Anglobitch Jailed for Three Years for False Rape Claim

Where do we start with this one? The Judge in the case is clearly an aged White Knight steeped in the Anglo-Saxon myth of female moral infallibility. Indeed, it is only with considerable reluctance that he jails her at all, even after almost ruining a man's life. He then uses the case to exalt 'authentic' rape victims - when this very case surely casts doubt on the veracity of all female rape claims. The Judge also suggests this slack-mouthed harridan is somehow acting 'out of character' - when, as we all know, vituperative misandry is the true core of the Anglobitch.

It is also notable how Woodhead reflexively avoids all responsibility for her crimes, even blaming her former partner for her sordid career as a prostitute. Seldom was the well-worn Anglobitch agenda of 'privileges without responsibilities' more shamelessly displayed:

A woman who falsely claimed her ex-boyfriend raped her after giving her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam was jailed for three years today.

Kate Woodhead, 31, carried out her "devious" revenge against Paul Joseph after he told her their 18-month relationship was over, Guildford Crown Court was told. Woodhead, who ran livery stables in Surrey, went to police with a friend in April 2009 and told them Mr Joseph had drugged her before attacking her.

She then stole belongings of his worth about £25,000, including an expensive stereo and art prints, and transferred ownership of his Porsche 911 sports car and BMW motorcycle to her own name, intending to sell them. Mr Joseph was arrested and questioned by police but the rape allegation was dropped when officers became suspicious that Woodhead had made it up. She was then arrested herself and was found guilty after a three-week trial.

Judge Neil Stewart told Woodhead, who remained impassive during the sentencing, that the offence was so serious he had no option other than to send her to prison.

He said: "It seems to clear to me that the implication of the jury's verdict is that they accepted the prosecution's case, which was that the offences which form the indictment were all part of a deliberate, and indeed vindictive, campaign waged by you against Mr Joseph as retribution against him in order to secure personal gain for yourself. These offences therefore must be seen as devious and manipulative and you are wholly unrepentant."

Woodhead, of Bracken Lodge in Wisley, Ripley, Surrey, had denied perverting the course of justice, two counts of theft and one of fraud by abuse of position, but was convicted by a jury earlier this year. The court also heard that Woodhead falsely claimed her former partner had entered her details on a prostitution website.


Judge Stewart told Woodhead during the sentencing: "You claimed you were enrolled by him on a prostitution website when the evidence strongly showed that it was you who did that as a means of making some additional income."

The judge told Woodhead that falsely accusing a man of rape can have "very serious" consequences, not only for him but for genuine rape victims. He said cases such as Woodhead's may make a jury more reluctant to convict a man of rape, as it could put doubts in their mind.

The three-year sentence given to Woodhead for perverting the course of justice was intended to act partly as a "deterrent", Judge Stewart added. She had shown a "different side" to her character, leaving her friends and relatives "surprised, astonished and appalled", he said.

Woodhead, who had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a total of 12 months for the theft offences and three months for the fraud. The sentences will run at the same time as the three-year sentence for perverting the course of justice.

Mr Joseph was arrested in May 2009, with the case referred to the Crown Prosecution Service that July. It was the beginning of September the same year that he was told no charges were to be brought.

Speaking after Woodhead was sentenced, IT consultant Mr Joseph said: "I spent most of the year not working. You can't work being on bail. They may say it was £25,000 of items, but it was everything I owned."

None of Mr Joseph's belongings were recovered, the court was told.

He said he thought the sentence was "about right", and added: "She stooped pretty low. I've just got to get on. At the end of the day, she brought it upon herself. Relationships end every day. If someone wants to walk away, you've got to respect it."

SOURCE: UK INDEPENDENT, November 2010

Prostitution, Post-Marriage Relations and Obama’s Unlikely Election

Obama: Elected on the back of soft polygamy, Welfare and the Marriage Strike?

Prostitution is a topic that sharply divides MRAs. On the one hand, some consider prostitution a largely benign institution that cheapens the power of sex, thus knocking Anglobitches off their pedestals of entitlement. Other MRAs point out that many feminists view prostitution as a ‘reappropriation’ of female sexual independence – making it something to be obviously opposed by MRAs. (However, yet other feminists strongly oppose prostitution, concocting bogus figures about levels of trafficking and coercion, further muddying the waters).

In short, prostitution is a baffling topic, on which there is no clear consensus among either MRAs or feminists. What is our own view?

The Anglobitch Thesis broadly considers prostitution in the Anglosphere to be quite distinct from that which occurs in other cultures. This relates to the Disneyfied, puritanical repression that undercuts sexual relations in the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, sex is viewed as a physical function, like eating, not some quasi-mystical sacrament bestowed by women on men. Hence, in the Anglosphere it is broadly in women’s interests to keep this high ‘exchange value’ attached to sex, for any decline in its value means a loss of that ‘princess’ status uniformly granted to women in the Anglosphere. That is why, broadly speaking, prostitution is opposed by Anglo-Saxon feminists like Harriett Harman, and all blame for it laid at the door of (largely imaginary) ‘traffickers’, pimps and most of all, men.

Prostitution attracts the utmost controversy among Anglo-American MRAs

However, many women also oppose prostitution for entirely personal reasons. If men can obtain a cheap, steady supply of sex, more women will end up without a mate, a mortifying fate for most females. After all, most men marry to assuage sexual needs and an endless supply of cheap young female bodies is infinitely preferable to spending half one’s life with an ageing, turkey-necked scold. Of course, the ‘Brazilification’ (socio-economic inequality) that has recently emerged in the Anglosphere also means that fewer men can can now attract a wife, anyway. In short, many women are also on Marriage Strike, in that too few Anglo-American men can now afford to keep one. Many evolutionary psychologists argue that prostitution is very prevalent in Third World countries because there, it is more cost-effective for women to prostitute themselves than marry an impoverished husband. In western countries only 1% of women are prostitutes; in African countries the proportion of prostitution-women is as high as 25%. Indeed, the ‘soft polygamy’ that is arising in the Anglosphere probably represents an expansion of prostitution in response to ‘Brazilification’ – that is, we are rapidly returning to a pre-modern, pre-patriarchal socio-sexual compact closer to the Stone Age than advanced industrial society.

So now we begin to explain the differences of opinion among gender activists of both sexes on this crucial topic. Young, attractive, lower-class women will of course favour prostitution, since they can use it to exploit male sexual needs and earn far more than they ever could in conventional employment. However, old or unattractive women will automatically oppose prostitution, for the same reason they oppose male homosexuality – it will likely leave them childless and mateless in old age, as men opt for quality sex over marital commitment. Indeed, old elite women (a la Harman) are invariably most opposed to prostitution for this very reason.

The same distinction can probably be found among MRAs. The Anglo-American MRA movement is broadly divided into conservatives and progressives. Conservatives, represented by sites like American Women Suck, tend to hold Christian beliefs and strongly oppose prostitution. Progressives, as represented by MGTOW, tend to be agnostic materialists and broadly accepting of prostitution and homosexuality. Both positions hav their problems, however.

‘Anglo-American’ conservatism is somewhat of an oxymoron, in that America is a nation forged in revolt. Moreover, Protestantism is a faith of revolt, and Christianity (sans the Judeo) is a revolutionary hotpotch of idealist eschatology, pacifism, paganism and Marxism (turn the other cheek, accept the pagan Trinity, give away all your possessions). Besides, ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon puritanical culture inherently promotes matriarchal values, so adhering to it is hardly likely to challenge feminism. By contrast, the progressive strand of men’s activism acknowledges some of the problems inherent in Anglo culture, even if its solutions may still be invalid.

In sum, the issue of prostitution is complex, and opinions on it are formed by personal circumstances, politics and culture. That the West is changing, moving away from Marriage towards ‘soft polygamy’ (another form of prostitution, after all) is impossible to doubt. This is shaping new cultural trends – increased rates of singleness, the Marriage Strike, more use of hired sexual services and a rapid expansion of alternative sexual lifestyles. What has not been noted before is that these trends are starting to influence mainstream political events in the Anglosphere, as can be seen in the election of President Obama.


The great unstated truth about Obama is that young, single women made him President. There is something about being a young, single woman that makes someone strongly enamored of generous Welfare programmes. The fact that most young, single women earn little, tend to study non-renumerative subjects at college and have a pronounced sense of entitlement in Anglo-Saxon societies all disposed them to vote for Obama in droves. Of course, the crucial factor in their situation is singleness- specifically, singleness occasioned by the Marriage Strike. Simply put, in the ‘Post-Marriage’ era, an elaborate Welfare State is essential for such women. Since men still earn more, yet no longer trust them enough to marry them, young single women must necessarily look to the State for survival provision. Of course, the Welfare State inherently favours women, anyway – just look at Britain, where men pay most taxes but get little Welfare help - which further explains these women’s electoral choice.

Theirs was a vote for misandrist matriarchy, and long will American men rue their present political administration.

We, Child, Generation : the Weasel words of Anglo-American Feminists

One way in which feminists have secured a chokehold on western civilization in general (and the Anglosphere in particular) is through language. It is a 'given' among modern sociologists and socially-engaged philosophers that language is an integral aspect of social control. Both in the Continental and Anglo-Saxon academic spheres, language is seen as the key to hegemonic dominance: as George Orwell showed us in '1984', twisting or suppressing language necessarily restricts the individual's capacity to actively resist coercive authority.

Given that we are now living in a matriarchy where men in general have few (or no) rights, we would expect language to have been carefully subverted to achieve this ignoble end. A cursory examination will prove this to be just the case. The present author encourages his readers to find many more examples than are given here, for they abound in the hollow rhetoric expounded by Anglo feminists. Indeed, they have filtered beyond the confines of feminist discourse into the culture at large.

The Feminist 'We'
Nowadays, we are always told that World War One affected 'a generation', implying that women endured the same experiences as men in that war. The same is often said of the Second World War, Vietnam, the American Civil War and wars in general. However, a cursory examination of the historical evidence shows that 'a generation' was not punished, at all: it was men, exclusively. Female contributions and sacrifices in any of those wars amounted to a big, fat, zero. For example, the South in the Civil War lost over 20% of its males of military age (16-45). No women were lost in combat. In 1916, the British lost 60 000 men in a single day on the Somme. Not one of these casualties was a woman.

However, the mainstream culture continually assails us with phrases like the 'Vietnam Generation' or the 'Lost Generation', trying to subvert war into a communal arena where men and women suffered equally. It wasn't, though, and let us not forget it.

The 'Child' Soldier
By the same token, we are always told about 'child soldiers', as though female children were represented in equal numbers within that vile practice. They are not. What they really mean is 'boy soldier', so why don't they just say it? Simple: they will not say it because 'boy soldier' confounds the 'victim status' that Anglo feminists have sought to monopolize in order to wrest power from men without demur. So, by pretending that children coerced into fighting are not just boys, by using weasel words to mask this ugly truth, feminists can deny the male-specific nature of under-age military service across the world, retaining their grasp on victim-hood.

'Gendercide'
'Gendercide' is another good example of how the liberal-feminist establishment have subverted language in order to distort reality. In fact, Gendercide should be replaced by a new word, Androcide, since men are almost exclusively its victims. In Bosnia, for example, systematic gendercide always involved the liquidation of males - women were typically evacuated from the extermination zones (though of course a number were also raped). Moreover, the fact that matrilinear cultures like the Jews or Ba'Hais are weak minorities gives powerful testament to the fact that Gendercide is overwhelmingly directed against males. After all, while women might be raped and coerced they are still far more likely to survive pogroms and race-massacres than men, which is where the matrilinear custom developed.

From the above, we can see that feminists have cleverly twisted language to give the false impression that specifically anti-male oppressions are burdens equally shared between men and women. Of course, this is so women can monopolize 'victim status' and so pursue their misandrist program of social disruption without interference. However, feminist-leaning liberals are always quick to make certain forms of oppression female-specific. 'Rapist' or 'child abuser' have become synonymous with males, while victims of these crimes are invariably assumed to be female (two false assumptions, both sustained by ongoing linguistic manipulation). Moreover, the Anglo-American media invariably show females preferential treatment in every case ('Pretty White Girl Syndrome'), demonstrating their pliancy to feminist agendas. Of course, given the puritanical, misandrist nature of Anglo culture, we would expect nothing less.

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.

A Few Good Men: Anglo Feminism and the Mythical ‘Man Shortage’

Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s ‘Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman’ (2003):

‘A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.’

This ‘man shortage’ has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no ‘man shortage’ at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead’s figures, there is obviously a ‘woman shortage’, confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focussing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.

The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a ‘man shortage’. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of ‘marrying up’ in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.

Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women’s interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of ‘liberation’ they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When ‘a shortage of men’ is translated correctly as ‘a shortage of men with more wealth than most women’ the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.

Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of ‘patriarchy’. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant ‘Pedestal Syndrome’ neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.