Royal Wedding Lessons: Some Useful Revelations

Just a few observations on the Royal Wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince William:

- The Anglosphere countries remain culturally united by more than language
- Disney values define the Anglosphere
- Most Anglo women retain hypergamous fantasies
- The Anglo elites remain committed to puritanism
- Anglo women remain committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
- The Anglosphere template remains aristocratic
- Anglo 'tradition' and feminism are one
- At heart, all Guys want Something Else

The Anglosphere Nations remain Culturally United by more than Language
This Marriage (and the hysteria surrounding it) proves the Anglosphere remains a cogent cultural entity. From Milwaukee to Melbourne, from Manitoba to Milton Keynes, the event elicited a similar response. Wherever they were, all Anglo women wallowed in the same hypergamous fantasy, searing proof of the Anglosphere's androphobia, misandry and repression. Little wonder: sexual repression ('romance') remains the cornerstone of their agendas - and source of their socio-political power.

As we all know, George Washington defeated the British Crown (with the aid of the French) thereby creating a continental power that would one day rule the Anglosphere (and indeed, the world). And yet the same democratic, 'classless' republic still gets 'hot flushes' for British pageantry and aristocratic privilege.

These facts demonstrate the truth of the Anglosphere concept. Underlying superficial differences of accent, law and 'football' definitions, the English-speaking countries remain a cogent entity.



Disney values define the Anglosphere
Saccharine values define the Anglosphere. The broad mass of Anglo females in America, Australia, Canada and Britain still become starry-eyed whenever marriage is mentioned (especially to scions of inherited privilege).

All this persists despite the fact that around half of all marriages end in divorce and most British children now reach the age of 16 in a single-parent family. And yet, at least notionally, the Disneyland idyll thrives like marijuana in a hothouse. This is because the needle of Anglo culture defaults to a puritan pole, despite an antithetical 'reality'.



At heart, All Guys want Something Else
As a young Mexican fellow once observed here, Middleton looks more like Prince William's older sister rather than his girlfriend or wife. One way or another, most males will do anything to escape a stereotypical relationship with an Anglo female. Of course, selecting a foreign mate is the most direct and forceful expression of this tendency but, even so, an older-looking female still represents a viable statement of protest. Then again, there may be deeper psychological forces at work. As is generally observed, the repressive nature of Anglo culture ensures that the younger and more attractive a female is, the more entitled and obnoxious she will be. Hence the widely-observed preference for old-looking females among Anglo-American men - it represents a psychic defence against fear, insecurity and unhappy memories.

The Middleton girl is not merely too old, she is really rather plain. If she were a prostitute, she would struggle to make a living. And yet the gynocentric media gush over her as if she were Helen of Troy. Yet another reason to want 'something else'...



Anglo women remain Committed to Marriage, Repression and 'Romance'
Women love 'romance' and remain fanatically devoted to it, despite decades (if not centuries) of feminist propaganda decrying it. But hold on; was this the same 'militant' feminism that railed against prostitution, (imaginary) sex-trafficking and pornography? Of course it was. And now we see the kinship between Anglo feminism and the dominant, traditional culture of the Anglosphere, where 'romance' and repression are the order of the day.

Indeed, the popularity of the Royal Marriage (in all, 2 billion people watched it) indicates that the vast majority of Anglo women remain committed to hypergamous fantasies. This implies that Anglo feminism (most contemporary Anglo women are self-identified feminists, after all) coheres with 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon values, a central assumption of the Anglobitch Thesis. So much for 'revolutionary' feminism...



The Anglosphere Template Remains Aristocratic
The aristocratic nature of American culture has never been touched upon in my writings, but is rather important. The high social 'power distance' in Anglo-Saxon countries drives female hypergamy and entitlement to insane levels. Indeed, this 'aristocratic' hypergamy inheres seamlessly with Anglo repression to produce a 'hyper-hypergamy' with racist, caste-like and Neo-Nazi undertones. This is felt most keenly by working-class and non-white males in the Anglosphere (although it also infects female attitudes to all men, to a greater or lesser extent).

Compared to the aristocratic ideal and the 'fairy-tale' hypergamy that springs from it, no male can ever match the crazy expectations of the Anglobitch. Such expectations handily explain why 7 in 10 divorces are initiated by women and half of all marriages end in divorce. Nothing less than a Prince is good enough for a princess, after all...


P.S. A pity the Gynotheory writer is on holiday. I wonder where he goes - perhaps the Bodeleian library? Anyone who can write such fine essays is clearly highly intelligent... the kind of visionary who makes us all dream.

Out of the Mouths of Anglofags... an Interesting Article

I found this article rather interesting, not so much for Stephen Fry's views but rather for the hysterical response to them by Anglo-American women. Dick Masterson once wrote, 'female anger is the weather-vane of truth'. Considering the Anglobitch rage elicited by Fry's comments (among 'feminist psychotherapists' and other pseudo-scientific finger-painters), one is inclined to give his acerbic views consideration, if not credence.

He has been called ‘the cleverest man in Britain’. But even Stephen Fry’s fans must feel there are limits to his expertise. And as one of the country’s most famous homosexuals, female sexuality is unlikely to be one of his specialist topics.

Yet 53-year-old Fry has raised eyebrows by claiming that women are unenthusiastic about sex, and see it only as ‘the price they are willing to pay for a relationship’.

Most straight men, he added, fear that ‘they disgust women’ and ‘find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are’.

Feminist writer Susie Orbach suggested the remarks said more about Fry than they do about women, and ground-breaking female journalist Rosie Boycott said he was talking ‘rubbish’. Fry told gay magazine Attitude that men feared that women were less interested in sex than them ‘for good reason’. If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas,’ he said.

‘Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, “God, I’ve got to get my ******* rocks off”, or they’d go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to s**g behind a bush. It doesn’t happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it.’

Fry, who hosts BBC quiz QI, added: ‘I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, “Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!” But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?’

Feminist journalist Miss Boycott said the claims were ‘kind of rubbish’, adding: ‘Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex.

'We don’t go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don’t need to. Women have other ways to get our thrills, and we can go and get them in bars or clubs.’

Psychotherapist and writer Miss Orbach said: ‘I’m really intrigued by his notion that men’s sexuality is disgusting in some way. Why would he believe that women could be so disgusted by men? Does he think there is something disgusting about sex?’

Fry has often spoken out for gay rights. He played Oscar Wilde in the 1997 movie Wilde, and a gay man dying of Aids in 1992 film Peter’s Friends. But he has also said he was celibate from 1979 to 1995. And in his autobiography this year he said he was only ‘90 per cent gay’ and had once been attracted to Rowan Atkinson’s wife Sunetra Sastry and his Cambridge University contemporary Caroline Oulton, now a novelist. Nothing happened with either woman. Fry is currently understood to be in a relationship with actor Steven Webb, 25.

SOURCE: Daily Mail, November 2010

As ever, one is struck by the 'mainstream' Anglo media's reflexive support for feminist hysteria and misandrist gynocentrism. Is any further proof needed of the close alignment between 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture and misandrist Anglo-American feminism?

In truth, the two are one.

'Conservative' Anglo Government Declares Open War on Men

Regular readers will find the following entirely predictable:

Suspected wife-beaters could be banned from their homes for up to four weeks even if there is insufficient evidence for them to be charged under plans unveiled by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The "go orders" will enable police to step in and ban suspected attackers from the victim's home even if they are too afraid of taking action themselves or if no criminal proceedings are possible.

The year-long pilot scheme, which will start next summer in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire and West Mercia, comes as the Government prepares to publish its plans to crack down on violence against women and girls.

A court will then be able to extend the domestic violence protection order, known as go orders, for a longer period, usually between 14 and 28 days.

Figures from the British Crime Survey showed more than one in four women in the UK will (allegedly) experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, with one million women experiencing at least one incident of domestic violence every year and one in 20 becoming a victim of stalking.

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail

There we have it - decisive evidence that 'Conservative' Anglo governments harbour the same rabid loathing of men as their socialist counterparts. Indeed, it must be said that Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' is ultimately more oppressive than its socialist counterpart, since it considers women untouchable by virtue of their sexual 'ownership'.

Moreover, Anglo-American 'conservatives' - be it American Republicans or British/Commonwealth Tories - are intrinsically aligned with Anglo-Saxon puritanism, a 'traditional' Anglosphere value. And as we all know, this puritanism is at the root of the anti-male, pro-female agenda that defines the English-speaking world. The results of this alignment are twofold:

1. Conservative misandry has much greater leverage than its socialist counterpart. That is, conservative misandry can mobilise every aspect of society - law, politics, the media, mass opinion - to promote its oppressive agenda. That is certainly true in this case, where men's basic human rights are instantly waived at the bequest of rabid feminists with the full and uncritical support of the mainstream media, the police and legal profession. The same is true of VAWA in the United States, advanced with the full connivance of the 'Conservative' Republicans.

2. From a hegemonic perspective, it legitimises misandry. That is, by presenting misandry as a traditional agenda, it covers Anglo-American man-hatred with a patina of respectability, even 'normality'. Were Britain's Labour Party advancing these misandrist 'measures', none of this would apply. Consequently, conservative misandry can push a whole society towards pandemic man-hatred in a way socialist misandry never could.

Of course, the whole notion that there is a need to 'crack down on violence against women and girls' is a vast misnomer, since men are at far greater risk of violence than women in every Anglosphere country. Besides, anti-female domestic violence is more often than not the product of female lifestyle choices - women prefer thugs to decent males because of the 'excitement' they bring to a relationship. Well, if women like 'excitement' so much, why interfere with their 'choices'? They want it all, so let them have it - including black eyes, split lips and fractured skulls.

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.

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.

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, focusing 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.

Anglo-Feminism: The Class Connection

The greatest absurdity in Anglo-Saxon feminism is its arrant class blindness. In lectures, books and articles, contemporary Anglo feminists continually conflate international bridge-playing females with underclass women and five-dollar call-girls as if they all shared common interests. Clearly,Anglo-feminism is rather like nationalism or racism, an attempt to inveigle disenfranchised women into subordinating their claims as an oppressed class in favour of an arbitrary gender link with their oppressors. It is faux revolt.

In the same tired vein, contemporary feminists claim that disenfranchised males are just as much ‘oppressors’ as men from Phillips Academy, Eton College or their equivalents elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Can the patrician origins of Anglo feminism explain this absurd position? We think they can...

Because early Anglo feminists were all upper class (indeed, most still seem to attend elite universities and generally enjoy privileged lives) they knew nothing about mainstream social experience. ‘Ordinary’ women never entered their thoughts, except as objects of domestic labour. ‘Ordinary’ men were mere beasts of burden. Consequently, their ideas were absurdly skewed: while claiming to be ‘revolutionaries’ they unthinkingly retained their traditional prejudices.

These characteristic contradictions can be seen in all subsequent Anglo feminists: Greer (a ‘revolutionary’ who hates working class women); Dworkin (a ‘revolutionary’ who favours censorship); Hite (a ‘revolutionary’ who ardently supports monogamy); Paglia (a ‘revolutionary’ who accepts men are biologically superior); Julie Burchill (a racist, nationalist ‘revolutionary’). Of course, all ‘liberal’ Anglo feminists remain committed to such bourgeois anachronisms as marriage to wealthy men and the protective platitudes of organised religion. These absurd inconsistencies have a long pedigree, dating back to the earliest origins of Anglo feminism, exemplified by the deplorably classist and racist Virginia Woolf.

Whatever they say, Anglo feminists are natural allies of the authoritarian right. The key lines of Anglo feminist thought were set when Anglo-Saxon society was still pre-democratic and the broad masses little better than serfs. Hence arrogant elitism pervades this brand of feminism, something quite absent from the 'partnership' feminism of Continental Europe. Since Anglo men have begun to reject the Anglobitch for women with traditional virtues, this intolerance has reached feverish levels (‘Oh, those China Dolls!’).

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.