Ready for Battle? Why the Globalist Gynocrats have to shut us down - and how we can stop them

In my last post, I pointed out that the 2020's will be a crisis decade for men in the West. It is obvious that a Battle of Pills is approaching. The Blue Pilled establishment in the Anglo West desperately needs awakened men back on the gynocratic plantation or returned to the shackles of Sexual False Consciousness in order to achieve its global empire of sex-negativity, misandry and deviance; and it will do anything to achieve that goal.

Awakened men are starting to be seen as a serious social problem. The authorities in Canada, USA and UK are starting to direct their energies against our subaltern empire of blogs, websites and channels. The closure of the Braincells Reddit, Undead Chronic's Channel and Roissy's blog are three skirmishes in this struggle. Now, the tempo will accelerate: left-liberal 'academics' (feminist shills) already speak of concocting online 'counter-narratives' to neutralise and subvert our message. Obviously, our opponents hope to crush the Manosphere by obliterating all major strongholds of Red/Black Pill wisdom in an online Blitzkrieg that leaves us fatally weakened. In doing so, they also aim to eliminate the movement's intellectually dominant minority; that is, its conceptual vanguard or 'thought-leaders'. Of course, killing off a nation's leaders has been a highly effective military strategy since ancient times.

In The Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Mushashi laid great stress on choosing favourable ground and conditions for battle. If we consider our own ground and situation, both are fairly favourable. Firstly, we are fighting in digital space rather than physical reality. Although this has certain disadvantages, the digital realm is ideal for a small, determined band of fighters to hold their own against more numerous opponents. Secondly, we hold the initiative; our message is already 'out there' on the Internet, with widespread acceptance among the West's small minority of awakened men. At best, our opponents are firefighting, like doctors trying to contain an aggressive cancer.

So how do we defend ourselves? The first thing that needs doing is securing our strongholds by backing up all the data contained there. My good friend Richard Scarecrow has already done this with all content on my Anglobitch website, which is now safe for all posterity.

The second and more important step is to prepare for a decisive counter-stroke against our opponents. Every Red/Black pilled renegade should have at least nine sock-puppet accounts on their favoured platform; consider these as redoubts to which you can fall back and clone your content if the authorities shut down your blog, channel or website.

The third step is to continue the struggle with renewed grit and determination. Unlike fallen icons like Roissy or Undead Chronic, replicate all your work on an alternative account or platform the instant the authorities close it down.  Not only will they be left utterly confounded, your message will reach an ever greater audience. The Internet is ideal for this, since digital information can be instantly cloned and reinstated. Additionally, infiltrating Blue Pilled misandrist strongholds such as Incel Tears and the tradcuck Daily Mail discussion boards with sock-puppet accounts will bog down the Blue Pill's hegemonic counter-offensive with feint, deception and subterfuge. Simply pointing the average clown to any Black/Red Pilled source containing the words 'scientific' and 'research' will wholly confound them, especially when disguised as a female, transsexual or baffled cuck. The British Army used this 'swamping' strategy against the IRA in Northern Ireland, infiltrating their ranks with informers until they were no longer able to function. The 'Chadfishing' operations undertaken by the incel community are a humorous variant of this approach, although direct infiltration is far more effective.

Thus armed, we are ready for battle.

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.

The BNP, Protest Voting and the Rise of the Anglobitch

The BNP (British National Party) is a unique aberration in the history of the Anglosphere. Never has a far right wing, neo-Fascist political party achieved so much electoral success in an Anglophone country: as well as having a presence in local Government, they also have not one but TWO MEPS (Members of the European Parliament). Readers outside the UK may not have heard of them, but it is impossible to doubt that their recent successes represent a watershed in Anglosphere politics.

Much learned ink has been spilt on the BNP phenomenon, but one key factor has been overlooked: Anglo-American feminism and its impact on young, disenfranchised males. In an online article, referring to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Arun Kundnani examines who really votes for the BNP:

New research into how people voted in local government by-elections in autmumn 2003 shatters some of the myths about who votes for the BNP. The study indicates that BNP voters are not, as often supposed, disgruntled, elderly people who are uncertain about a changing world. And, the rise of the BNP cannot be attributed to traditional Labour (Democrat) supporters, having grown frustrated with the current direction of their party. The evidence also suggests that those who vote for the BNP are not just being tactical but really do support the party's views. And the theory of BNP success resting on low turnouts does not hold water.

Young support

The most startling revelation of the report, entitled 539 voters' views: a voting behaviour study in three northern towns, is that, in the areas studied, the younger one is the more likely one is to vote BNP. Around one in three of 18-25 year-olds said that they voted for the BNP. 46 per cent said they had voted for the BNP on a previous occasion. While the Labour Party had strong support among older age groups, hardly anyone in the 18-25 category voted Labour (Democrat). In this age group, large numbers of young men have been attracted to the BNP's message - making it the only party whose support is predominantly male.


So the BNP really appeals to a very distinct, and quite unexpected group: young, disenfranchised white males who do not usually vote or take part in politics. Interestingly, this group of males is also the group that has lost most by Anglo-American feminism. The skewing of education in favour of females, for example, has quashed opportunities for young men to improve themselves; and the endless vilification of males in the media has damaged young males' self-esteem. Young, poor white males are now the lowest-achieving group in British schools - and this failure is echoed all around the Anglosphere.

Could the rise of the BNP be directly linked to misandrist agendas emanating directly from Anglobitch feminism? Could it be a visceral response to decades of misandrist vilification from the Anglo-Saxon cultural Establishment as it brutally promotes the Anglobitch and her endless 'rights'? Really, these questions answer themselves. After all, one decisive plank of the BNP's political programme is to remove all women from the workplace, thereby expanding male employment opportunities. And the party's far-ranging racist, anti-immigrant agendas serve to minimize sexual competition for young white males from dark-skinned immigrants lionized by the liberal media.

In fact, what we are witnessing is a hegemonic breakdown, in Antonio Gramsci's terminology. That is, the ideological cement that binds the consent of the masses to the existing social order is crumbling, creating new opportunities for ideological reconstruction. At a more pragmatic level, young white males simply have no reason to support the existing hegemony. The Anglo-American matriarchy simply offers them nothing, making rejection of its misandrist edifice a revolutionary act.

In short, the BNP presents a perfectly packaged range of measures to correct young white males' many gender-based grievances. Is it any wonder they are flourishing?