Anglofoids Deface War Memorial Bench with Crude Graffiti

Anglofoid Handiwork...

Conservative Anglocucks like Jordan Peterson and Tommy Fleming are forever telling Anglo-American men that if they 'man up' and 'accept responsibility' then women will respect them. Let's see how this sage advice actually works in reality. Two underclass British foids were so impressed by such White Knighting that they recently desecrated a memorial to World War 1 soldiers:

Two mothers have been slammed for vandalising a bench commemorating World War I heroes while their little children watch on. 

The pair were caught writing their names - 'Shell' and 'Jane' - into wet concrete setting beneath the new memorial bench in Horncastle, Lincolnshire. Locals have branded them 'disrespectful,' an 'absolute disgrace' and 'disgusting' on a local community page on Facebook.

The women can be seen leaning over the cordoned off area at the base of the bench, with one of the little ones watching over, to bend down and scrape their names in. Their prams are standing close by and another child appears to be standing behind one of the women.

The park bench was installed on February 18 according to the Sun, to mark the centenary of the end of WWI. The next day it had been tarnished by the two women. The back of the metal bench shows soldiers and a warhorse silhouetted next to poppies, and the immortal words: 'Lest we forget.' 

Helen Lea initially brought people's attention to the awful act by posting on the Horncastle Community Facebook page.

Julie Goy wrote online: 'I walked past this bench earlier, 12.15 today with my granddaughter who is nearly two and we stood and admired it, she liked the red poppies. It was fine then and no damage. What a dreadful shame, should be ashamed of themselves.' 

Yes, this is how modern Anglo-American women reward and respect the men who 'manned' up and fought for their country: by desecrating their humble memorial. And still the Tradcon clowns wonder why Anglo-American men are withdrawing their consent from society... go figure.

Fat Anglofoids Desecrating the Memorial

Where Do White Knights Come From?

We discuss White Knights a lot in the Men’s Movement. However, very little digital ink is expended on their origins and motivations. Obviously, ‘sucking up’ to women gives low betas, gammas and obese, moronic misfits their only hope of free sex. However, I suspect there are deeper motivations behind their absurd idolization of the thug-lovers and misandrist feminists that pass for women in the contemporary Anglosphere.

In my experience, most White Knights tend to come from ‘enmeshed’ family backgrounds. Enmeshed families are dysfunctional, lower-middle class kinship groups whose members live in splendid (or not so splendid) isolation from the rest of society. They often have ‘time-warp’ values several decades behind the mainstream. Their children usually wear outmoded fashions and have an inflated sense of their own abilities. School or college is not a good time for them – such ‘real world’ institutions shatter the enmeshed child’s pipe-dreams of his/her ‘specialness’. During this stressful period, the enmeshed family and its delusions are the child’s sole haven. Indeed, the youngster’s attachment to the family matriarch grows ever stronger during these difficult years. This is where manginas and white knights come from – cold, frigid socons spouting their parents’ outmoded platitudes about ‘goddesses’ or, alternatively, socialist woman-worshippers in ostrich-like denial of women's true nature.

Here is an academic description:

The term enmeshment has been widely used in the family therapy literature since it was popularized by the work of Salvador Minuchin (1978)... 

"Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in family interactions...In a highly enmeshed, overinvolved family, changes within one family member or in the relationship between two family members reverberate throughout the system...

On an individual level, interpersonal differentiation in an enmeshed system is poor...in enmeshed families the individual gets lost in the system. The boundaries that define individual autonomy are so weak that functioning in individually differentiated ways is radically handicapped (Minuchin, et al, 1978, p.30)." 

Minuchin described the lack of clear ego boundaries between family members which produced a form of fusion, a condition that interfered with a clear sense of self. Much like parental alienation, the phenomenon of enmeshment may be found in varying degrees of intensity, with corresponding degrees of negative impact on child development.

Tommy Fleming is a perfect example of the enmeshed socon while David Futrelle exemplifies the enmeshed socialist. Fleming has the bony, fanatic face of a defeated Confederate Colonel and his website often alludes to the school-bullying and general ridicule he experienced during adolescence. His reflexive adulation of the past represents a fixation with the twisted dynamics of his biological family, nothing more. And his blind woman-worship is best explained by the semi-incestuous mother-love he experienced during turbulent adolescence.

Turning to Futrelle, he clearly had similar issues growing up. His enmeshed family were probably hippies - or at least touched by that counterculture. Man-boob David doubtless gambolled around a middle-middle class home full of Raggedy-Ann dolls and hokey books by the execrable Timothy Leary. In this candy-floss idyll, he could do no wrong: mother-love, food and approbation were ever at hand.

Cue school. Cue gym classes. Cue ridicule by sadistic jocks. Cue indifference by painted nubiles. Cue recoil into enmeshed family.  Cue mummy-worship. Cue self-delusion. Cue the obese, self-indulgent mangina we know today, squatting like some grotesque Buddha in a faded suburb amongst cat-droppings and lesbian love-letters, prattling on about how ‘human’ Anglo-American women are.

The mangina’s retreat from the ‘real world’ into the arms of his enmeshed family is crucial to his fanatic rejection of consensus reality. He deliberately forsakes the social mainstream for a mother-centred dream-world several decades behind contemporary values. Note how Fleming embodies the 1950s, Futrelle the 1970s – the Twenty-First century rarely figures in their pompous formulations. And the same is true of other White Knights, left-liberals and socons in general.

Why does the English-speaking world produce more White Knights than any other cultural bloc? Partly because the Anglosphere’s individualist, post-puritanical ethos creates far more enmeshed, lower-middle class families. In other cultures, greater ethno-cultural cohesion plus overtly masculine values do much to dissolve insular families and disrupt male attachment to them. Military service and legalized prostitution force men out into the wider world, whether they want to go or not. In Thailand, where most adolescent males use prostitutes as a matter of course, the enticements of ‘the world’ are too heady to permit the sickly ‘mother-attachment’ that dominates the Anglosphere. By contrast, countries like England are full of latent-homosexual manginas worshipping denatured, frigid women in the face of all rational evidence.

The enmeshed reactionary invariably becomes a White Knight because of the gynocratic nature of pre-Internet Anglo-Saxon culture. Women were effusively pedestalized all through the 50s, 60s and 70s in films, pop music and television shows. This agenda began to wane a little in the 80s and 90s but only met serious opposition with the rise of the Internet. Prior to that, the Pedestal Syndrome prevailed across the Anglosphere, embracing both the left-liberal counterculture and its socon adversaries. Thus, hailing from an enmeshed family invariably embeds the victim’s mind in the ‘pedestal era’. Both Fleming and Futrelle are perfect examples of this process, in their respective ways. Trapped in their vanished worlds, the poisonous reality of contemporary gender-relations passes over them like the wind.

The Costa Concordia and How White Knights Missed the Point

The Costa Concordia sinking was an informative tragedy. That is, it exposed all that is wrong with contemporary Anglo-American gender-relations. First, let us amuse ourselves with an Anglo White Knight's hysterical response to events. A N Wilson's article appeared in the British right-wing tabloid, the Daily Mail, shortly after the sinking. The Daily Mail has the dubious distinction of having supported Hitler, by the way... but I digress:

Whatever Happened to Women and Children First?

When the Titanic went down in April 1912, the Captain’s orders were: ‘Women and children first!’

Although this legendary edict was never part of maritime law, it was adhered to so strictly on the Titanic that men were actually stopped from boarding lifeboats, many of which went to sea only three-quarters full. There were only a few exceptions to the unvarying tales of heroism: three men in steerage who disobeyed the rule — Italians, coincidentally — were shot.

The chivalry was reflected in survival rates: 74 per cent of the women were saved; 52 per cent of the children; and just 20 per cent of the men. It meant that Titanic’s sinking quickly became the stuff of mythology. The Chairman of the White Star Line, Joseph Bruce Ismay, who was on board the liner and did escape in a lifeboat, was branded a coward by the world’s Press for leaving the Titanic while there were still women and children on board.

Nellie Taft, wife of the U.S. President, mounted a campaign to raise funds for a monument that would be inscribed: ‘To the brave men who gave their lives that women and children might be saved.’

The tragedy of the wrecked cruise liner, the Costa Concordia, with its dreadful loss of life and hideous memories for the terror-stricken crew and passengers, has appalled all of us. It would now seem as though the accident was avoidable, and this makes it all the more horrifying for everyone who lived through what one crew-member called a 36-hour nightmare. One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape; and how the Italian crew ignored passengers and reportedly shouldered their way past mothers and pregnant women to get into lifeboats...

It seems that the seafaring command about women and children being first to board lifeboats originated with the sinking of HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa in 1852. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered, the soldiers’ commander told his men to ‘stand fast!’ and allow women and children to make use of the few lifeboats on the vessel...

But in our day, with the advent of feminism and the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned. As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.

But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing. And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.

A. N. Wilson, Daily Mail, 17 January 2012

This farrago of White Knight, Anglofag drivel can educate as well as entertain, however. Among the points arising:

1. The Mainstream Media are woefully out of touch with contemporary society - especially the 'conservative' media. All the highly-ranked comments on Wilson's article are 'anti-chivalry' and could come straight off the Spearhead. Not one of them supports his absurd double-standards. Here are two good examples:

What happened? Feminism happened. It took our jobs, our children, our freedom and our dignity. It denigrated, and lied, until we were little more than dirt in the eyes of society, unpleasant and expendable individually, though useful macroscopically. In an age of guilty till proven innocent, where law is bent subjectively to suit any purpose, a slow realisation and attitude of resentment is sweeping throughout the psyche of the captor, conscious for some, but present for most. Your conviction in this is irrelevant; expect more examples of denial of female privilege, gradually escalating, until something significant changes.

- Adam, N.Ireland, 17/1/2012 2:53

OK, so you are on a sinking ship. There is one lifeboat. Your companions are the Eagle Sisters, Dianne Abbott, Jackie Smith, Harriet Harman, Teresa May (all hideous feminists - RK) and a single other male who is knowledgeable about cricket and fine wines and tells a good joke. You have a pistol. Discuss.

- TerenceH, Rochester, UK, 17/1/2012 7:04

The second comment is particularly revealing. Wilson seems to assumes all women are Edwardian 'ladies' wafting around in a haze of perfume and poetry. Note also how the Costa Concordia women shown in the media are all presentable, feminine and middle class - quite unlike the vast majority of Anglo females. The 'Lady' archetype is always wheeled out for these occasions despite most Anglo-American women being obese, drunken, vicious, ugly and loud. Has Wilson been living in an upper-middle class cocoon for most of his life? I suspect so.

In brief, times haves changed. The old Anglofag nonsense has been steadily eroded by the Internet and the Men's Rights Movement. If there is indeed 'a longing among most men to protect women and children' why did this chivalry not manifest itself on the Costa Concordia? Moreover, why did so few male commentators on Wilson's article support his antiquated ideas? And why did so many readers rank his critics so highly?

This movement is often accused or changing nothing in the real world. Odd, because we now live in a world where masculinist values are omnipresent - a completely different world than even twenty years ago. White Knights and feminists can bleat until they are blue in the face but the era of 'pussy passes' is clearly at an end.

2. Paradoxically, feminism can only work in a patriarchal context. Bizarre but true, this observation cuts right to the heart of feminism. The females on the Costa Concordia were looking for male authority ('an officer') to protect their privileges. Without patriarchy, without men, feminism would not be possible.

The same must be said of post-feminist Anglo-American society in general. When men are fleeced in the Divorce courts and robbed of their children, male judges and police officers typically do the dirty work. When feminists say 'we need to stop international sex trafficking' they really mean, 'male-headed and staffed police agencies need to stop international sex trafficking'.

That doesn't sound quite the same, of course. If large numbers of men defect from society, however, feminism will crumble. And the lesson? The Costa Concordia showed the true power we wield.

3. Being mercenaries (see my previous article), men are not 'playing the game' any more. There is no reason - sexual, economic or social - for men to conform to their traditional 'gender obligations'. Simply put, feminism and female emancipation have eliminated all payoffs for chivalrous behavior. Being a 'nice guy' leads only to sexual disenfranchisement, divorce and poverty, hardly gold-plated incentives. If the grinding tedium of medical school were not rewarded with elevated salaries, would anyone attend? Of course not! But White Knights like Fleming, Wilson and Futrelle (plus the emerging breed of 'feminist conservatives' - that is, women who like rights with privileges) expect men to queue up for chivalry without a single economic, social or sexual reward... fortunately, most men are not as stupid as they are.

4. Feminism and Anglo-American Conservatives are one. Feminism is not a revolutionary movement, at all. In his post on the MRA response to the disaster, David Futrelle assails the (quite valid) MRA observation that conservatives like Wilson and Anglo-American feminists are one and the same. I am flattered that the 'new wave' of post-conservative masculinists are saying this, since I first conceived of it!

Anglo-American conservatives share many attitudes with feminists. A quick list:

1. Hatred of recreational sex, in all its forms (prostitution, hook-ups, sex tourism).
2. Idealization of women (in the teeth of all contrary evidence).
3. Misandry - both groups reflexively demonize men as sexual beings.
4. Racism and classism - both feminism and conservatism are white, middle class, Anglocentric movements dismissive of anyone outside their privileged world. And both movements have a scurrilous history of racism and intolerance.
5. Coercive - both movements detest personal freedom, especially male sexual freedom.
6. Christian - both groups usually commit to a joyless, hypocritical protestantism derived from English Puritanism: anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-men. And sick in the extreme.
7. Both groups are imperialistic, obsessed by exporting their warped values around the world. In the case of feminism, this theme has grown much stronger in recent years (partly because men now have no rights in the Anglosphere, obviating the feminists' original mission). They seek new lands to conquer. The 'anti-trafficking' agenda is a central plank in this new feminist imperialism.

Perhaps the best answer is that Anglo-Saxon conservatism and feminism represent different ideological manifestations of the same cultural phenomenon - puritanical repression. One is reminded of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm: indistinguishable from the tyrannical farmers. The more Anglo feminism preaches 'revolution', the more it stays the same.

As an amusing conclusion, just look at who Daily Mail bigot Peter Hitchens (brother of the deceased Christopher) links to:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Yes, it's our cross-eyed friend, Tommy Fleming! The link between Anglo feminism and Anglo conservatism could not be clearer.

Dear Woman: White Knight Anglofags Abase themselves

For readers familiar with Anglo White Knights like Tommy Fleming and David Futrelle, this YouTube video will be eerily familiar:



After watching this, how can anyone seriously deny that Anglo-American males are programmed by their culture to pedestalize women in the most ridiculous manner? Note the token presence of a few non-Anglo males to 'smooth the message' (hired White Knights?).

Note also the studied lack of objectivity these buffoons display in describing Anglo-American women - typically bigots, drunks, sluts and home-wreckers. For the White Knight fanciers among us (and there are many), these specimens embody all that is sick within Anglo-American manhood. Indeed, they remind me of cultists following some strange, arbitrary belief-system; consider their glazed eyes, slack mouths and feminine features. Not H P Lovecraft himself could conceive a more disturbing sect of denatured abominations.