History's Black Swans: Why Societies Which Regulate Female Sexuality Endure

Studying our own tumbledown age with a critical eye, it is easy to think that ancient people were far smarter than we are. Above all, they seemed to understand the reality of female nature much better than we do. Although they cloaked their insight in mystical trappings for the ignorant masses of their own times, the wisest of the ancients definitely seemed to know that allowing women unlimited sexual freedom leads inexorably to the cock carousel, rampant hyper-hypergamy, mass inceldom, the proliferation of Dark Triad genes and  social decay. Most of their laws and customs seemed to focus on strict regulation of female sexuality for this very reason, although it was seldom stated openly.

However, I do not believe the ancients all had Tesla IQs. It just seems that way because the ancient cultures which still exert an influence on our own time were only a small minority of those which ever existed. In truth, the vast majority  of ancient societies died forgotten because they failed to regulate female sexuality; 'successful' ancient societies which restricted female behaviour were unrepresentative Black Swans, not the normative standard. We know very little about the matriarchal Etruscans or Carthaginians compared to the patriarchal, co-alpha Romans who conquered them; and this is because matriarchal societies lose wars, achieve little and leave no imprint on history. This uneven impact on posterity distorts our perception of the ancient past, creating the false impression that all ancient cultures shared the same insights into female nature; in truth, they did not.

The Fall of Carthage: Matriarchies leave little beyond ruins

Doubtless some men in history's successful cultures did have the Tesla IQs necessary to create robust patriarchal memes in the first place; perhaps they studied history or the dysfunctional cultures around them, or simply observed the lower classes in their own societies. Smart men in ancient Greece or Israel must have noticed that their own national underclasses achieved very little compared to social elites, just as in our modern Anglosphere. Modern underclass 'culture' (rap-babble, tabloid newspapers, Netflix, sport) will be forgotten in 40 years, while the upper middle-class academic culture in the STEM departments of elite universities will endure for centuries. That is because upper middle-class culture is still rooted in monogamy and stable family structures, while underclass culture is built on the sociopathic chaos arising from unrestricted female mate choice; that is the only difference.

British Chavs: Underclass Chaos personified

Considered as a whole, the ancients were no smarter or wiser than we are; it just seems that way because we only 'see' the 'successful' patriarchal Black Swan cultures of history.

British Anglobitch Mooches $150 000 a Year in Benefits

Many leftist Americans are enamored of Britain's elaborate Welfare State, particularly its NHS (National Health Service). However, while British men provide the taxes to sustain this vast cornucopia of public resources, all evidence indicates that women are its primary beneficiaries. The following article describes a single mother who makes six figures and lives in a mansion - all without raising a finger. As ever in the pan-Anglosphere matriarchy, women are set on pedestals above reproof or criticism, while men - the eternal stooges in this sordid melodrama - foot the bill. In Britain, 99% of those living on the streets are men. Women invariably get the best public housing, healthcare and other resources. These 'State Brides' are not holding out for some White Knight alpha male to solve their self-made problems - the pliant, misandrist pan-Anglosphere state (funded by the taxpayer's infinite largesse) does that every time. Let American men beware - Obama's reforms won't help you one jot. Big State government in the anglosphere serves only one constituency: women.

Why else do you think so many women voted for him?

BRITAIN’S benefits shambles was exposed last night by the case of a mother-of-six who receives £7,000 a month of taxpayers’ cash to live in a £2million mansion. Critics hit out at the Government for overseeing a system that entitles jobless Essma Marjan to claim almost £100,000 a year in housing benefit and other free handouts. The money allows her to live in a plush five-bedroom villa in a desirable part of London, close to the home of Sir Paul McCartney.

The 34-year-old single mother says she was forced to move after the birth of her five-month-old son meant her previous home was too small for her growing brood. She even moaned: “The house is lovely and very big but I don’t have enough furniture to fill it.”

Yesterday, outraged politicians called for an overhaul of the system which allows Miss Marjan to legitimately claim £1,600-a-week in housing benefit, adding up to £84,000 a year. She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, including child benefit. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Theresa May said: “We cannot go on with a situation where families on housing benefits live in million-pound mansions.

“We plan to review the whole system to make sure it is fair. Families on benefits should not be able to live in houses that people in work and not on benefits can’t afford.”

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “This is a huge bill, which is clearly excessive. The current rules put councils in the impossible situation of having to pay for houses chosen by the claimant, even if they cost an absolute fortune. Of course people shouldn’t be left without a home but there are plenty of better value houses. This is costly for taxpayers and deprives other people of much needed assistance.”

London-born Miss Marjan found the house in Maida Vale, north-west London, herself on the internet and rented it through a private letting agency, rather than wait for Westminster City Council to give her a vacant property on its books. She then applied to the council for £1,600-a-week in housing benefit, the maximum allowed. She shares the property with her six children, Zekia, 14, Abdulhakim, 13, Jehad, 11, Hamza, ten, and Ayman, two, and Nasir, five months.

Her first four children were fathered by London-born tiler Clint Benjamin and the last two by Pakistani lawyer Arfan Razaq. She has split from both. Describing her good fortune, Miss Marjan said: “I moved here at the beginning of the month as I’m entitled to a five-bedroom house. I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn’t have any houses big enough.”

The four-storey house boasts five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double living room, and a large fitted kitchen-diner with French doors leading on to a landscaped garden. The family also has two flat-screen televisions and several leather sofas, while the wooden floorboards are scattered with her children’s toys.

Westminster City Councillor Melvyn Caplan said: “The whole system is entirely wrong and people should not be able to choose where they live and the Government then have to pay that amount. It is totally unfair. We’ve been calling for some time for the Government to reform this.”

His fellow councillor Phillipa Roe added: “The Government has repeatedly pledged to reform housing benefit but failed to do so. The whole system needs a radical review and ministers should stop dragging their heels and get on and do it.”

A neighbour of Miss Marjan said: “If she has managed to find a loophole in the system that allows her to live here when there are thousands of other people close to the poverty line then it is ridiculous. It’s unfair to other people who have worked hard for their money.”

The exorbitant benefit claims are possible under Labour’s controversial Local Housing Allowance, which enables council tenants to rent property from private landlords and apply for benefit. The rates range from a single room in a shared house up to properties with five bedrooms and the benefits paid out are based on rental figures for the area. The maximum amount is set by central government.

Other recent benefits scandals include a single mother of eight who claimed £90,000 a year to live in a £2.6million mansion in Notting Hill, west London. In total, 16 families are living in million-pound-plus London properties funded by the LHA.

Source: Daily Express

ChavShit: The Edlington Outrage, our Feral Underclass & the Rise of the Single Mother

Most of my readers are North Americans, and I welcome this. After all, the USA is the dominant country in the Anglosphere and educating Americans about the over-policed, politically correct, welfare-dependent, chav-infested nightmare that is contemporary Britain is thus an important task. The outrage outlined below is taken from The Times (London). Clearly, the rise of the dysfunctional single mother on long-term benefit dependence is directly implicated in incidents like these. The 36 year-old mother of the two vile Yahoos described below had only this to say of their sickening crimes: “It’s got nowt to do with me. They weren’t even in my care.”

Maybe they weren't, but they certainly were for most of their ragged lives. It is self-evident that Anglo-American feminism is directly responsible for outrages like this. Obviously, as Professor Daniel Amneus has shown, a father's absence from the family unit has a variety of negative effects on his children's well-being, including a heightened risk of delinquency. However, the fact that Anglo-Saxon culture sets women atop pedestals has allowed irresponsible sows like this to pump out child after dysfunctional child without censure or rebuke. Now, Britain is beset by a feral army of murderous parasites, stealing and leeching their way from cradle to grave. The popular international image of Britain as a land of gracious manners, social decorum and quaint, old-world charm is effectively meaningless - a fossilized perception from a lost age.

Sixties feminism began the slippery slide, a deranged Pickett's Charge towards mass delinquency and social dysfunction. When the feminist agenda of rights-without-responsibilities reached the broad female masses in the mid-Eighties, its impact cohered perfectly with the rise of long-term unemployment in British working class communities wasted by Thatcherite policies. This gave underclass women carte blanch to start families without fathers; indeed, they were rewarded for doing so. The more dysfunctional children they produced, the more benefits they received - so the more children they produced. By contrast, decent and industrious people were actively penalized for trying to live reasonably. Aside from the dysgenic effects of such a policy, it made lifetime welfare-dependence a normal aspiration among underclass females - a 'right' that can no longer be challenged. As ever, our hands are bound by Anglo-American feminism and its tired, destructive mantra: women can do no wrong, women can do no wrong...

It will be noted that her horde of brutalized children were born to a number of different fathers, as is now usual among the British underclass. At the time of the offence, the boys' father - 'a violent drunk' - was newly separated from his partner. None of these males was remotely capable of adopting normal paternal responsibilities. Of course, when female mate-choice is unfettered from the stabilizing hand of patriarchy, the Stone Age is never far away. Women by nature prefer polyandrous 'line marriages' to shiftless, sociopathic misfits; and if this trend is allowed to continue unabated, the West looks surely doomed.


On a steeply sloping stretch of abandoned wasteland near Edlington two brothers decided to torture two children to within an inch of their lives.

The brothers, aged 10 and 11, had played the same game the week before. They had kicked and punched an 11-year-old boy, stamped on his head and then, picking up a brick and pinning him against a tree, had asked if he wanted to die. The boy fled when the brothers were interrupted by a passer-by, but there was to be no lucky escape on Saturday, April 4.

That day the brothers chose a more isolated spot for their attack. To reach it they turned their backs on the South Yorkshire village and passed along a narrow track before hurdling a ditch to reach open land. They went downhill through the long grass, negotiating ferns, thistles and brambles en route to a winding, wooded stream. Far in the distance came the screams, yells and laughter of children at play on the recreation ground.

The victims were two children, best friends aged 9 and 11. They lured them to a flooded former quarry known as the Brick Pond with the promise of showing them a fox. When the boys got there, the attack began. The brothers beat them, sexually humiliated them, burnt them with cigarettes and hit them with bricks and sharpened sticks. They told them that they were going to kill them.

One brother was reported to have filmed parts of the attack on a mobile phone stolen from the younger victim. The brothers were also reported to have danced around at one stage chanting: “We’re going to prison! We’re going to prison!”

When they had finished torturing the boys, the brothers left to help their father to build a shed at local allotments. They were arrested there after the youngest boy was found wandering the streets, barefoot and dazed. The man who spotted him had thought initially that he had been covered in red paint. Only when he took a closer look did he see that the boy was saturated with blood.

As the man and his wife cared for the boy, their son went out to the Brick Pond to search for the boy’s friend. He found him unconscious in a small ravine where a rail line had once run, half-submerged in water and naked from the waist down. The boy had a deep wound in the back of his head, caused by a broken sink being smashed down upon him.

An air ambulance crew took more than an hour to stabilise the boy before he could be moved. Both boys were taken to hospital; the elder, in a critical condition, spent two days on a ventilator in intensive care.

The father of the 11-year-old victim said last night that if his son had been left for half an hour more it would have been too late. He said that his son had been strangled with barbed wire and looked like something out of a horror film. “He had holes all over his head, cuts and gashes to his throat — everywhere. He was cut from his head to his feet. At first, he could not see. He was blinded from where they had smashed him so much and stamping on his face.” He said that his son had been forced to eat glass and had told him: “I just couldn’t swallow it.”

Three days after the attack the brothers were charged with attempted murder. Usually caked in dirt and grime and wearing tattered clothing, the pair were washed and scrubbed for their appearance at a youth court in Doncaster. One wore a red England football shirt, the other a grey Umbro T-shirt. The younger boy was so small that he could barely see over the dock.

As the narrative proceeded, journalists who had covered vile criminal cases for decades stopped taking notes because their hands were shaking too much. A court usher started to cry. Others turned pale. No one had heard the like of it.

The brothers took their victims to a mound of timber, described as a den, which was hidden from public view and beat them. They then moved them to the foot of a 15ft ravine and inflicted hideous injuries on them. They robbed the boys of a mobile phone and £4, beat them with sticks and forced them to kiss each other, to commit sex acts on each other and then to urinate in each other’s mouths. They burnt the younger boy’s ears and eyelids with cigarettes and threw rocks and bricks at him. They forced him to eat nettles and stamped on his face and groin.

Afterwards one of the brothers broke a branch from a tree and drove the sharpened end into the boy’s arm, penetrating to the bone. A lit cigarette was then pushed into the open wound. Finally, the brothers announced that they were supposed to go to meet their father, but could not leave yet as they had not killed the boys, who would be able to identify them to the police. They told the younger boy that they would strangle him but then said that he should go away and kill himself. The boy picked up the sharpened stick that had been used to injure him and tried to ram it down his own throat.

He was the lucky one. His friend suffered much worse and pleaded to the brothers: “Leave me. I can’t see. Leave me to die.” At which the brothers picked up an abandoned sink and dropped it on the back of his head. He was left for dead, unconscious and with ligature marks around his neck. A noose was later recovered nearby.


Theirs was a tough, abusive childhood. They were from a dysfunctional family of seven brothers and stepbrothers aged from 8 to 19. Home was on a former council estate in a north Doncaster suburb. It was a family whose 36-year-old matriarch, approached after her sons’ arrest for attempted murder, felt able to yell through her letterbox: “It’s got nowt to do with me. They weren’t even in my care.”

The pair had been in her care, for what that was worth, throughout their lives until, 25 days before the attack, they were taken away by social services and placed with a foster family seven miles away in Edlington.

One former neighbour said that the mother’s life was so dominated by alcohol and cannabis that she “just doesn’t give a s***” about her children, while her partner was described as “a violent drunk”.

A neighbour said: “She never cooked a meal for them. They just scavenged for food or ate fish and chips and stuff.” A local teenager recalled: “Every day I saw them they were scruffier. Their fingernails were always black. Their shoes were too big for them. They used to scavenge trainers and tracky bottoms from skips. When it rained they’d go to a sports shop and steal umbrellas.”

By February this year the elder of the two had appeared before the courts on four separate occasions for violence, common assault and battery, for which he received a 12-month supervision order in January. The same month his brother was reprimanded for common assault and assault causing actual bodily harm. When the attack happened in April, he was already on bail for two assaults and a burglary.

The two victims appear to be making a remarkable recovery. Though traumatised by their ordeal, they can smile and laugh; they are playing outside again. To them and to their traumatised families, both South Yorkshire Police and Doncaster social services owe an explanation. Could and should they have intervened sooner to end the brothers’ lawless rampage?

And there were have it - the sterling results of Welfare-dependent underclass matriarchy. What music they make! But it behoves us to ask what lessons we can draw from the atrocity above.

The specific British problem is that it has a US-type economy, wherein elites reinforce their already entrenched privileges generation after generation. This creates a vast, alienated underclass with no hope of social mobility and little stake in mainstream society. However, because Britain retains a broadly European social outlook, it deals with these Americanized malcontents with a lax, European approach; and the feral underclass views this as a mark of weakness, not any kind of deterrent. Thus, caught between American economic policy and European social policy, the UK promotes the growth of its dangerous underclass like no other country on Earth. If things continue in this conflicted groove, Britain will soon be demographically dominated by a vast, indigenous underclass and a growing core of Islamic malcontents. After all, in Britain white middle class emigration is at an all time high (200 000 a year), an irreversible drain of brains and talent.

The die is cast; you must leave now, while you still can.

Chavs, Hogarth & Turbo-Capitalism: The Anglobitch Debate Considered

What are the broad findings of the preceding debate? How can it redefine the Anglobitch Thesis?

To sum up, Turbo capitalism and feminism have combined with certain traditional Anglo-Saxon values to produce an increasingly dysfunctional and unstable Anglosphere. The traditional Anglo features – repression, class distinction, subculturalism, chivalry, male exclusion – only became lethal when Anglo feminism and Turbo-capitalism arose (like the different chemicals comprising a lethal injection). The following list tries to unravel and expand these ramifications:

• Anglo cult of novelty and progress, eroding traditional wisdom and institutions for sociopathic ‘Me-Ism’ (see Coupland’s Generation X)
• Anglo cult of objectivity (pragmatism in the US, empiricism in the UK) leading to lack of self-awareness among the Anglo-American elites, an abridged sense of the ‘other’ and little will or capacity for remedial action
• The Internet – more damaging to Angloculture than most others due to limited social bonds, subcultural values and lack of common experience
• Imbalance of Anglo culture in favour of Reason (William Blake’s Urizen), to the neglect of emotional, spiritual and social factors
• Anglo puritanism and repression – creates sense of entitlement among Anglo-American women and adverserial gender-relations
• Being more recent than, say, Scandinavian feminism, Anglo feminism is still relatively undeveloped so Anglo women have acquired rights while retaining privileges
• Internationalist, internet-led ‘turbo-capitalism’ that weakens participative democracy, promotes unrealistic ‘celebrity standards’, creates a chav underclass, widens socio-economic divides and promotes mass immigration to do Gamma jobs indigents cannot afford to take
• The Anglo-Saxon class system, that values birth class more than secondary social factors, links class to gender relations and promotes social subcultures (Bourdieu’s ‘class fractions’)
• Anglo social inequality promotes alienation and self-exclusion among Beta and Gamma males, leading to higher crime rates, more risk-taking behaviour (the gangsta cult) and violence towards women.

One of the most interesting observations is that when men have no genetic stake in a given society (a mate and children, or reasonable hope of them) they simply have no reason to be pleasant (let alone chivalrous) towards women. I found a good example of this on my own YouTube channel; viewers had limited interest in my conceptual Anglobitch shows, great interest in a white girl being beaten to a pulp by a Hispanic (80% of the viewers prefer the beatdown). I doubt this would be the case even twenty years ago; now, there are far more single men viewing women through disinterested (or even hostile) eyes. Where this will end, I cannot guess.

Although the Anglosphere is beset by a wide variety of problems - social closure, economic 'Brazilification', political corruption and widespread alienation, it is obvious that most of these problems can be traced to worsening gender relations. For example, the burgeoning 'chav'/guido underclass is the product of single-mother led, Welfare-dependent post-feminist families. In addition, underclass males without prospects or resources will inevitably resort to crime and violence in order to attract a mate, since no other options are available to them. Male alienation, rising crime rates, dysgenic breeding habits and declining national IQs can all be traced to the rise of Anglobitch feminism and non-regulation of female sexual instincts. As Robert Wright of Harvard opines, a society with high percentages of single men will soon cease to be viable. Anglo-American feminists are single-handedly responsible for this far-reaching social crisis - no other culprit fits the bill so perfectly.

I, Rookh Kshatriya, have always assumed that the Anglosphere could be saved if Anglo-American feminism could be caged and its dysfunctional, atavistic impact reversed. I am now beginning to question that – perhaps the Anglosphere is doomed. Too many essential Anglo-American social mechanisms seem to be broken beyond repair.

Chavs, Neurotypes and Anglobitches – The Death of Our Civilisation

The New Sociopathic/Narcissistic game of low-IQ life in the declining Anglosphere

Autistic traits were once - if perhaps not normative - much more widespread than they are today. Hence many traditional institutions have well-integrated autistic traits (formal academic education for instance, which is now entirely irrelevant to the narcissistic majority); since they date from an era when autistic traits (marginalized today) exerted a more central social influence.

The intellectual, abstract type complains much about lack of relationships and personal failure (especially men, who bear the brunt of reproductive competition). However, they are just maladjusted to a new 'neuro-reality' unfolding around us. For good or ill, this new reality - which extols (and promotes) low abstract intelligence (IQ) but high social intelligence (sociopathy and narcissism) - will ultimately be incapable of sustaining the core functions of civilization. This is why western (especially Anglo-Saxon) countries increasingly have to employ people from non-narcissist cultures (especially the Far East and India) to do the mental spade-work required to keep things ticking over.

Social change is caused by cyclic waves of neuro-genetic re-population and we are living through a massive one now; perhaps the biggest since the industrial revolution, when autistic genes began to proliferate. Today, however, narcissism (and to a lesser extent psychopathy) are now the prevailing values. Look at any Anglo-Saxon country: it is quite obvious that narcissists with the attention-spans of goldfish are breeding like rats. The Flynn Effect reached a peak in 1990; and the subsequent decline of the western IQ is intimately associated with the rise of the narcissistic sociopath in every Anglophone country. By contrast, high functioning autistics are a dwindling group because of their low birthrates and general lack of success. They adhere to the old post war consensus and its values, increasingly meaningless fossils in the new narcissist empire.

The key to this ‘neuro-takeover’ is Anglo-American, or 'Anglobitch', feminism. Because women 'naturally' eschew males of high intelligence or emotional stability and prefer low IQ thugs (a demonstrated fact), female emancipation of sexual choice instantly boosted the narcissist/sociopath population from the late 60s onward. And this in turn led to the creation of a narcissist/sociopath culture to placate them, the American Idol 'instant fix'. This is why the ancients insisted on strict regulation of female sexuality, they knew that unchecked female sexual preference was inconsistent with civilization. These factors may be implicated in the rise and fall of civilizations (or phases in the same civilzation):

•Advanced industrial society emerges, leading to wealth and lifestyle decadence.
•The old autistic skills of hard work and abstract intelligence used to create the industrial society are eclipsed by social intelligence and the narcissist media culture locks into place. Now everyone is 'special', 'chosen' and a 'star' - no matter how ugly, stupid or talentless.
•Women are sexually emancipated, boosting the narcissistic population with their Thug Preference. Matriarchy becomes dominant among the burgeoning urban underclass; women from this class produce dangerous tribes of low-IQ, dysfunctional children using a polyandrous gaggle of shiftless fathers.
•The Flynn Effect reaches a peak. Then IQ rapidly declines. There is permeation of society by unstable Chav/Wigga dummies and universal social/cultural decline. Mass immigration further weakens what remains of cultural cohesion. This is our present situation.

A father any child could be proud of...

Although this model is trite, is plausibly suggests how matriarchal feminism and cycling neurotypes are implicated in the process of cultural growth and decline. However, the collapse of our own advanced post-industrial civilization will have permanent repercussions on the environment; moreover, the fall of the West will see the torch of progress and endeavor pass to the East for the first time in centuries.

If only the Sixties 'progressives' had known: when men relinquish control of female sexuality, the stage is set not for Utopia but for Anarchy, Chavdom and the fall of civilization. Smart move, hippies.

They will be 'running society' in a few years - a chilling thought

Drama, French and Media Studies: Educating Women is Economically Pointless

The following piece of news is illuminating. Educating women in Britain has only created an 'academic underclass' with useless degrees in drama and flower arranging. Note how the blame is placed at the feet of 'Government' - the fact that women seek out these useless subjects for study of their own volition is never discussed. Also, they are said to have 'abandoned' serious topics of study such as mathematics and physics, while the historical record indicates they have never been great achievers in those disciplines. Indeed, the fact that women automatically gravitate towards the path of least resistance in every sphere of life can explain the utter irrelevance of education to the vast majority of them:

Girls are in danger of becoming an educational "underclass" as they abandon tough science and language subjects in favour of softer options such as media studies, it is claimed today. A new report turns on its head the widespread belief that girls are outshining boys at school and beyond.

It claims crude Government targets are concealing an alarming trend for girls to shun the most academically challenging subjects. According to the report from right-leaning think-tank Politeia, the failure of Government policies to improve women's chances begins at school where girls seem to be doing well. They have pulled ahead of boys at GCSE and A-level and now account for 59 per cent of university students. But girls, according to report author Dr Sheila Lawlor, in fact have lower educational aspirations than they did a decade ago.

They risk becoming marginalised in an "academic ghetto" as they increasingly desert traditionally tough disciplines such as maths, physics and modern languages. The number of girls taking A-levels in physics and maths has declined over the past decade even though 25,000 more girls are staying on to do A-levels, the report said. In physics, the decline is nearly 10 per cent. A similar trend applies to French and German while the numbers taking media studies have more than tripled. Drama entries have practically doubled. The number of women taking physics and mathematical sciences at university drops further, according to the report.

"Are girls now better educated? If anything, the evidence suggests the reverse" said the pamphlet titled "Forever Enslaved? Female Dependency and the State".

"Far fewer girls than boys take the more rigorous subjects and ... the overall number of girls taking such subjects has fallen dramatically. By contrast the 'soft options', the less academically challenging subjects such as media studies and drama, are growing.

"Women's aspirations do not appear to be as high as they were a decade ago, nor as high as men's, in terms of taking the academically rigorous subjects at school or university.

"We may now be looking at a future academic underclass peopled by two many women who will have been deprived of the education needed to equip them as full members of the human race."

The report blames an official obsession with targets which monitor boys and girls separately and treat women as "a race apart".

"The culture of numbers and targets masks the comparative poverty and aspiration of women, academically and intellectually."

Women are further failed when they reach the job market as policies designed to help them spectacularly backfire, claims the report. Benefits designed to help working families mostly go to women, inviting them to take jobs "no matter how dead end the prospects". Dependent on state handouts, they find themselves trapped in low-status menial work.

"Women do not need low-level, part-time, poorly paid jobs, nor should they be induced into taking them by the patronising pin money of the state," the report says.

Meanwhile maternity rights are too prescriptive, forcing growing numbers of women into a pattern which involves taking around a year off for each baby. They often return to lower-level jobs or may not be hired at all because the growing bill for maternity pay could put off employers.

"Women should be able, without the inducements of the state, to decide on how best to fulfil the commitments of maternity and employment. It may be that a longer career break when children are at the pre-school age (followed by professional retraining) wil be better.

"Or a far shorter break which avoids serious disruption might be preferred if full-time childcare could be arranged."

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!

Chavs and Anglobitches: Anglo Feminism and the Anglo-American Male Crisis

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent – Isaac Asimov

Aaron Kipnis shows how the United States has the highest rate of boys and young men incarcerated in juvenile halls, jails, boot camps, mental hospitals, recovery hospitals and adult prisons compared to any other nation (Kipnis, 2002). Unfortunately, Kipnis, a psychologist wastes large amounts of ink on a ‘psychological’ explanation. Not that there is anything amiss about the causes he lists: ineffectual and irrelevant education; father absence; sexual and emotional abuse, not least by women; poverty and economic exclusion; spiritual poverty; lack of positive role models; anti-male bias in the media; anti-boy bias in schools; the list is virtually endless.

But all of these ‘psychological’ factors only can be explained by cultural and social forces. In an open question to Dr Kipnis, we ask: why are you begging the question? The cause of these iniquities is easily identified: Anglo-Saxon culture! Why else would Anglo-Saxon countries find it hardest to integrate males? It must be that Anglo-Saxon culture embodies values that ostracise, damage and exclude men: for the only difference between Anglo-Saxon countries and the rest of the advanced world is culture itself.

A Brace of British Chavs:

The other Anglo Saxon countries, notably Britain, have similar problems with males: for instance, Britain incarcerates more young men than any European country (Riddell, 2006). Indeed, the public misbehaviour of feral 'chavs' (moronic underclass youths) is rapidly becoming a national crisis. Now, if England and America had a diet of peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches, and young males habitually ate such sandwiches, before long every half-baked ‘expert’ under the sun would be shouting: “Peanut butter-and-jello sandwiches are pushing our young men off the rails!” But, amazingly, the true distinguishing feature – namely a puritanical culture that ostracises men as sexualised beings – is never mentioned at all.

Isn't She Lovely? The New Breed of Anglobitch:

Again, why do women flourish in Anglo-American countries in a manner unthinkable anywhere else in the world? Why are there hundreds of courses in women’s studies in universities across England and America, and not a single comparable course in men’s studies? Again, the answer is simple: Anglo-Saxon culture. Because it is puritanical, it automatically places women on pedestals of existential supremacy, since they possess sex in a repressive social context. Consequently, Anglo-American media, politics and education reflexively lionise women, while offhandedly vilifying men as child abusers, morons and cannon fodder. And then the authorities querulously wonder why men are in revolt! Or why young Anglo-Saxon males are confused, hobbled with low self-esteem; or why they are increasingly a danger to themselves and others, suicidal or blowing away their teachers and classmates in high school. The answer is obvious, not elusive: culture, culture, culture!

The Fall-out from Anglobitch Feminism: