Untimely Meditations: Beards, X-Factor and the Anglobitch Makeover

FIRST MEDITATION: African Babies - The Ultimate Anglobitch Makeover


In recent years, the celebrity Anglobitch has taken to adopting African babies. Now, we all know what that represents, don’t we? A demonstration intended to present the Anglobitch as some kind of pleasant, 'nurtering' female. Such a demonstration is necessary because 'the game is up': the vast majority of Anglo-American men now know exactly what the Anglobitch is all about: feeding her narcissistic neuroses. The race to adopt an African baby is a conscious attempt by the celebrity Anglobitch (supported, of course, by the Anglo-American mass media) to disguise the true, abject nature of Anglo-American females.

Nowadays, the Anglo-American media are ‘bending over backwards’ to insinuate that Anglo-American women are ‘caring’, selfless and humane. Obviously, this represents an unconscious need to rehabilitate Anglo-American women in the public eye, so tarnished is their public image as grasping, evil harridans. All those Eighties ‘Material Girl’ videos have wrought a corresponding distaste for the Anglobitch among American men verging on mass hatred. As with VAWA - a naked attempt to deny American men access to foreign women - this projection of ‘caring’ Anglo women represents a conscious desire to redefine the Anglobitch as a viable partner across the Anglosphere.

SECOND MEDITATION: Pogonological Investigations - Beards and the Declining Anglosphere

"How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arrange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them!...For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest - a sign of strength and rule." - St. Clement of Alexandria

What can one say of beards? They are the supreme expression of masculine potency. Only old women with hormone disorders can grow beards among womankind, and they are rightly derided. As a stag has antlers or a lion his magnificent mane, so men and billy-goats have beards. It has been said that MRAs concentrate far too much on women and their faults, neglecting to create or resurrect dynamic archetypes of manhood. In truth, the beard is one such potent, positive symbol and needs to be recognized as such.

It is interesting that in the Victorian era - the last era with some remnant of patriarchy - the beard was almost obligatory among males. Indeed, it seems to have been much more prevalent among the higher social strata, those who defined the shape of that era. The ancient Greeks considered the beard to be an indispensable badge of virility. In many ancient cultures, the beard was held in such veneration that its full or partial removal was accounted a most severe punishment. It is notable that, since the Anglosphere lapsed into absolute matriarchy, the beard has lapsed from the former ubiquity it once enjoyed among the Anglosphere’s greatest men to its present parlous condition, patronised only by hippies and scientists. During the American civil war, every major figure sported a magnificent growth of facial hair. Even Generals without full beards still cultivated alternative facial displays, for example exotic moustaches and lyrical sideburns.

Bluntly, male facial hair urgently needs to come back into fashion all around the Anglosphere.

General Stonewall Jackson: A beard to be reckoned with!

General Lee: A beard of quiet, but unquestionable authority!

One for the Union: Abraham Lincoln at his Confederacy-Beating Best!

THIRD MEDITATION: Rage Against the Machine and the Rise of the New Media



The following article raises important issues about circumventing the Anglo-American media (and its inherent misandry) from a dynamic MRA perspective:

In recent years, it had become as predictable as elections in North Korea – singer wins X Factor, singer's debut single goes to No 1. So when Joe McElderry won the TV talent contest, he was no doubt confident he would celebrate Christmas at the top of the charts.

Alas for the 18-year-old from South Shields, it wasn't to be: a song almost his own age denied him the top spot after a successful online campaign. Killing In The Name, an expletive-heavy rock song first released in 1992 by the Californian rock band Rage Against the Machine, won the battle for Christmas top spot on the basis of downloads only. It sold about 500,000 copies last week, about 50,000 more than The Climb, McElderry's earnest ballad.

Depending on your view, the Rage victory was either a delicious dismantling of the X Factor Christmas No 1 juggernaut or a cynical assault on the festive charts. There was, though, some indignation when it emerged both records had links to Simon Cowell, the entertainment industry's favourite pantomime baddy. With the Rage track having been released by Sony, and McElderry's by Cowell's Syco, a Sony subsidiary, some claimed the high-waisted X Factor judge would emerge triumphant whichever act won the chart battle.

But arguably the real victor here was a rock fan from Essex who started a Facebook group a month ago with the (then) pie-in-the-sky idea of usurping the X Factor winner from the no 1 slot.

Jon Morter, 35, a part-time rock DJ and logistics expert from South Woodham Ferrers, near Chelmsford, decided it would be a bit of a giggle to start a campaign to encourage people to buy a record with pretty much the opposite vibe to the X Factor winner's ballad. While McElderry urges listeners to "keep the faith", the Rage track is best known for its now-ironic refrain: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."
He had tried a similar wheeze last year, when he attempted to get Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up to the top of the Christmas charts. Alexandra Burke, the 2008 X Factor winner, won that battle, but having succeeded in propelling Astley to "the lower echelons of the chart", Morter was emboldened to try again. This time, he was helped by the comedian Peter Serafinowicz, who on 15 December urged his 268,000-plus Twitter followers to join in, and it snowballed from there. By the time Paul McCartney and former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein had pledged their support, poor McElderry seemed doomed.

When the Guardian broke the news to Morter that he had won, he was initially lost for words. "Oh bloody hell," he said, as the consequences of what he had done became clear. Composing himself, he said: "I think it just shows that in this day and age, if you want to say something, then you can – with the help of the internet and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. If enough people are with you, you can beat the status quo."

SOURCE: Guardian

This result should give all MRAs hope. Although we are weak in terms of the MSM (Main Stream Media), we are strong (and waxing ever stronger) on the Internet. If an Internet campaign can defeat a massive multinational backed by the mainstream media, then we can beat the mainstream matriarchy, also. This is the clearest proof that the world is rapidly changing, throwing up an entirely new paradigm of media manipulation. And there have been other signs, some of them tangential to our cause, but nonetheless important. The increasing coverage of female paedophiles in the pan-Anglosphere MSM shows that our campaign is now starting to bite. And in the States, overturning the MSM and its reflexive misandry should be much easier, due to the pluralistic nature of the American media.

How are we to maximize this opportunity? Simple: we must make the Internet our own by controlling its 'reconnaissance space'. General JEB Stewart, the Confederate cavalry commander was instrumental in his country's early military successes. Stewart recognised that the old, Napoleonic use of cavalry as shock troops was irrelevant in the era of long-range musketry and effective anti-personnel artillery ammunition. He did, however, see a new and revolutionary use for his horsemen: as a force to occupy the 'reconnaissance space' between two armies. With this space occupied by his cavalry, it meant that all initiative lay with his own side.

In short, Stewart's use of cavalry pre-empted the modern significance of air power as the ultimate arbiter of conflict. In the same way, MRAs have to make the Internet our own in the battle against Anglo-American feminism – an MRA mare nostrum ('our sea'), as Rome dubbed the Mediterranean. We must reach a situation where ALL feminists are automatically and decisively challenged/crushed whenever they venture into cyberspace. Some MRAs have intuitively understood this - but far more need to 'grasp the nettle' and impose action upon themselves, attacking Anglobitch feminism whenever it appears.

The Death of Anglo-American MSM (Main Stream Media) and the Rise of a New Counter Hegemony

On May 11th 2009 the New York Times reported that the newspapers (big and small) have lost 16% of their readers since 2000, but the major broadcast networks had lost 28% of their viewers in the same time. In short, the MSM looks to be in terminal decline.


The Main Stream Media is now directed at leftist Baby-Boomers, the elderly and the working class. It survives only because these groups lack the technical facility to contribute to the Blogosphere. Leftists, the elderly and the working class are a useless audience because they are timid, dying or stupid. A cursory glance at any British newsstand shows the same story; publications aimed at out-of-touch pensioners (Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the provincial press in general), neo-Christian liberal eccentrics (the Guardian) or uneducated no-marks glued to their TV sets (Sun, Mirror, Daily Star). None of these publications has any appeal to a genuinely intelligent, self-aware person of any social background. The same can be said of TV. Aside from a few decent wildlife shows, the programmes are banal prolefeed (X Factor, American Idol) aimed at the human LCD. Political programmes are utterly juvenile, still trapped within post-War paternalism, refusing to accept that Britain now dances to the tunes of America’s Power Elite (without understanding this, no genuine understanding of Anglosphere politics can begin).

In the modern Anglosphere, MRAs are heavily outnumbered. In itself, this is not insurmountable: as Stonewall Jackson opined, a small nation can hold its own against a larger nation by concentrating its forces, destroying the enemy in detail, compensating for small numbers with greater activity. Indeed, during the early days of Anglo feminism in the late Sixties, they did exactly this. Feminists were active everywhere across the Anglosphere and were able to drive patriarchy before them, destroyed in detail or trapped in intellectual redoubts. Today, the liberal feminists hold the ground that matters: the mainstream media, the law, politics and academia. We hold nothing. However, the fall of the MSM removes a vital part of their fortress, giving us the initiative for the first time in decades.


To understand this situation better, we must return to Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony. Gramsci thought deeply about why revolutions happened in some countries, not others. Why did Russians rebel during World War One, and not the English? After all, on the morning of the battle of the Somme, some 60, 000 British troops died; whole villages lost all their men in a few hours. The same could be said of the American Southerners during the Civil War. Why did they keep fighting, even after Gettysburg, when all hope of victory was gone? According to Gramsci, hegemony explains this difference. Russia had no elaborate mass media comprising radio stations or newspapers, which weakened the masses' social conviction and made revolt more likely. By contrast, the English fought on because they were enmeshed in a complex hegemony comprising schools, newspapers, radio broadcasts, street names and customs, binding them to the existing social order and making them more pliant to state manipulation. We are all trapped in hegemony, to a greater or lesser extent. And it is fair to say that we are now trapped in a matriarchal hegemony, which has normalized the denigration and marginalization of men across the Anglosphere.


However, since the MSM is the major tool for transmitting the NAMWO agenda, its decline represents a golden opportunity to create a counter-hegemonic movement. The Internet is supplanting the MSM and we must colonize it NOW to realize our aims and ambitions. If we look at the media world, the most potent initiatives inhering to men's issues are occurring online. However, removal of the MSM's ability to control popular discourse is beginning to have far reaching effects in the real world, too. We are witnessing what Gramsci called a 'crisis of hegemony' where many of the old pan-Anglosphere sureties are no longer viable. All the old assumptions are disintegrating, where they remain in place at all.


The hegemonic breakdown is much more precipitous in Britain than elsewhere, simply because British hegemony is more developed than that of the younger Anglosphere countries. It is implied that, being more socially integrated, the British quickly lapse into anarchy when sundered from hegemonic tradition. Hence Britain’s hegemonic collapse is having political effects transcending mere lifestyle issues. A case in point: declining support for the ‘mainstream’ parties is matched by rising support for the BNP. Of course, Nick Griffin’s nationalists have fully exploited the Internet to get their message across - as we might expect from a counter-hegemonic perspective.

Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton discusses British hegemonic exceptionalism in Men of Blood, his study of crime in Britain. He argues that Britain has traditionally enjoyed low crime rates because of high hegemonic integration. For example, British murderers have much higher suicide rates than incarcerated murderers elsewhere in the world – obviously, the ‘shame’ of such a crime is greater for highly integrated individuals. Interestingly, the excellence of the British armed forces may also relate to this hegemonic factor – during World War Two, 120 British troops were worth 150 Americans in western theatres. Even today, the excellence of Britain’s forces give it a disproportionate influence on world affairs. And British football hooliganism mimics traditional imperialist themes of international expansion. But I digress...

In short, the MSM can no longer regulate public opinion as they did in the post-war era. Men’s rights, populist politics and other anti-Boomer agendas are just a few of the online results. In the longer term, the MSM looks doomed to extinction. It cannot compete with the Internet for a number of reasons:

Expenses and overheads. To get any publication to the newsstands, costs are astronomical. It costs little or nothing to post opinion or information on a website. Ultimately, costs alone will force the MSM onto the Internet, where their advantages are nullified.

Speed. The Internet is quicker. Newspapers chew over old stories because they are followers, now. Today, hot news breaks online, not via the MSM.

Technical proliferation. As more and more people get online access, the old media channels wither. As handheld devices like iphones and Blackberries become ubiquitous, those old channels will run completely dry.

Death/marginalisation of current MSM audiences. The old die off. The working class has no spending power. Boomer leftists are dying off, too. The MSM presently survives on these audiences. This is why their offerings are so weird, low-brow and out of touch. Newspapers seem to think we are still living in 1958: party politics, organized religion, feminism and post-war collectivism all express this archaic fixation. Smart younger people have decamped online, disgusted with these offerings. The MSM have adapted skilfully to lower class/Boomer/pensioner tastes - but dealt themselves out of the game.

Given that the MSM are doomed, what does the future hold? Many things, not all of them good.

Firstly, the blogs of today will become tomorrow’s online institutions. Roissy in DC or Whisky (or whoever runs their blogs, then) will become household names. Baby Boomer left-feminism will be forced back, as its spokespeople die off. Already, Greer and MacKinnon convey an archaic ethos bizarre even to most women. We can expect Internet-based, pan-Anglosphere post-modern communities of interest to burgeon. Such communities will widen into pressure groups, maybe even new political blocs. Emboldened and renewed by these new communal links, Britain will sever links with Continental Europe and look more towards the States and the commonwealth as its natural cultural allies. As pan-Anglosphere hegemony erodes, supplanted by these new online communities of interest, the constituent nations will start to politically disentegrate. Britain in particular may lapse into civil war, torn between a paternalist MSM ‘Court’ and a populist Internet ‘Country’.

Truly, we live in interesting times.