Canadian MRA Blogger Facing Jail

The power of an argument can be measured by its resilience. The same bold principle can be applied to a host of activities, from the martial arts to engineering. We put our trust in engineers whenever we board a plane, use a train or drive a car. If their design and construction skills were conspicuously lacking, we would soon perish. In short, engineering as a discipline proves its worth by being continually tested, and triumphing over the most arduous obstacles.


The same can be said of the martial arts. Gracie Jiu Jitsu operates the Gracie Challenge, wherein a fighter from any other combat discipline can challenge a Gracie champion. In this way, Gracie Jiu Jitsu demonstrates its worth as a martial art. It does not hide in theory, or boast unseen victories: like engineering, its exposes itself to refutation in the most demanding arena possible.


By contrast, if we take a look at Anglo-American women's studies, this fearless masculine desire for 'trial by proof' is completely lacking. Anglo feminists live in obscure academic enclaves, talking only to other feminists who share exactly the same opinions. They seldom (if ever) venture beyond these reassuring confines to face public 'trial by fire'. This is because feminist academics invariably have a 'soft sciences' or liberal arts background, where sentiment and opinion outweigh evidence or proof. Indeed, as Richard Feynman argued, 'soft sciences' like psychology and sociology (let alone the liberal arts) are not really sciences at all, since they are not open to disproof or verification in quarantined test environments. Little wonder, then, that feminist 'research' produces such wild claims as, 'a million girls die of anorexia in the US every year' (the true figure is 100). When there are no criteria of objective proof governing an academic discipline, it becomes prey to such preposterous statements. In sum, Anglo-American feminism retains the thought-patterns of the African peasant.


The execrable Jessica Valenti is a prime offender, pushing her witless books to clueless feminists on her tedious website (from which all dissenting opinion is conveniently banished). Then, she has the gall to excoriate MRAs for not 'standing up in their communities' and openly proclaiming their beliefs. Well, the following story shows exactly WHY Anglo-American men must be wary about publicly expressing their opposition to feminism. The Anglosphere is now so matriarchal that even keeping a satirical blog ridiculing feminism can lead to jail:

A Quebec man facing charges of making online threats to kill women has been denied bail after a judge described him as a "time bomb."

Jean-Claude Rochefort will remain in custody until mid-February pending his trial on charges of uttering online death threats against women. The 61-year-old Montreal man has been in custody since December, after authorities arrested him following repeated warnings to stop posting contentious messages on his blog.

During Rochefort's bail hearing Thursday, Judge Claude Leblond described him as a "time bomb" who demonstrates a visceral hatred of women. The public would lose confidence in the justice system if he were granted freedom before his trial, the judge added.

Rochefort's blog, described by observers as anti-feminist, paid homage to Marc Lépine, the gunman who murdered 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989.

Forensic psychiatrists have declared Rochefort of sound mind and fit to stand trial. He is due back in court on Feb. 16.

Source: CBC news, Feb 5th, 2010

Clearly, pan-Anglosphere feminists are so averse to trial by proof that coercive force is their sole response to rational criticism. And in the new Anglo Matriarchal World Order (NAMWO), they have the legal and political backing of 'elite' Manginas to impose their infantile opinions. Unlike engineers or Jiu Jitsi practitioners, feminists will stoop to any depths to avoid the 'reality test' so crucial to worthwhile endeavor. Ultimately, when one's opinions are logically and morally bankrupt, there is no other option.

As Isaac Asimov opined, 'violence is the last refuge of the incompetent': now, what does that tell us about Anglo feminism? The case also reveals another feminist (indeed, female) flaw - their crushing lack of humor or irony. The Lepine blog was quite plainly satirical. Only a poker-faced feminist could possibly take it seriously.

Uber-feminist Andrea Dworkin: in serious need of a humor transplant

The Anglobitch Debate II

It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm Joe T.

novaseeker -

The brand of feminism prevalent in Sweden is completely different than that which exists in the USA. It is a much less pernicious kind. What we have in America is an asexualizing society built on appying hypermasculine values to everyone — male and female. This results in hyperambitious females obsessed with competing with men. But what are they competing at? They are competing at selling themselves out — being perfect elements of the soulless, competitive capitalist machine.

In Sweden, you have a society built on essentially female values, which I actually think is far superior to the US model. Sweden may be very feminist in orientation, but it is very beta-friendly. While in the US, what you have is the tactical alliance of feminists and alpha males, which freezes out and marginalizes beta males.
Being essentially a beta (like about 80 of males), I don’t think I should have to tell you which society I would prefer.

Also, a point which is actually not much cited on this blog, but which is significant, is that the USA has *by far* the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per thousand. The second highest is the UK, still significantly less than America’s, at about 3.8 per 1000. Sweden ranks around 3rd, but only half of the US rate, at about 2.5/1000.You actually have to look at the statistical groupings of the list of countries, and their divorce rates, to appreciate how the US ranks in a classy by itself.

I am *not* equating a low divorce rate necessarily with policies and society that favors males, but it so happens that the countries with the *lowest* divorce rates are considered by social scientists to be the most patriarchal. I know Roissy rails against marriage, and he would probably say the men in countries with low divorce rates — Italy, Portugal, Brazil, etc. are “suckers” for staying married, or for being married in the first place. But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

So, America presents the absolute worst of all possible worlds for the beta male (80-85 percent of males, according to even Roissy’s numbers). American Turbo Capitalism endorses all of the following simultaneously:

1) Militant feminism and the “empowered”, male-suspicious female
2) Asexualism and the obliteration of traditional gender roles, passed off as “progress”
3) Promotion of broadly pro-Alpha Male values, as an overall societal value system (which includes libertarian capitalism as the preferred method of economic organization)
4) The marginalization, devaluation, and debasement of what are essentilly the broad masses of the male sex
5) Female sexual “empowerment” and the pressure to form “female-led” relationships, either out of economic necessity, by default, or because of pressure from the prevailing propaganda line promulgated by the corporate media

Rookh Kshatriya writes: Marriage in Anglo culture is overloaded with significance because of the puritan temper of Anglosphere societies. Anglo Marriage is a pycho-social lifestyle adjunct, not a realistic relationship-contract. Because it is so charged with insoluble psychic baggage (the usual Freudian issues and complexes), Anglo-American Marriage is an enormously stressful Institution for both partners - a psychic pressure cooker. However, Marriage originated merely as a functional institution to produce children in a patriarchal culture. In such cultures, the religious/spiritual/philosophical/sexual features of life were dealt with by relevant institutions, such as organized religions or Temple-prostitutes. Anglo marriages are those most likely to fail because the Anglosphere now has an unrealistic understanding of that institution, asking it to bear responsibilities it was never designed for.

As an aside, it is odd that the author considers feminism to be partly fostered by Alpha males, since Alpha Males are those most likely to be fleeced in misandrist divorce settlements. The sociobiological arguments of the British author Moxon often seem to be invoked in these debates, but many of his assumptions are riddled with errors. For example, criminal underclass males have the highest fertility rates in modern society, not upper-middle class alphas. It is much more likely that Anglo culture fosters feminism and misandry as a function of its puritanical obsessions than its sociobiological imperatives.


1.on June 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm doug1

Joe T.
But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

Although you’re of course right about the sharply different attitudes towards extramarital sex particularly for men in Anglosphere versus other Euro societies, you’re wrong about the reasons. It is not primarily greater prudishness. For instance, in Victorian England it was widely assumed that many married men would need the release valve of extra marital relations, particularly with prostitutes where it was mostly winked about, but sometimes with others.

Early feminism was all about two things most of all. First was getting women the vote, which they felt (rightly) would end up being of key importance it getting a lot of other rights for women. Second was greater rights in divorce, and social acceptance of the idea that male infidelity was absolutely grounds enough for not only a divorce, and one in which the woman made out handsomely if the man had any bucks. Feminism was lead by women whose men did by and large. American women in particular have always been militantly against male extra marital affairs as a women’s rights and dignity issue. This united women of a wide variety of political persuasions.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: We cannot assume that the original feminists thought exactly as modern Anglo feminists do. In the late Victorian era, patrician women believed in religion literally and implicitly. Also, they harbored right-wing ideas that would broadly be seen as unacceptable today. Actually, most early Anglo feminists were upper-class Nazis. Most of them were avowed racists and eugenicists (Woolf, Stopes) and some of their preoccupations (contraception for instance) were motivated by eugenic concerns and a desire to eliminate troublesome sections of the working class. Early Anglo feminists were also Puritanical Christian Protestants with an obsessive desire to impose moral continence on the masses – partly intrinsic, partly motivated by eugenics and lastly by a yearning to ‘ration’ sex, thereby rendering men of their own class easier to control. While Victorian gents were having sex with whores (and each other) the puritan ‘standard’ was still there, even if no one held to it. In other countries, the ‘standard’ just wasn’t present. For example, the Germans made extensive use of official field brothels in WWI, something the Anglo combatants never adopted. So there clearly were differences between Anglo countries and their Continental counterparts at a deep, cultural level. Maintaining that Anglo-Saxon cultures are not puritanical and repressed is the height of folly; though, to be charitable, this viewpoint often characterises those who have not lived outside the Anglosphere.

Feministing.com: Jessica Valenti and the Politics of Rhetoric

By any reasonable assessment criteria, Anglo-American feminism is an abject failure. While enormous damage has been done to the family, to Marriage and other traditional institutions (or their pan-Anglosphere shadows that yet survive), most Anglo women are not feminists, at least not as originally conceived in the heady days of the Sixties. To the contrary, Anglo-American women are today never more immersed in ‘bourgeois’ lifestyles, values and assumptions: consumerism, vanity and sexual barter for material gain.

We see this attachment to bourgeois values in Feministing.com – a major mass conduit of contemporary feminism. Nearly all the Feministing women who post on YouTube are obvious avatars of bourgeois respectability: straight, pearly teeth, carefully applied make-up and costly designer clothes. If these women were truly opposed to the extant social order, they would dress with complete indifference to traditional female standards. Self-evidently, they retain a knee-jerk affinity to the existing social order and its values. Yet this, according to them, is an oppressive patriarchy that militates against their social and emotional well-being. Moreover, the computers they use, the publishers who print their turgid books, their cosseted university enclaves – are all products of the patriarchy they profess to despise. If they want to reject patriarchy, why do they not jettison their attachment to these creations of ‘oppressive’ patriarchal society? Why not live in feminist communes in the wilderness and ‘start again’ from ‘Year Zero’ like Pol Pot, using an exclusively feminist science and technology?

This ambivalent relationship with the social order is well-answered by Jessica Valenti’s public autobiography (Jessica, for the uninitiated, is 'Executive Editor' of Feministing.com). She is, somewhat predictably, a Women’s Studies graduate from some private university; and conducts herself like a typically spoilt, glossy product of the salubrious suburbs. At a cursory glance, the same is true of her followers on YouTube and elsewhere. Judging by Bernard Chapin’s scathing YouTube report on Valenti’s book, Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, her major problem seems to be her prominent nose – a physical birth defect entirely unrelated to Anglo-American patriarchy. Interestingly, Full Frontal Feminism boasts a naked female body on the cover - and a somewhat suggestive title for a supposedly 'feminist' text.

Cutting to the chase, the whole point is that Jessica Valenti really has no legitimate gripe with the social order. Indeed, she has largely profited by an intimate association with it; and remains on the decidedly advantaged side of it. In other words, her ‘activism’ is just a careerist sham; she has nothing to protest about. This is not an African-American male maimed in Vietnam living in a trailer on a pittance; this is a hyper-advantaged individual profiteering from hollow rhetoric. All Feministing YouTube broadcasts have the same vacuous quality; much ado about nothing. The ‘Friday Feministing Fuck You’ always addresses the same tangential ephemera, never the real issues of the day (financial meltdown, political corruption, the war in Iraq or pan-Anglosphere social collapse).

Bluntly, this is because Anglo-American feminism is a bourgeois, white phenomenon, safely cocooned from mainstream social reality. Additionally, Anglo-American women enjoy rights denied to most women around the world – to education, autonomy and property ownership. Atop everything, they retain traditional privileges – for example, young American women do not have to register for the Draft, unlike their male counterparts. And so we see why Jessica Valenti engages in rhetorical politics: her protests ring hollow because the advantaged and integrated have no purchase on protest.

Feministing.com is a sham – and so is all Anglobitch feminism.