Navigating the Misandrist Landscape: A New Path for the Anglobitch Blog

In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, particularly within the United Kingdom, discussions surrounding various social and political movements are continually subject to scrutiny and interpretation. For platforms dedicated to specific advocacy, such as those focusing on men's rights, it has become increasingly pertinent to consider the legal and social framework within which these discussions take place. This blog, in its commitment to fostering thoughtful discourse, is announcing an updated editorial approach.

It has become evident that the current legal environment in the UK introduces considerable risks when engaging in certain forms of public commentary, particularly concerning gender dynamics. Legislation pertaining to hate speech and online harassment is robust, and enforcement can lead to significant consequences for individuals and platforms perceived to cross established boundaries. While the principle of free speech remains a cornerstone of democratic societies, its practical application is often nuanced, with various interpretations and limitations in practice. This necessitates a careful calibration of content to ensure compliance with legal stipulations and to avoid unintended repercussions.

Recognizing these complexities, and with a steadfast commitment to responsible commentary, this blog will henceforth implement a revised content policy. A core tenet of this new approach will be the rigorous avoidance of any content that could be construed as misogynistic. Our objective is to contribute constructively to conversations surrounding men's issues, and this cannot be achieved through language or sentiments that demean, generalize negatively about, or express hostility towards women. Such expressions are counterproductive to meaningful dialogue and have no place on this platform.

Moving forward, our focus will pivot towards purely abstract or theoretical discussions concerning gender and culture. This will involve exploring academic concepts, sociological theories, historical perspectives, and philosophical inquiries related to masculinity, male identity, societal roles, and the broader cultural implications of gender. We aim to delve into these subjects with intellectual rigor, inviting readers to consider complex ideas from a dispassionate and analytical standpoint. This approach will allow us to examine critical aspects of men's lives and their position within contemporary society without resorting to confrontational rhetoric or polarizing generalizations. Our commitment is to scholarship and thoughtful exploration, ensuring that our contributions remain within the bounds of respectful and legally compliant public discourse.

Rookh Kshatriya

 

Chickens Home to Roost: The REAL origins of Woke 'Misogyny'

Trans Activists Battle TERFs in NZ

The conflict between TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and trans activists that has recently engulfed the Anglosphere is best explained by the Anglobitch Thesis. As we shall see, the trans activists have a certain justification in their concerns about both TERFs and Anglo feminists in general:

Anti-trans activist Posie Parker leaves New Zealand after chaotic protests

Gender-critical activist was booed and heckled in Auckland and cancelled event in Wellington

The anti-trans activist known as Posie Parker cancelled a planned event in Wellington and left New Zealand, after chaotic and at times violent protests curtailed an appearance in Auckland before she was able to speak in public.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had been due to speak in Auckland on Saturday morning. The British activist was met by crowds of pro-trans rights counter-protesters estimated to be in the thousands, substantially outnumbering the speaker’s supporters. She left the event after being booed, heckled and doused with tomato juice.

Keen-Minshull’s appearance in New Zealand had been controversial before her arrival. An earlier appearance in Australia had been attended and supported by white supremacist groups, who marched the streets repeatedly performing the Nazi salute.

A number of LGBTQ+ rights groups had pushed for New Zealand’s immigration authorities to deny her entry on the grounds that she posed a threat to public order. On Friday, New Zealand’s high court ruled that the decision to allow Keen-Minshull entry to the country was lawful.

The immigration minister, Michael Wood, had said on Thursday: “Like many New Zealanders I would prefer it if Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull never set foot in New Zealand. I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around, including white supremacists.

However, he said he had consulted Immigration New Zealand and concluded that the “case does not meet the threshold for ministerial intervention”.

The protest and counter-protest on Saturday was violent and chaotic. The Green party co-leader Marama Davidson, who was demonstrating in support of trans rights, was hit by a motorcycle at a pedestrian crossing. A convoy of motorcyclists had appeared at the protest in support of Keen-Minshull.

UK Guardian, 26 March 2023

A drenched Posie Parker

Given the jaundiced state of gender-relations across the Anglosphere, this conflict should hardly surprise us. Anglo-American feminists want to preserve their existing rights and privileges (not to mention homosociality and sex-negative repression) which are ideologically threatened by the very existence of trans women. Meanwhile, the trans lobby is entirely right to fear TERFS (and indeed, Anglo-American feminists in general) as reactionaries and racists.

As I have been consistently showing over the past 12 years, Anglo-American feminists (and women in general) ARE racist, classist, sex-negative and reactionary. In fact, their views hail straight from 17^th century New England. Prominent Anglo-Saxon feminists like Marie Stopes were avowed racists and Nazis who wanted to sterilize people who wore spectacles. Therefore, the Anti-TERF protestors are not entirely wrong in their concerns, and their reflexive notional conflation of Anglo feminism with fascism and racism is both reasonable and accurate. Posie Parker represents a movement with a stark history of prejudice, misandry and hate, even if she claims not to personally espouse such values.

 

Anti-Male Apartheid in plain sight

As the transmaxxers point out, most women now enjoy significantly better lives than most men; they are on the winning side of history and culture, in all ways. ‘Female only spaces’ are therefore synonymous with female privilege. It is a 'no-brainer' that male prisoners would want to serve their sentence in a female jail where they can wear their own clothes, get specialized therapy and are not subject to rape, overcrowding and violence. 

While men are routinely thrown into jail for having consensual sex with 16 year-old whores, female teachers can show their anuses to toddlers in Canadian schools with complete impunity. Feminism been saying that gender is a 'social construct' for the past 200 years; but now ‘trans’ women have exploited this perspective to co-opt and enjoy female privilege, feminists do not like it. However, low-value men adopting a female identity makes perfect logical sense from an impartial perspective: they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. 

 

Posie Parker sent packing: is that poetic?

The puritanical undercurrents within the Anglosphere are inherently misandrist and gynophile; Anglo-American men are largely viewed as disposable, unwanted trash or at best, a necessary evil. In fact, Anglo-American feminists have always held such views. Therefore, why are the authorities so surprised that so many Anglo-American men are dropping out of society, fleeing abroad or transmaxxing? Such a response is entirely predictable.  

Because Anglo-American feminists (and women generally) are sex-negative, hyper-hypergamous, racist puritans, the benefits traditionally associated with being male no longer exist (despite the media-driven Sexual False Consciousness that strives to pretend otherwise). Romantic adventurism and reproductive opportunities have traditionally bound males to the social order; now both have been withdrawn, men are withdrawing their own consent from society itself. This is why Boomer stooges like Jordan Peterson admonishing young men to 'man up' and conform is so laughable: why would sexually-disenfranchised young men bother to do that when young women are never asked to conform at all?

So there we have it. As usual, the Anglobitch Thesis cuts through the fog of confusion to explain everything about, well, everything.

 

 

War on the Horizon? Watch the Feminists throw ‘Social Constructs’ Out the Window

During wartime, this critter is suddenly more 'valuable' than the average male

I apologize for my tardiness in writing. At last, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is confirmed and settling into a regular pattern, as is the west’s response to it. Since the invasion was the focus of this post, I now have all the ammunition to make my general case.

So Russia invades Ukraine for whatever reason, Ukrainian women are permitted to flee the country while all men under 60 are expected to remain as a reserve-pool of potential cannon-fodder to resist the invaders. Now, this sounds pretty sexist and traditional to me. Yet nowhere have we seen or heard any opposition to this outrageous ‘sexism’ either from feminists or the ‘progressive’ western media. In fact, all we hear is unstinting and universal applause for these policies. Predictably, the west's tradcuck conservatives haven’t had much to say, either.

Despite the rhetoric espoused by feminists and their various 'progressive' apologists across the Anglosphere, these same apologists never propose that women should take an active role in the military or any other dangerous occupation.

Despite their chatter, the Anglosphere (and indeed, the west in general) accepts the following policies without a moment's thought:

• Only women and children are allowed to leave Ukraine.
• All men under 60 have to remain in Ukraine.
• All men under 60 remaining in Ukraine will be expected to fight.
  

How interesting that the same countries which were recently arguing that gender is a 'social construct' now happily embrace Ukraine's overtly 'sexist' policies without a moment's demur. Indeed, the lamestream media is already promoting biological females as more 'important' than males with 'trafficking' rhetoric, in time-honoured Anglo fashion. The only concern they register for men is for the few hundred trans women living in the Ukraine. As Vice puts it:

One trans woman said she is “terrified” of being stopped trying to leave Ukraine, and being forced to join the Ukrainian army “as a man” – especially because authorities are stopping men aged 18 to 60 from leaving. Another Ukrainian trans woman is too scared to leave her accommodation in fear of transphobic attacks. She’s the only person left in her neighbourhood.

I do not blame these transsexuals, they are merely responding rationally to the fact that low value men have 'subhuman' status in the world. But hold on - what about all the non-trans men who might be forced to join the Ukrainian army "as men"? If everything is a 'social construct', without any biological or physical foundation whatsoever, why have non-trans males suddenly become legitimate cannon fodder? 

So,what lessons can we draw from this fiasco of double-standards?

• Gender equalism and the Anglo-feminist notion that gender is a 'social construct' are instantly forgotten when war or any other dangerous activity comes into view. Then, only men are expected to defend these ideas with their lives. And yet if the Anglosphere authorities truly thought gender was merely a 'social construct', they would put women and their flat heads straight into the front lines.

• In general terms, Anglo-American feminists don’t really believe a word they say or write. All their cloudy talk about 'gender-equality' and 'gender anti-essentialism' is just that: talk. When it comes down to it, they are still living in the 1950s on gender issues, male rights and everything else: exactly as one would expect from the Anglobitch Thesis.

• Anglo-American liberals still view men as ‘disposable’ even while spouting their ‘gender is a social construct’ rhetoric. One cannot make a leopard change his (or her) spots - not this one, at any rate. In the final analysis, 'progressives' are no friends to Anglo-American men. As a reflexively sex-negative and misandrist cultural bloc, the Anglosphere will always pedestalise women and devalue men; that is its default position, and it can do no other.

In conclusion, don't be fooled by all the hollow rhetoric. An Awakened Man puts himself first, second and last, in every situation. Stay aloof, stay strong and let the Crimson Pill continue to guide you.

 

Imaginary 'Trafficking' tales are stirring up Blue Knight Anglocucks

 

 

 

Legal Hysteria: How Reactive Common Law Drives the Anglosphere’s Transsexual Obsession

Where and how did this madness originate?

Part of the pleasure of running this little blog is seeing different voices adding to the Anglobitch Thesis in novel and enriching ways. For example, I did not know that Canada (and especially Toronto) was a seething hotbed of feminist misandry; yet it clearly is. Similarly, I did not know that US army personnel were cucked left, right and centre by hyper-hypergamous wives until John Smith informed us of the fact. Nor did I know that the distinctive ‘common law’ that defines the Anglosphere was so instrumental in imposing and maintaining its institutional misandry until a former corrections officer and a distinguished law professor described the problematic legal issues in early 2018.

In broad and simple terms, these commentators claimed that the common law (which defines the Anglosphere) is highly reactive and malleable in relation to social trends and circumstances. This frequently results in legislation being created ‘on the hoof’ in response to media headlines and pressure group activity, without any proper consideration of the wider social or practical implications. By contrast, non-Anglo civil law changes much more slowly and only after deep consideration of all the adjoining implications, producing a generally more rational and stable society with far healthier gender-relations. Writing on this blog in 2018, a distinguished law professor stressed the role of Anglo-American Common Law in shaping an openly misandrist legal system:

A straying or dissatisfied wife outside the Anglo world will possibly sleep with the muscleman washing her car at times, take on a secret identity or even try an open relationship or swinging. (This is reasonably common in Europe and some portions of South America to ease relationship tension, as they are less puritanic in culture and seem able to grasp and hold to a bigger picture.) But the part that matters, is that the marriage will stay intact despite the straying, because the woman, the lawyers and the courts have no profit incentive to encourage it. And if it does happen, she will still need to take responsibility and become an earner, which fortunately, those societies also provide an assist for, in the interest of making sure everyone comes out OK. Custody, for the most part, stays a shared proposition. So whether the husband is “too perfect” (as my son supposedly was) or “far too imperfect” (which men in particular are stigmatized as in Anglo societies), divorce outside of the Anglo world happens less often and is much more humane and restrained. Particularly so in Europe (excluding Britain) and Central and South American countries that have largely been shaped by French, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Italian civil law customs and culture. 

https://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens.html

Beyond the residual puritanism, profit-driven courts and reflexive misandry so ably outlined here, Anglo-American legal culture itself now takes a direct role in actively promoting anti-male agendas. According to the professor, legalistic scholarship has hijacked modern Anglo common law to make it infinitely more reactive to external ‘trends’ (shorthand for academic feminism and its affiliated tentacles in politics and the media):

Any L1 student starting up at a law school learns early about the principle of stare decisis, Latin for "let the decision stand", and thus some of my students have been confused by the very accurate points you and your contributors have been making even before my elaboration above. How can judges in the United States, Canada, Britain and other nations classed as "Anglo" have so much power to make arbitrary decisions, or incorporate radical Anglo-American feminist theories (which are indeed thoroughly misandrist by contrast to the rest of the West), when stare decisis supposedly requires them to follow precedent? Doesn't stare decisis mean they should follow older and long-established customs, including prior judges’ rulings, that are less misandrist?

The answer is no, and Mr. Kshatriya and his contributors are indeed right that judges in divorce courts have rather excessive powers particularly in the realms of monetary imputation and purview of a spouse's finances, and that alimony and child support payments can and regularly are harshly assessed. The answer to this confusion is that the common law since the 20th century has been quite different to what it was before. Most of you (referring to my law school students) have, or soon will encounter the treatises of critical 20th-c jurists such as Frankfurter, Holmes, Brandeis, Dworkin, Fuller, Wechsler and Bickel. In a gradual process of great significance, these legal scholars (several of them Supreme Court justices) re-interpreted the very concept of common law, to make it more flexible and responsive to modern scholarship. Since then, stare decisis and precedent don't mean what they did in the 18th or 19th centuries. Although prior case law remains greatly important in guiding future decisions, the evolution of these scholars' ideas in practice has meant that judges today have a lot of latitude in setting precedent based on prevailing social theories. Their ideas became so influential that they've now come to dominate the concept of common law across the English-speaking world, not just in the United States.

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens_20.html

And now we come to the crux of the matter. Since Anglo-American judges now have ‘great latitude’ in setting legal precedents, vocal yet idiomatic academic pressure-groups have begun to exert massive legal influence out of all proportion to their actual numbers in society. Predictably, these academic pressure groups are invariably misandrist, puritanical and feminist in nature:

Unfortunately, once the common law's previous restraints had been cut-- restraints which predate the US Constitution itself, and based on custom instead of statute-- the dangerous perversions of the Frankfurt-School (cultural marxism and ideas of "political correctness" on university campuses) and in particular, the harshly adversarial ideas of 3rd wave feminism were able to exert themselves through this "new form of common law". And it has become a horribly destructive force in the family courts of the English-speaking world. In effect, "precedent" can be almost arbitrarily set by family court judges on the basis of what are considered to be "commonly agreed upon principles" in legal elite professional circles but which, in reality, are often little more than radical feminist theories (the Anglo-Saxon versions of them) that have been arbitrarily lent prestige by their appearance in academic journals. Moreover, since so much of academia in the USA, Canada and Britain (mainland Europe and Latin America have a different university structure) has indeed been taken over by such 3rd wave feminist and cultural marxist radicals who are on the payroll as serious "scholars", result is that common law precedent in Anglo-American courts, which affects all of us, is in effect being "set by precedents" derived from the most radical, misandrist theories of these sorts of feminist academic journals. 

http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2018/04/disillusioned-law-professor-enlightens_20.html

Although the professor's superb critique is largely directed at the divorce courts, I believe that the Anglosphere's malleable common law also underpins more recent attempts to redefine gender-relations across the English-speaking world. And nowhere is this influence more obvious than in the sudden explosion of 'trans rights' over the past five years or so.

In my humble opinion, this bizarre programme bears all the hallmarks of the professor’s brilliant analysis: swiftly and arbitrarily embedded in Anglo-American law without democratic consultation; driven by discredited Marxist ideology rather than common sense; and applied without proper consultation from medical professionals and other relevant experts.

Send in the Clowns...

While retaining their own strong and stable families, the Anglo-American establishment has imposed clown world on their mainstream populations via a flurry of common law edicts backed by a pliant mass media and an eccentric political class. Thus women can molest five year old boys in Canadian classrooms with complete impunity; all employers must make provision for  their (largely imaginary) trans employees; children of five are encouraged to consider gender reassignment, as if they were mentally equipped to make such decisions; a trans 'spokesperson' has to be consulted on every issue under the sun, from aardvarks to zebras; and anyone who questions this insanity is subjected to a reflexive witch-hunt in both social and mainstream media. 

While most people seem to think these sudden changes came ‘out of nowhere’, this deluge has its true origins in Anglo-American Common Law and its infinite capacity to instantly promote and enforce societal change without reference to democratic consultation processes. While Anglo puritanism perverts human sexuality by its very nature, Anglo common law is the legal catalyst that transmits this perversion to every corner of the Anglosphere. 

Merry Christmas to everyone, anyway. Let's hope 2022 brings more joy than the past two years of pandemic misery.

Farewell to a Glorious Decade

Friends

Having been writing on these themes for over a decade, I have come to a watershed. I have used all the ideas floating around in my notes as blog posts and feel I have now described the Anglobitch Thesis in all its potent totality. I was watching Incel TV’s channel recently, and he expressed pleasant surprise at how popular his videos have become. Although my ideas are distinct from his, I feel exactly the same way. When I started my blog and website a decade ago, I never thought I would have the better part of a million page views and fans all over the world of every race and profession. Even less did I dream that young men would have used my books and posts to build fulfilling romantic lives outside the Anglosphere.

But my ideas were unexpectedly popular from one reason: they are the truth. Once, truth could be suppressed by the mainstream media’s Sexual False Consciousness and other tricks of social manipulation: with the rise of the Internet, that is no longer the case. In addition, the Internet permits the instant transmission of knowledge and opinion to a global audience, exposing things long hidden or suppressed. The Dog Pill is a good example of this; it never occurred to me that a large minority of Anglo-American women prefer sex with dogs to men. Similarly, I never knew that Canada was a rabid stronghold of institutional misandry; in 1989, I thought Marc Lepine to be a pure anomaly.

Now I know better.

Yes, a lot of ideas have passed under the Bridge of Years during the past decade: MRA, PUA, the Red Pill, the Black Pill and even the Dog Pill. However, the Anglosphere has only grown more misandrist, (hetero) sex-negative and gynocentric in that time, with the result that at least a third of Anglo-American men have been sexually disenfranchised by female hyper-hypergamy. Meanwhile, the Anglo-American authorities have been pushing male-to-female transsexualism as a 'solution' to the crisis, offering 'escape' to weak men who cannot endure life in a misandrist gynocracy. Of course, a quick glance at the official mortality rates of MtF post-op transsexuals demonstrate that this option offers no real 'escape' at all.

These facts, coupled with the rise of the Internet and the attendant retreat of SFC, have only meant that my status has grown while people like Roosh, Paul Elam and Roissy have fallen into obscurity. Today, low-tier guys approaching Anglo women in the street can be imprisoned for harassment; ten years ago, that would have been unthinkable. Similarly, the whole 'man up' tradcon agenda advanced by older Boomers like Elam, Fleming and Peterson is a laughable relic in an openly misandrist society. Why on Earth should men shoulder traditional masculine responsibilities in a culture which ridicules and excoriates them? A man can lose everything - including his liberty - at the snap of a woman's fingers in the modern Anglosphere. With the social contract in tatters and women free to do whatever they like with complete impunity, men have nothing whatsoever to gain by adopting traditional male values. 

That is why my work has marched from strength to strength along a broadening path of glory, while theirs is already forgotten.

Though my ideas now attract a lot of incels (especially young ethnicels located in North America) and I am flattered by their interest, my ideas are still primarily aimed at non-incel Anglo-American males who simply want a functional heterosexual relationship. I am at core a Red Pilled thinker – or perhaps Crimson Pilled – rather than fully Black Pilled. Given the Anglosphere’s distinctive gynocentric puritanism, a normal (6+) white Anglo-American man can best achieve his romantic ambitions by emigrating and immersing himself in another culture. MGTOW is fine for awakened men who want to remain in the Anglosphere for personal or professional reasons; but the whole idea of ‘Going Monk’ smacks of crabbed and unhealthy Anglo puritanism, not something I would ever endorse.

While I won’t be posting as much as I did during 2019, I will still be active on this blog. I aim to post only when moved by important events, rather than expanding the body of theory I have shaped over the past decade.

If people want to send me guest articles exploring features of the Anglobitch Thesis, you are very welcome. I think ethnic experiences of Anglobitch sexual fascism in North America would make very powerful articles, as would stories from men who have fulfilled their sexual and romantic ambitions after leaving the Anglosphere.

In addition, I am working on a prophetic novella which imagines what the next decade holds for men across the Anglosphere. This work will project from present social trends and conditions to describe Anglo-American gender-relations as they exist in 2030.

What those are like, most of you can probably guess.

RK

Letter to America: Stop hating men and the shootings will stop

 

In the wake of recent shooting sprees by angry young American males at Dayton and El Paso, Boomer politicians and the lamestream media are scratching their heads and looking for explanations. To me, the answer is obvious. Like Hannibal, it is my gift to see through the fog of battle to the decisive heart of a given situation and immediately formulate a solution.

The cause of these dreadful events is obvious, and my own thesis explains it: Institutional Misandry. Because of its distinctive puritan heritage, Anglo-American culture reflexively hates men as active sexual beings . This problem is worse in the US not because of 'guns' or mental illness but because it is the most puritanical nation in the Anglosphere, indeed the west. Mass shootings and other forms of male alienation are simply a natural (indeed, legitimate) response to this misandry - an gender war being waged against all men across the Anglosphere, every minute of every day. This blog and my other writings are canaries in the coalmine; had they been heeded, far fewer people would be dead today.

Mass shooter Connor Betts

While American males are jobless, committing suicide, criminalised and being tortured with the lash of sexual disenfranchisement, the cucked authorities expect them to 'man up' to defend a culture which hates them. Meanwhile, women are pandered to in every sphere of American life while not even having to register for the draft. The Anglo-American 'mainstream' doesn't see the problem because they ARE the problem. As middle-class Boomers, they live in a bubble of ignorance about the true state of post-Internet America. At best, they blame the online incel and alt-right communities for mass shootings while failing to acknowledge the naked misandry of American culture or the legitimate sense of grievance this misandry fosters in young American men.

Misandry is now an issue to everyone living in the real world

My message to America? If you want to stop these terrible mass shootings, stop hating men and introduce genuine equality. A good start would be forcing all women to register for the draft. This measure is long overdue and would instantly restore a measure of goodwill to American gender relations. How women can be judges and politicians without have to register is one of the burning scandals of modern American life.

The blunt fact is, unless this scandal of institutional misandry is forcibly reversed, young American men will kill you in ever greater numbers. And they are right to do so; their grievances are entirely legitimate. Since a third of young American men are now incels, they have very little to lose from a genetic or sexual standpoint. Moreover, they have access to military-grade weaponry and are pre-trained in violence by interactive video games.

Quite how the people who run America cannot see the dangers inherent in this volatile situation leaves me baffled. And why they refuse to adopt the solution leaves me even more baffled. Instead of scratching their heads and telling oppressed, sexually-disenfranchised young males to 'man up', join the Army or go to church, these people need to 'man up' themselves and admit their warped misandrist culture is stoking the fires of its own destruction.

Had they listened to me a decade ago, none of this would have come to pass.

Hate men, then wonder why they fight back...

Incelerationism: A New Cultural Strategy

It is entirely plain than Men's Rights Activism has failed men across the Anglosphere. Despite the efforts of Angry Harry, A Voice for Men and all the rest, nothing has improved for men in any Anglosphere country. Women still get all the educational funding, don't have to register for the Draft, literally get away with murder and child abuse with a slap on the wrist, are favoured by unjust quotas, and so on. Only male Transsexuals seem to have made any real advances, largely due to appropriating the hyper-privileged female role in Anglo-American society. Perhaps the time has come to move away from simplistic activism (which has obviously failed) towards a more subtle and underhand style of cultural subversion.

One of the more potent and interesting models of such subversion is Accelerationism.

In its political form, Accelerationism involves striving to worsen existing conditions so western societies become failed states and social rebellion becomes inevitable. It is neither left wing or right wing, more a neutral strategy that can be deployed by any political or cultural movement. For a left-wing Accelerationist, voting Republican or Conservative is preferable to voting Democrat or Labour since right-wing political parties are more likely to shift conditions towards a revolutionary situation than left-wing parties. Similarly, rightists should vote for pro-immigration, left-wing political parties since their policies are more likely to trigger a 'conservative revolution' against mass immigration. The Traditionalist scholar Julius Evola advocated this very approach for 'revolutionary conservatives' as early as the 1950s.

'Let us hasten the end'

Accelerationism can be applied in cultural and military struggles, not just electoral politics. In these areas, the strategy works best by inverting an opponent's strengths. At the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal cleverly exploited the Romans' vast numerical strength and overconfidence to destroy their huge citizen army. By provoking the United States to assert its imperialist agenda in the Middle East, ISIS greatly weakened America's internationalist resolve. In boxing, Muhammad Ali's Accelerationist 'Rope-a-Dope' trick turned George Foreman's youth, confidence and strength against him in Zaire. Similarly, Stalin cleverly manufactured a famine to discredit Russia's Kulaks before exterminating them.

The Manosphere version of Accelerationism might best be called 'Incelerationism'. Instead of futile protest, the Incelerationist should welcome sexless males, male alienation and failure because these things bring the end of the misandrist Anglosphere ever closer. Instead of trying to reverse misandry in the Anglosphere, Incelerationists seek to advance it at every turn.

Incelerationism: Is inaction the best action?

But how might these Incelerationist goals might best be achieved? Simply promoting feminism is a problematic strategy, since the Anglosphere authorities might use this to further ostracise dissident men. Similarly, the MGTOW policy of indifference and disengagement also invites self-destruction in an overtly misandrist civilisation. The Transsexual approach - co-opting female status and its manifold advantages - has proved highly effective to its practitioners, although it leaves the average male's ostracised condition largely untouched. Besides, most males simply do not want to live as 'honorary' females (nor should they).

The issues are extremely complex and probably insoluble. As always, leaving the Anglosphere and its reflexive misandry probably remains the prime option for an awakened man. By rejecting Sexual False Consciousness and shunning the futile charade of MRA activism, he lends his weight to the chaos without courting his own destruction.

The Dog Pill: Ultimate Expression of Anglo-American Sexual Misandry?

Recent research revealing that 28% of American men under 30 have not had sex in a year has shaken America to its foundations. While this statistic is shocking enough, it only scratches the surface of male sexual disenfranchisement. How frequently were other American men having sex and with whom? If - as one strongly suspects - other males were only having sex a couple of times a year, or paying for sex, or engaging in deviant sex of one kind or another, the true proportion of sexually disenfranchised males would be far, far higher than 28% (which is quite high enough).

But those familiar with the Anglobitch Thesis will not be at all surprised by those figures. Residual Anglo-American puritanism (#metoo, #timesup, prohibition of prostitution, institutional and legal misandry) has long been masked under widespread sexual false consciousness (the media-induced delusion that America is sexually liberated at a mass level). However, the rise of the Internet has exposed this lie as never before, revealing the Anglosphere for the repressive and misandrist dump it truly is.

Even the most famous Anglo-American PUA writers - Roosh and Roissy - have come to accept that 'the juice is no longer worth the squeeze' in relation to PUA; that the meagre returns are no longer worth the effort, in other words. This is why these writers have shifted their efforts to promoting alt-right politics, in recent years. So with PUA defunct and male Incel rates soaring across North America - together with the triumph of #metoo and transsexualism - the Anglo-American male's sexual star has never sunk lower.

And the Dog Pill represents the ultimate, hideous expression of the Anglosphere's anti-male animus: the notion that men are less valuable than animals in the sexual hierarchy. Broadly speaking, the Dog Pill is the startling revelation that many (principally white, American) women prefer to have sex with dogs rather than human males:

“When women openly value pets over men, it makes sense why so many of them engage in bestiality.” This is a common rejoinder in conversations about dogpilling, with this particular one coming from the Reddit forum dedicated to Men Going Their Own Way, r/MGTOW.

“Why bother masturbating when you have a loyal sex slave that'll lick your pussy on demand as long as you have peanut butter and can't knock you up when they dick you? It'll probably be openly celebrated soon as the female ‘counterpart’ to MGTOW.” 

Other posts argue that the dogpilling supports the foundations of incel theory – that women won’t have sex with “nice guys” (not really - it shows women don't want sex with human guys in general - RK). One post on r/MGTOW from February tells a story of a friend, Sam, who is classed as a “solid dude”, who walks in on his girlfriend with her “Great Dane tied to her with a big puddle of cum and a jar of peanut butter next to them”.

“Ever since Sam told me about that shit while he was drunk, it totally changed my perspective of women who interact with dogs,” the user wrote. 

On this same post, many people joined in to say they had heard similar stories. “I knew a girl in high school that did this shit… I think a lot of these girls now a days are fucking their dogs,” one user replied. “When man and male dog become interchangeable, society is fucked,” replied another.

SOURCE: New Statesman, 2019

As usual, the mainstream media tries to downplay the extent of the problem. And as usual, the mainstream Anglo media is trapped in its 'all women are perfect' narrative. Yet a cursory glance at the uncensored British 'local' press (which is relatively free of overt political agendas) suggests a widespread Dogpill problem, replete with parties and a whole 'Dogpill culture' embracing many willing female participants and male voyeurs:

Woman who had sex with THREE dogs claimed she didn't know it was wrong: Carol Bowditch was filmed having sex with three different breeds of dog

A pensioner who had sex with three different breeds of dogs claimed she did not realise it was illegal. Carol Bowditch, 64, was filmed having sex with a St Bernard, a black Labrador and an Alsatian. Her activities were exposed as a result of an RAF Police investigation which centred on a man identified as organising a bizarre sex party at which owners watched their dogs having sex with women. Details of the event were later posted on an internet forum specialising in bestiality. Ultimately the investigation led police to visit Bowditch and when her home was searched officers found a dvd and a usb stick which both contained film of her with dogs. Victoria Rose, prosecuting , told Lincoln Crown Court "When the dvd was analysed it was found to contain extreme images. Those images portrayed persons committing penetrative sexual acts with dogs.

Also included were images of this defendant herself carrying out sexual activity. Included was an eight minute and 59 seconds video of Mrs Bowditch engaging in vaginal and oral sex with a St Bernard dog named Oscar. When the defendant was interviewed she admitted she had penetrative sex with dogs. She accepted it had taken place over several years. She was unaware it was illegal. She identified the dogs. She said she had penetrative vaginal sex once with a Labrador and twice with an Alsatian. She recalled she had vaginal and oral sex with a St Bernard."

Carol Bowditch: Dogpilling Anglohag

Miss Rose said that at least eight photographs were found of Bowditch having sex with dogs and 30 moving images. Bowditch, 64, of Evedon, near Sleaford, admitted a charge of having sexual intercourse with an animal between 13 November 2011 and 25 November 2014. She also admitted possession of 37 extreme pornographic images on 21 March 2016. Daniel Galloway, 65, of the same address, admitted aiding and abetting Bowditch to have intercourse with an animal. He also admitted charges of making indecent images of children, possession of a prohibited image of a child, distributing 1,861 indecent images of children and possession of extreme pornography. His sentence was adjourned to a later date.

James Gray, in mitigation, said "She is 64 and has no previous convictions. Both she and Mr Galloway have suffered considerable public humiliation (my heart bleeds - RK). They have been ostracised by their friends and family. They have suffered that added element of punishment which in less salacious cases would not be present."

Bowditch was given a community order with 12 months supervision and a 16 week night-time curfew (i.e. no punishment at all - RK). The maximum she could have faced for having sex with a dog was a two year jail sentence. Judge Michael Heath, passing sentence, told Bowditch "What you engaged in was first of all unlawful and secondly disgusting. I am told that you have received public humiliation as a result of the publicity that this case has attracted. That does not surprise me."

Source: Lincolnshire Live, 2017

So there we have it. While Anglo-American women have near total sexual freedom to abuse brute creation, men across the Anglosphere are gelded by #metoo, #timesup and a host of other memes and laws designed to curtail their sexual freedoms. But why should we expect any different? When a culture allows women to do anything, anything will inevitably happen. This is especially true in a culture with reflexive puritanical tendencies to pedestalize women (no matter how base) and vilify men (no matter how noble), such as that of the ailing Anglosphere.

Moreover, is not this burgeoning Anglobitch preference for dogs merely the supreme statement of their demented and all pervasive misandry? As a young American fellow once said to me in the earliest days of the Manosphere: 'These (American) bitches now think they're too good for guys - ANY guys'.

How right he was.

Update on the Progress of Distant Shores

Just a brief update on the book I am currently working on, Distant Shores.

I am making good progress, having written over 200 000 words. Because of superb reader input over the past year, I am now working to a more profound, original and ambitious design than I had ever foreseen. This encompasses the structural deficiencies and unique misandry of Anglo-American law and politics, not just the cultural issues for which my writing is famous.

I have created a large appendix of reader comments as reference material. To be blunt, these commentaries on my Thesis by learned academics and lay people alike surpass all other manosphere discourse by a country mile; old style MRAs like Warren Farrell are simply nowhere. I cannot begin to say how inspired I was by comments posted by the former corrections officer, law professor and various others on the topic of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Their wholly original perspectives are now central to my new and expanded thesis.

As I write, I am integrating commentary from the appendices into my own work to brace and inform it, while also acknowledging the debt I owe to contributors. This takes time, much more than I had originally envisaged. However, the book will be complete before Christmas and is shaping up to be the most revolutionary work ever written on men’s issues. 

Thanks for all your brilliant contributions and continued support.

RK

What Next for Anglo-American Men: Stars of David?

As most regular readers will know, it is our opinion that - being in essence puritanical - Anglo-American culture harbors a reflexive animus against all men as sexualized beings. Consequently, we should not look to 'conservative' politicians across the Anglosphere to uphold men's rights - to the contrary, 'conservatives' are men's greatest enemies, since traditional Anglo culture detests men.

The latest proof of this assertion? British 'conservative' Prime Minister David Cameron's demented Father's Day outburst against 'feckless fathers'. As per usual, this 'conservative' decries all absent fathers as villains, conveniently forgetting that large numbers of men aren't allowed to see their children in contemporary Britain. Quite aside from this, most single mothers are hardly the harassed, misunderstood angels such White Knights as Futrelle, Fleming and Cameron routinely depict them as. Indeed, the vast majority of single mothers are educationally subnormal, welfare-dependent parasites whose offspring - if Professor Daniel Amneus is correct - are far more prone to crime, unemployment and economic failure than children raised in households where a father is present.

Anyway, let's have a good laugh at 'Dave's' rant:

Fathers who abandon their families should be "stigmatised" by society in the same way as drink drivers, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister signalled a new onslaught on "runaway dads" saying they should be made to feel the "full force of shame" for their actions.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph in an article to mark Father's Day he said it "simply isn't acceptable" for single mothers to be left to bring up their children on their own. Mr Cameron also indicated his determination to introduce tax breaks for married couples - a Tory general election pledge which appeared to have been dropped by the coalition in the face of Liberal Democrat opposition.

"I want us to recognise marriage in the tax system so as a country we show we value commitment," he wrote.

He issued a strong defence of traditional family life - describing it as the "cornerstone of our society" and called for a new drive to "bring fathers back into the lives of all our children".

Even when parents were separated, he said, fathers had a duty to support "financially and emotionally" their children - spending time with them at weekends, attending nativity plays and taking an interest in their education. Where men were unwilling to face up to their family obligations, Mr Cameron said that it was up to the rest of society to make clear that such behaviour was unacceptable.

"It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them," he said.

"They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale. They need the message rammed home to them, from every part of our culture, that what they're doing is wrong - that leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn't acceptable."

Mr Cameron also described how he learned his values from his own father, Ian Cameron, who died last year aged 77.

"From my father, I learned about responsibility. Seeing him get up before the crack of dawn to go and do a hard day's work and not come back until late at night had a profound impact on me," he said.

And there we have it, pure gold. The holes in Cameron's arguments are so huge one could comfortably drive a Mack truck through them. But why bother? His views do not originate in rational thought, just the misandrist psychobabble that is contemporary Anglo-American culture.

Gynotheory: An Interesting New Blog

An interesting new blog called Gynotheory has recently opened offering a number of interesting perspectives on feminism, men's rights and the impact of culture on gender relations. Gynotheory discusses these issues from a post-modern vantage, refusing to inhere to any one analytical paradigm. I approve of this approach, partly because of its intellectual integrity but mainly because it remains acutely alert to culture - a hugely significant dynamic, in my view, one central to the Anglobitch Thesis.

The men's movement is dividing into old-style and new-style theorists. The old-style masculinists broadly want to return to 'conservative' values and extol 'traditional' gender relations, citing evolutionary psychology or Judeo-Christianity to justify these beliefs. The new-style masculinists - and I am one of these, as is the Gynotheory writer - derive our perspective from cultural analysis and consider both left and right to be equally misandrist in the Anglo-American context. Further, we are wary of invoking biological arguments such as sociobiology, since these can be twisted against men to justify anti-male discrimination, even woman-worship (a grave potential danger of Male Studies, in our view).

The distinction is rather like the distinction between Generals Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant - Lee was the last of the great old-style commanders, while Grant represented the first of the great new-style commanders. In time, I believe more and more MRAs will follow our new-style masculinism out of sheer necessity. Moreover, the old-style project is daily refuted by the simple fact that Anglo-American 'conservatives' are as anti-male as Anglo-American leftists - if not more so. As we know, this is because Anglo culture - being puritanical - is inherently misandrist, reflexively vilifying men as sexualized beings. Consequently, Anglo-American 'conservatism' merely restates the age-old 'gynocentrism' implicit in Anglo culture.

Let us consider the problems of old-style masculinism at length:

Errors Political
While Angry Harry is a brilliant writer and activist, his reflexive conflation of feminism with left-Marxism troubles me. Yes, many feminists profess a strong affiliation to the left but then, a good many of these adopt a rightist affiliation and revert to gender-traditionalism where it suits them - criminal sentencing and lifeboat priorities, for instance. Besides, there is little evidence that 'conservative' governments are 'friends to men' - just consider the British Conservative party, who promote misandrist legislation at every turn and cave in to feminist demands 'at the drop of a (top) hat'. American readers will of course be aware that the Republican party has no better record, tacitly viewing all men as abusive via VAWA while unthinkingly setting all women atop pedestals, whatever their conduct. The Conservative Anglo-American media - Fox News, The Daily Mail, The Sun - all are explicitly misandrist yet all profess a 'conservative' orientation. In short, the old-style MRA obsession with 'conservatism' is absurd, since Anglo-American conservatives are just as anti-male as leftists.

Culture, not politics, best explains the misandrist nature of Anglo feminism. Both the left and the right exist within that cultural context, and it is notable that both Anglo conservatives and leftists remain stoutly puritanical and misandrist. Both the left and the right view men as rapist louts who must be suppressed, while all women are victims who must be exalted. And this misandry has a long pedigree in the Anglosphere, as might be expected - it did not erupt in the 1960s. Gynotheory implicitly accepts this, focussing on the 'traditional' devaluation of males in disasters like the Titanic.

My issue with gynotheory's historical analysis is that it conflates all empires as gynocentric, which was actually not the case. In Rome, for instance, even aristocratic women had very few rights and the Empire's expansion was motivated by a masculine desire for wealth and self-aggrandisement, not any desire to protect women. By contrast, the Anglo-Saxon empires - first the British and now the American - fit his analysis perfectly, misandrist empires where men are expendable fodder to shield the rights of hyper-privileged Entitlement Princesses. The difference? Puritanism - the Anglo-Americans have it, the Romans did not.


Errors Scientific
Evolutionary psychology is a powerful modern paradigm, especially in tandem with the more rigorous science of genetics. However, it is fraught with danger for masculinists to extol evolutionary psychology as their only working paradigm, partly because it precludes socio/cultural dynamics but also because it can be used to legitimate female advantage.

For example, it is certainly a fact that men are viewed as more expendable in most western nations. Evolutionary psychology can partly explain this - a small number of survivor males can re-stock a ravaged community, while a similar group with few females will die out. However, the presence of such misandry in modern civilization might be partly the result of social complexity processes embedding archaic mores in modern contexts. Besides, cultural factors also play a part - in the anglosphere, a female must also be white, young, upper middle-class, Anglo and virginal to be fully bewailed by the Anglo media (i.e. Madeleine McCann). None of those things are 'biological' factors as such - all are cultural.

It is also notable that Evolutionary Psychology tends to be an Anglo-Saxon discipline, and thus strongly inflected with puritanical and gynocratic Anglo values. In my two previous posts I posited an alternative interpretation of evolutionary history to explain the inchoate nature of female sexuality - and predictably drew flak from Anglo numb-skulls trying to impose matriarchal values on the slaughterhouse of prehistory. In short, the Darwinian paradigm can be interpreted in many ways, depending on the culture of the interpreter, and not all these interpretations accord with Anglo gynocentrism. To patriarchal Asiatics, for whom the rule of 'strong men' like Tamerlane and Stalin has been the norm, female mate-selection seems a rather more ephemeral force than it does to Anglo-Saxons.

Ultimately, the very fact that Evolutionary Psychology exists as a science shows men can transcend our biological programming - or at least regard it as rational outsiders. Were it not the case, there would be no men's movement the question the manifold injustices men experience. The better Game writers all acknowledge this conceptual self-transcendence, promoting a mocking, post-modern detachment from their own activities. If we just accepted that all men are expendable and all women are angels, why are we bothering to be MRAs? We would just accede to the misandrist propaganda and become manginas like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle. The fact that we don't proves the limits of evolutionary psychology. Post-feminist women have in any case reneged on their primary biological function (child-bearing), creating an entirely new social compact beyond the scope of Darwinian thought. The New-Style MRA programme is a supra-biological response to supra-biological conditions: we can do no other.


Errors Existential
Old-Style MRAs hold a delusional view of feminism. They broadly believe it can and will be 'rolled back' to be replaced by an archaic patriarchy where all men are respected and allowed to reproduce sans Game or sperm banks. All this is juvenile thinking. Societies are complex entities ruled by non-linear processes that are effectively irreversible. Female contraception, careers and 'rights' will never be rescinded and any assumption that they will is naive and adolescent. Given this reality, invoking 'conservatism' and unqualified biological determinism are potentially dangerous, lending support to the 'rights plus privileges' agenda that women already enjoy.

What really impressed me about the Gynotheory blog is the author's implicit acceptance of the new conditions. Most men have no reason to be chivalrous in the modern context; invoking traditional chivalry in an era when most men are third class citizens is a suicidal project. Instead, the author calls for western men to build a new lifestyle that negotiates the whirlpools of misandrist gender-feminism while retaining fidelity to masculine objectivity and independence. As T S Eliot wrote in the wake of the First World War (a specific disaster for western manhood), 'these fragments I have shored against my ruins'. This is surely a commendable approach and one which will bear much fruit in the longer term.


While we are discussing blogs, I really like the turn Scarecrow's Men-Factor blog is taking. Dick Masterson taught the manosphere that humour could be a devastating weapon in the fight against misandrist gender-feminism and Men-Factor has certainly taken that lesson to heart. In the presence of humour a fool understands her stupidity instantly, partly because humour elides exposition while demanding considerable 'deconstructive' prowess on the part of the reader/viewer.

Feminists (and women generally) lack the capacity for sophisticated humour, partly because of the lower female median IQ but also because of their crass inability to think 'outside the box' - a by-product of their miniscule amygdalas. The images on that blog are worthy of Monty Python and have clearly upset the witless Peter Futrelle with their puckish drollery.

And that's got to be good.