The Masks of Hate: Misandry and the Anglo-American 'Hate Crime' Industry

Stamping out 'Hate Crime' is a prominent political theme across the English-speaking world. Hatred of ethnic or religious groups, homosexuals and even the disabled is now strictly illegal. The following description of Hate Crime is taken from the British Home Office's official website (although analogous homilies can doubtless be found across the Anglosphere):

A hate crime is any criminal offense that is motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim’s:

* disability
* race
* religion or belief
* sexual orientation
* transgender

All hate crime is important. No hate crime is too minor to report to the police. Anyone can be the victim of a hate crime. We all have a racial identity, all have a sexual orientation, all have some sort of beliefs. Anyone of us could be targeted because of some aspect of our identity. Tackling hate crime supports each and every one of us.

Hate crime is different to other forms of crime:

* hate crime targets people because of their identity. It is a form of discrimination that infringes human rights and keeps people from enjoying the full benefits of our society
* research has shown that hate crimes cause greater psychological harm than similar crimes without a motivation of prejudice
* hate crime creates fear in victims, groups and communities and encourages communities to turn on each other

If the Anglobitch Thesis is true (which it is), the Anglosphere must have an inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men that undercuts these lofty pronouncements. And this is exactly what we find. For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.

Examples? We do not have to look far. The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews - but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. As Gauleiter Julius Streicher observed: "The steady drip hollows the stone." And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.

Misandry is also enshrined in Anglo-American law. In its practical application, the law invariably delivers pro-female outcomes, with women usually receiving half the male sentence for the same offense. Moreover, divorce laws are absurdly biased in favor of women, with the male frequently reduced to penury or suicide by the courts' shameless misandry. The fact that many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

In Anglophone nations with extensive welfare programs such as Britain, the deployment of welfare invariably favors women, despite men contributing the overwhelming bulk of taxes. Over 90% of homeless persons are male. Moreover, the British National Health Service spends vast sums on female-specific health issues like breast cancer. By contrast, male-specific health issues such as suicide receive little recognition, let alone funding. In the United States, males have to register for the draft to be eligible for certain state scholarships. By contrast, women (who already reap the benefits of a female-biased education system) do not. Indeed, draft-registration is still nominally compulsory for all American males, despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media.

In light of the foregoing discussion, it must be said that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere. Despite this, all the noble pronouncements about the need to 'eradicate hate' never address the cloying misandry endemic in Anglo-American institutions.

This is a telling omission that strongly confirms the Anglobitch Thesis. While the Anglosphere nations can redress repressive race, class and creed agendas, misandry is too deeply embedded in Anglo-Saxon culture (as a function of its puritanical ethos) to be similarly challenged. Indeed, to do so would effectively disparage the entire conceptual thrust of Anglo culture, which is why we can never trust our governments or other formal institutions to defend male interests.



It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

More Untimely Anglobitch Meditations

The Anglobitch Poll: More Votes for Mackinnon, Please!
Thanks for your votes on the 'top Anglobitch' poll. One thing surprises me though - no votes yet for Catherine Mackinnon! This evil piece of repressive Anglo shit has done her utmost since the Seventies to advance her twisted Anglobitch 'rights without responsibilities' agenda. Worse yet, she yearns to ban pornography and prostitution, reducing all men to the level of denatured eunuchs. Of all women cursed with the name 'Anglobitch', this one deserves roasting over a slow fire above all others.

Why Women are attracted to Moronic Thugs
Juvenile delinquents typically have IQs of 80, in the semi-retarded range. These 'live wires' are, in fact, mentally dead. And this explains why women are attracted to them. According to sociobiologists, 'like marries like' in terms of height, weight, ethnicity, race, IQ and general coloring. Given that women's IQs are typically lower than those of males, women find violent delinquents attractive because their semi-retarded levels of intelligence are naturally closer to their own. Women feel little attraction to men of eminently superior intelligence since their own IQs are so much lower. Research indicates that most people marry/date those within 5 IQ points of themselves. This goes a long way to explaining why men of great brilliance such as Newton, Sidis, Beethoven or Kant found it impossible to form relationships with women.

Declining Male Fertility and the Rise of the Anglobitch
Over the past thirty years, the male sperm count in most western nations has steadily fallen. In the UK, for instance, almost 30% of males now cannot father a child without medical intervention. No doubt pollution and other testosterone-reducing factors in foodstuffs and the built environment have contributed to this sad state of affairs. However, an interesting tangent is the perfect correlation between falling sperm counts and the rise of the Anglobitch. Could this Medusa have arisen had men been strong, virile and at the peak of their manly powers?

Little Princess Syndrome and the Decline of the Anglosphere
The most devastating proof of Anglo-American gynocratic supplication to the Anglobitch has to be the Little Princess cult that has turned nearly all young Anglo-Saxon females into venomous, entitled young reptiles. Read more about it here.

If women truly wanted equality, no one would mind. The problem is, they only want equality when it suits them. The rest of the time, they want to 'play Princess' - especially when it comes to draft registration or healthcare equality.

The Perils of Chauvinism: Eschatological Assumptions Rampant
Eschatology is broadly the study of 'end times', the notion that we are living on the last days of the Earth. Many theologians argue that the early Christianity of Jesus and his disciples cannot be understood without reference to eschatology; for example, Jesus' wildly impractical injunctions to give away all one's possessions. In the modern context, chauvinists like Dick Masterson have seemingly adopted the same Neo-Christian 'eschatological consciousness'. How so, and why is this dangerous?

Chauvinism can be an amusing approach to challenging Anglo-American feminisms, but in some ways it is fraught with peril. The problem with most chauvinists is that they operate with an eschatological consciousness; that is, they tend to assume that women are in (or will shortly assume) traditional roles. Unfortunately, Anglo-American women are now dominant, such that Anglo-American cultures have to be considered matriarchies; and there is no evidence that this is going to change in the immediate future.

Given this reality, the perils implicit in chauvinism become clear. When chauvinists call for women to be kept out of the Army and return to the kitchen, they play right into the feminist's hands. Why? Because it allows Anglo women to cherry-pick rights, while eschewing responsibilities. Women certainly don't want to join the Army, but the reality of their position is such that they can still collect inflated salaries in public sinecures.

The point is, chauvinism assumes that women's rights have been dissolved in the here and now, when in fact they ride the crest of a wave of enormous privilege that is most unlikely to be reversed. Adopting a chauvinist outlook with female entitlements in place just leaves men with obligations, while women continue to bask in rights and privileges. This is the primary danger of chauvinism.

New Videos Added!
I have added to (and upgraded) the videos on my Anglobitch YouTube site. You can find these by just searching for 'Anglobitch' on YouTube. More often than not, you will find links to them at the foot of this page. Happy viewing!

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.