harridans have ruined the whole Anglosphere.

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.

RIP 'Jacko' (AKA Peter Pan): the Tragic Anglo Mangina

Michael Jackson was a tragically confused figure. He was confused about his ethnic identity, but even more so about his gender identity. This has often been attributed to an abusive childhood and the demands of his craft. However, Jackson was an archetypal figure, not an eccentric aberration. The themes that guided his tragic existence were in fact deeply embedded in the prevailing Anglo-Saxon culture. For all his gloved posturing, it is telling that Jackson's child-man persona can be traced to the repressive, latent-homosexual hothouse of Victorian England - where piano legs were covered lest they incite lustful thoughts. And ultimately, to the soured instincts of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in all its Calvinist, misandrist horror.

It is no surprise that Jackson's preferred alter-ego was Peter Pan, the boy who never grew up. This is a classic Anglo-Saxon archetype, first articulated by the English Victorian writer, J M Barrie. Barrie himself had a piping voice, mincing walk and did not need to shave, even in maturity. This bizarre archetype is of immense significance, however; this is because it shows Jackson's preoccpations were not unique to his personal experience, but deeply rooted in Anglo-American culture - specifically, Anglo-American puritanism.

But why should Puritanism breed denatured types like Barrie and Jackson? Reflect a little and the answer becomes plain: a prepubescent state is the supreme statement of puritanical repression. And now Jackson's puerile preoccupation is revealed for the specifically Anglo-Saxon aberration that is was. 'Sleep-overs' with young children, affectation of a childish voice and manner, wearing lipstick and eye-shadow - all were inspired by a puritanical fear of manhood and its burden of dynamic potency. Of course, hatred of sex automatically incorporates hatred of manhood, in that manhood is an inherently virile condition. This is also why Anglo-American culture detests masculine men - indeed, men in general. Consider how specifically male issues - suicide, educational failure, prostate cancer, heart disease - are universally ignored across the Anglosphere. Then consider how - when some entitled Anglo princess goes missing for ten minutes - the media mobilizes enormous interest in the case.

Jackson's shame at being male and his bizarre preoccupation with trying to affect a genderless self-presentation can be traced to the degraded, parlous state of masculinity in Anglo-American culture. For the past thirty years (though this malady is of ancient vintage) the trash media habe been pumping out a clear, unmistakable message: manhood is bad. In all its forms, masculinity is now a despised, ridiculed, aberrant 'lifestyle choice' - one endlessly contrasted with the chipper entitlements of Anglo feminism.


In sum, Jackson was an eidolon of Anglo-Saxon values, not a cultural aberration. Because of the parlous, victimized state of manhood in the Anglosphere, the Peter Pan persona is a natural response to the gender-vilification men routinely receive. Adopting a pre-pubescent identity spares one the bile and chagrin directed against men in Anglo-American countries. The road of Peter Pan is easier than fighting the good fight against Anglobitch feminism - but ultimately ineffective and fruitless. And as Jackson found out, that road is also dangerous. Aside from the operations taken to maintain his juvenile appearance, such systematic suppression of his masculine identity must have wrought a fearful toll on Jackson - doubtless expressed in his dependency on medication and premature heart attack.

In the coming weeks (years? Decades?) much will be written about Jackson's sociological/cultural significance. His death truly concludes the Twentieth Century in showbiz terms, at least. In a broader symbolic sense, his death ends the prevailing themes of late Twentieth-Century global civilization - Anglo-American infallibility, paternalist politics, centralized mass-media and, of course, Anglobitch feminism. From our perspective, Jackson's untimely death was simultaneously watershed, lesson and warning - take heed, my friends.

Did Early Anglo-Saxons Practice the First Apartheid?

Lucy Buchanan, celebrity Anglobitch and avowed racist. Could her vile racist views be explained by the Apartheid origins of Anglo-Saxon culture?

The Anglo-American world is always quick to criticize other cultural blocs for their 'barbarism', and exhort them to accept the 'blessings' of Anglobitch matriarchy. However, British scientists have developed a controversial theory that explains the high incidence of German genes in Britain today by a kind of 'sexual apartheid' directed against British Celts in the 4th - 7th centuries AD. This thesis is creating a lot of 'waves' in scientific and social circles, with lame counter-arguments attempting to deny the possibility of Anglo-Saxon sexual apartheid.

I know many of my readers are proud Celts who will be enthralled by these ideas. Although this general critique of Anglo hypocrisy ('Let's boycott South Africa, but why are we here?') is of tangential interest to the Anglobitch Thesis, it gives rise to a number of untimely meditations. For example, could Anglo-American women's sexual elitism and general sense of entitlement have arisen in those days? If sexual apartheid conferred genetic/reproductive advantage, and most Anglo women are descended from that small stock of invaders, this is a distinct possibility. Certainly, most Anglo females at their reproductive peak are sexually racist and elitist to a high degree, and these genetic findings seem to explain why.

This description of the 'Anglo-Saxon apartheid theory' is taken from the BBC website:

An apartheid society existed in early Anglo-Saxon Britain, research suggests. Scientists believe a small population of migrants from Germany, Holland and Denmark established a segregated society when they arrived in England.

The researchers think the incomers changed the local gene pool by using their economic advantage to out-breed the native population.

The team tells a Royal Society journal that this may explain the abundance of Germanic genes in England today. There are a very high number of Germanic male-line ancestors in England's current population. Genetic research has revealed the country's gene pool contains between 50 and 100% Germanic Y-chromosomes.

But this Anglo-Saxon genetic dominance has puzzled experts because some archaeological and historical evidence points to only a relatively small number of Anglo-Saxon migrants.

Estimates range between 10,000 and 200,000 Anglo-Saxons migrating into England between 5th and 7th Century AD, compared with a native population of about two million.

To understand what might have happened all of those years ago, UK scientists used computer simulations to model the gene pool changes that would have occurred with the arrival of such small numbers of migrants. The team used historical evidence that suggested native Britons were at a substantial economic and social disadvantage compared to the Anglo-Saxon settlers. The researchers believe this may have led to a reproductive imbalance giving rise to an ethnic divide.

Ancient texts, such as the laws of Ine, reveal that the life of an Anglo-Saxon was valued more than that of a native.

Dr Mark Thomas, an author on the research and an evolutionary biologist from University College London (UCL), said: "By testing a number of different combinations of ethnic intermarriage rates and the reproductive advantage of being Anglo-Saxon, we found that under a very wide range of different combinations of these factors we would get the genetic and linguistic patterns we see today.

"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," Dr Thomas added.

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised.

"This is exactly what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."

The research is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

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.

Public Misandry: ‘This Desk is for the Use of Women Only’

Abhorrence of apartheid is a moral attitude, not a policy – Edward Heath

Last week the present author visited Birmingham Central Library in England, UK. I was astonished to find signs all over the library reading: ‘This desk is for the use of women only’. I wondered subsequently about this manifestation of arrant misandry. It seemed to imply that all men are potential sex criminals or, worse, second-class citizens. Why had no one opposed it? What was the real story here?

I phoned the library asking for further information on the policy. In due course I was sent several pages explaining the decision-making process involved in this policy. The information was staggering, on several counts.

Firstly, there was no consultative process with the general public, despite the library being a publicly-funded body. The decision to implement this apartheid-like signage was made arbitrarily, like some coercive diktat in a banana republic.

Secondly, the media’s response to the ‘initiative’ was decidedly odd. We are told that, initially, The News of the World (the major Sunday tabloid newspaper in Britain) was interested in covering the story (presumably in a critical light). Then, after an almost-magical discussion between a female staff-member and a female journalist (the essence of which is not disclosed) the newspaper’s decision to investigate the policy was mysteriously dropped. What further proof is needed that the ‘mainstream’ Anglo-American media quashes all criticism of feminist agendas?

We are continually told that the Anglo-American media are in a continual struggle against the official forces of ‘political correctness’. What utter rubbish: when the political correctness is feminist or misandrist, the ‘mainstream’ Anglo-American media are entirely complicit. Indeed, the Anglo-American media harbour a sweeping animus against men while putting women on pedestals: signs excluding men while implying (entirely imaginary) female victimization are well within their ambit of approval. This relates to the puritanical value system governing Anglo-American culture, which elevates women to semi-divine status.

Excluding anyone, including men, is an Apartheid practice. Libraries do this by having women only library tables, or ‘women only’ library days. However, these services are paid for by public revenues that we all contribute (in fact, men contribute the bulk of them). Of course, natural justice is of little value when men are being excluded.

Fight Club: Reclaiming Anglo-American Manhood

Fight Club is one of the most interesting films (and books) of recent years. It probes the disillusion of an alienated white collar American (played by Edward Norton) who founds a network of underground fighting clubs for angry, emasculated males. These Fight Clubs do not exist to impart a specific street fighting art, like Brazilian Jiu Jitsu or European Savate. Rather, the men attend to experience true manhood for the first time.


In Fight Club, manhood is seen as something that men have been systemically robbed of by a media-driven society. Everywhere, images of ‘ideal men’ are projected that are utterly bereft of manly virtues – in fact, as Norton’s alter-ego Tyler Durden succinctly argues, most of these ideals are ‘some faggot’s wet-dream’. By contrast, the Fight Club experience restores to men the natural, primordial springs of masculine existence: ‘After a few nights at Fight Club a man looks like he’s carved of wood’.

Fight Clubs are governed by eight simple rules (perhaps a parody of the Buddhist Eightfold Path):

1. You don't talk about fight club.
2. You don't talk about fight club.
3. If someone says stop, goes limp, even if he's just faking it, the fight is over.
4. Only two guys to a fight.
5. One fight at a time.
6. They fight without shirts or shoes.
7. The fights go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.

Pointed barbs at the vapid values presently ruling the Anglosphere are skilfully woven into the narrative. The author of Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk, recounts how he jumped though all society’s hoops to impress his parents – high school, college, employment – a lifetime of ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘knuckling down’ – only to find himself in a poorly paying, boring job as a technical author.

There, he says, a festering rage began to incubate: he felt that society had ‘cheated’ him and forced him into a dissatisfying mould without recompense. So Chuck starting fighting: in bars, in the street, whenever he got the chance. For him, the experience was completely liberating. He felt renewed, vital, existentially authenticated. It was this feeling that inspired him to write Fight Club:

Message boards all over the Internet posted requests looking for real fight clubs. Mormon students in Utah brawled; kids in garages started punching each other out; unlicensed boxing mini-boomed; wrestling, the theatrical parody of fighting, outsold real boxing (Mitchell, 2001: ppXI-XII).


A cultural phenomenon, Fight Club is a distinctly Anglo-American mythopoietic construct. In the Latin, oriental or Slavic worlds, where manhood is unimpaired by cultural vagaries like Anglo repression or latent homosexuality, Fight Club would be meaningless. It derives its meaning and power from the parlous, victimised state of masculinity in Anglo-American culture. This is something that virtually all critics of both the novel and the film have missed (perhaps inevitably, as they are not party to the Anglobitch thesis and its explanatory power).


In Anglo culture, due to its gynocratic, puritanical and misandrist tendencies, masculinity is essentially disliked. This is why normal boys are pumped full of Ritalin in school and college, why men are routinely castigated throughout the media and why masculine values are universally derided. Fight Club represents a belated attempted attempt to reclaim Anglo-American manhood.

Speaking from the heart, this humble blog and its associated website embody the Fight Club ethos. All men worthy of the name are disgusted by the pitiful, latent homosexual matriarchy that is the contemporary Anglosphere. The many emails of support, not to mention the impressive level of interest in the Anglobitch Thesis (100 hits a day) reveal how men yearn to break the matriarchal chains and reclaim their manhood. Like Fight Club, the Anglobitch Thesis was on the tip of everyone's tongue - it just needed a forum for expression. From India to the United States, from Canada to Australia, men warped by Anglo-Saxon puritanism and its gynocratic cult of 'Woman Worship' are crying out for release from centuries of bondage. Gentlemen, the answer is simple: ignore, erase or destroy the puritanical Angloculture or die trying - there is no other way. You are the greatest men in the history of the Anglosphere - not Nelson, not Washington, not Gandhi - no, YOU - because you are ready for the good fight, as no other generation in history. Armed with self-awareness and the peerless confidence of manhood, your potential is boundless. But your potential is currently wasted by a culture that tells you (you, who created it!) that men are worthless, men are stupid, men are criminals and deadbeat dads. Your lives are wasted in white-collar mediocrity, the getting of money to buy things you don't need to impress women you don't like.

Well, tell the Pan-Anglosphere Matriarchy that the change started here... and long may it continue!

Rambo: Pan-Anglosphere Archetype of Male Alienation

In Rambo: First Blood - the first, definitive Rambo movie - we see how Anglo-American society relates to men – especially white, working class men. In the first first scenes, Vietnam veteran John Rambo is seen approaching a small town.

From the first, Rambo is made to feel unwelcome by the town’s Police Chief. Soon, he is imprisoned and savagely beaten for virtually no reason and, after a daring escape, hunted down by the authorities like an animal.


If these themes were mere fantasy, they would not have stroked the deep chord they obviously did. Throughout the Anglo-American world, John Rambo became an instant, sympathetic archetype for working class, disenfranchised males. Though expressing a distinctly American experience, Rambo's impact was universal.


Rambo immediately became a mythopoietic icon of Anglo-American culture because he summates post-feminist male experience. His utter rejection by society expresses the offhand vilification of the Anglo-American male. Rambo is a fallen war hero: someone who is ‘pulled out of the hat’ when his martial valour is needed, then vilified when his immediate utility is exhausted. This ‘redundant workhorse’ syndrome characterises Anglo-American attitudes to men in general. Unwelcome in the normal course of things, men are tolerated only as a necessary evil occasionally needed as expendable cannon fodder. Moreover, the offhand contempt and even hatred aimed at Rambo by the institutions of social authority (Courts, the Police and politicians) perfectly illustrates Anglo-American attitudes to men.


The events in Rambo coincided with the Hungerford massacre in the UK, wherein a sexually, economically and socially disenfranchised male called Michael Ryan stalked the streets of an idyllic English village, shooting sixteen people down with a variety of firearms before blowing his own head off in the secondary school he had attended as a boy.

Predictably, media hacks and apologetic psychologists argued that Rambo had directly inspired the massacre. However, it is far more plausible that the movie provided an imago of identification for festering resentments that already existed in Ryan’s psyche, legitimating his grievances and easing any last inhibition to their violent expiation. Most discussion focussed narrowly on the space between Ryan’s ears, omitting the all-important post-feminist factors that might lead an Anglo-American working class male to such behaviour: sexual disenfranchisement; economic exclusion; constant vilification in the media; discrimination before the law. All of these themes are addressed in Rambo, which explains the character’s iconic power and resonance.


It is fallacious to consider myth as a dead, ossified cultural construct. Mythic narratives emerge continually from the cultural nexus. Indeed, the contemporary era must be considered especially rich in myth, since the electronic media and the Internet are ubiquitous conceptual oceans across which symbols and narratives collide with unprecedented fecundity. We live in a culture abounding with legendary riches. And John Rambo is one of the most resonant archetypal characters to have emerged in recent years: his plight highlights the ‘male crisis’ currently afflicting men across the Anglosphere.

Madonna: The Material Anglobitch

In Madonna’s Material Girl video, we see the rampant philosophy of the Anglobitch in action. The painfully plain Madonna struts about while tuxedoed males adorn her with expensive jewellery and other luxury items. Males are overtly viewed as ridiculously gullible stooges and meal tickets. Females, here embodied by Madonna, are, however plain, tacitly seen as deities who by sheer virtue of being born female ‘deserve’ riches, attention and unstinting approval from males.

That this arrant propaganda should be so cheerfully received speaks volumes about Anglo-American culture. Far from being the ‘rebel’ she so often claims to be, Madonna merely enacts a heightened form of existing Anglo-American values.


Paradoxically, the mythopoietic entity Madonna projects has become a parody of the Anglo-American female outlook. This relates to the fact she is herself not Anglo-American at all. Her songs and self-presentation are turgid with Latin bombast. However, as part of her infiltration of the media she has craftily honed a heightened image of Anglobitch values with incisive appeal to Anglo-American females. Indeed, this imago has become a standard behavioural model for young Anglo-American girls, indicative of our culture’s inevitable slide towards gynocracy.

The principal myth projected by Madonna is that Anglo women are intensely sexual beings. In fact, all credible research strongly indicates that Anglo-American women are the most sexually anaesthetised in the world. Yet the Anglo media continually bombards us with a stream of palpable nonsense claiming that women are as sexually preoccupied as men. In Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2002) Anne Coulter argues that this theme is a ‘liberal myth’ demonstrating liberal detachment from consensus reality.


While there is considerable truth in this, from the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis the inane projection of Anglo females as hypersexual beings is all part of the Pedestal Syndrome. Because Anglo culture is puritanical and class-bound, sex is a scarce commodity. Anglo women as ‘owners’ of sex are thus imbued with an intrinsic status that explains their arrogance and hypocrisy. A major result of this is the deification of women on pedestals as paragons of virtue, intellect and ability. The tendency to inflate Anglo women’s sexual prowess is part of this process. Indeed, by a process of conceptual inversion, the area where Anglo women are most lacking is the very area where their prowess is most absurdly exaggerated. Madonna’s mythopoietic identity is calculated to maximally exploit this niche.


Material Girl is a term that describes most young Anglo-American females effectively. Of course, as in Madonna’s chipper video, Anglo-American women think the world ‘owes’ them something as a perpetual favour for having been born female in a repressive culture. As Adam Smith wrote, value is determined by scarcity. Anglo women, as ‘owners’ of sex, therefore acquire a sense of existential entitlement that they utterly lack in libertine societies.


However, the Material Girl is also a specific Anglobitch type with particular values. Reared in the post-Madonna era, she grew up surrounded by cultural imagos extolling the virtues of female selfishness. Consequently, she is amongst the most unpleasant Anglobitch types known to observation. The Material Girl is not only especially selfish; she also reaps the benefits of years of ‘emancipation’.

Contemporary Anglo-American teenaged girls are so insufferable because they are recipients of both enormous privilege and staggering advantage. The Material Girl resembles a lifestyle prostitute, for whom prostitution is not merely an aspect of life, but an all-pervasive lifestyle option. Since her whole status hinges on sexual barter for material reward, she is supremely mono-dimensional and utterly bereft of empathy.

'Anglobitch' Entered on Urban Dictionary!

The word 'Anglobitch' has found its way onto 'Urban Dictionary'. It seems to have been placed there by a certain 'Chauvin', clearly a man of intellect and breeding. The pithy (and eerily accurate) entry reads thus:

Anglobitch


An Anglo-American woman or girl, usually white, with a pronounced sense of personal entitlement. The term usually refers to females under thirty, who have grown up with post-feminist 'rights' along with traditional feminine privileges (exemption from personal responsibility, Draft registration or any kind of criticism).

The Anglobitch usually has a wafer-thin, hypocritical personality, an absurdly narrow world-view and is utterly self-absorbed. She wants equality, but only on her own terms (rights without responsibilities). The Anglobitch has emerged in Anglophone countries because such nations tend to have a repressive, puritanical undercurrent; in consequence, Anglo-American females grow up with an overriding sense of being 'owed' something by the world in general, and men in particular. The Anglobitch is also characterised by offhand racism, homophobia and 'classism' - largely due to the absolute exemption from criticism she enjoys.

Virtually any young female in England, America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand can rightly be called an 'Anglobitch'. The Jury remains out on whether the Anglobitch is the product of Anglo-Saxon culture or some intrinsic personality flaw among Anglo-American females.


An estimable entry indeed; and clear proof that our message is reaching out into the wider society. An Urban Dictionary entry is inarguable proof of cultural permeation; a demonstration that the Anglobitch Thesis is achieving widespread acceptance across the Anglosphere.

The revolution moves forward apace...

Midnight Cowboy: the Confounding of Joe Buck

The sordid adventures of Texas cowboy Joe Buck in New York City deflate the popular Anglo myth of the Sixties as an era of sexual liberation. In doing so, the film achieves a counter-mythic status. Midnight Cowboy intimates that any kind of sexual revolution in the Sixties was exclusively an affair of the urban liberal elite, not a mass movement. Because the attitudes of that class are absurdly inflated in the media, young Anglo-American men develop a ridiculously distorted picture of female sexual profligacy: that all women will ‘put out’ for nothing. Midnight Cowboy dissects this myth via the experiences of Joe Buck, gradually stripping away these illusions until only the sterile, selfish reality of the Anglobitch remains. This process might be expressed in the following soliloquy: ‘When I was fourteen, I used to think there was a whole world of women waiting out there. When I was eighteen I was wondering where the orgies were. Now I’m twenty-five I just don’t want to die a virgin.’


Joe Buck arrives in New York from rural Texas fired by stories that the newly liberated women of the metropolis will pay him for his sexual services. He thinks an aged prostitute with a pink poodle is a likely candidate for his affections. However, he is upbraided as a ‘Texas Longhorn’ and instead made to pay this ‘helluva gorgeous chick’ for his pains (Schlesinger, 1969).


In another luckless encounter, a conventional middle-aged woman tells Buck he should ‘be ashamed’ of himself for soliciting her. Only when he permeates the urban liberal class and its idiomatic subculture does he actually manage to fulfil any of his ‘career ambitions’.


It is hard to describe fully what Midnight Cowboy means to us. It serves as a cinematic parable for how Anglo-American men have been betrayed by the liberal subculture. Their hopes of a libertine lifestyle are excited, like those of Joe Buck, by a bombardment of liberal propaganda extolling the ‘liberated’ qualities of the ‘New Woman’.

However, when men seek out these paragons they find instead the same old grasping Anglobitches. They might not be armed with pink poodles, but the old pedestals are still there – and higher than ever. On this sterile reality, their hopes are dashed. Nowhere at the level of mass experience can one find the liberated women feted in the pages of Cosmo: such women only exist in the liberal enclave, as poor Joe Buck found to his cost. Indeed, it is questionable that they exist even there, in that their ‘liberation’ rarely extends beyond the realm of idle rhetoric. ‘Midnight Cowboy’ ultimately questions whether the counterculture really happened at all. When Joe, who embodies querulous Anglo-Saxon manhood, goes seeking this wonder-world of mainstream American women who ‘put out’ for nothing, he finds precisely that – nothing.


This naturally brings us to a burning question that many have asked about the Anglobitch thesis. Are we simple conservatives who reflexively frown on libertine pleasure in the name of some outmoded value system? No, not at all: rather, we question whether the so-called sexual revolution really occurred in Anglo-Americana. Our objection is not moral, but ontological. We do not object to liberalism, we rather question the veracity of liberal claims about post-‘liberation’ Anglo females. Anglobitches still seem to barter sexual favours for personal advantage: nothing has really changed.

Joe Buck is a representative archetype. He started life with the notion that Anglo women are living cornucopias of love, sex and understanding. In Billy Joel’s chipper words:

Tell her about it,
Tell her everything you feel;
Tell her all your crazy dreams
Let her know that you’re for real!
(‘Tell Her About It’)

But Anglo-American males learn very quickly that the Anglobitch is not at all interested in ‘crazy dreams’. Most are interested only in stooges who will furnish them with material wealth. The uneducated and unintelligent are interested only in moronic sadists.

Poor Joe is eventually reduced to selling himself to homosexual men for paltry fees. The media-fed notion that Anglo women are liberated has backfired on him absolutely.

Thus Midnight Cowboy is a perfect explanatory narrative for Anglo-American men. The searing expectation, the crushing disappointment and ultimate humiliation of Joe Buck are universal Stations of the Cross for Anglo manhood.