Two Million Hits and the Current State of the Anglobitch Thesis

Don't be fooled: Female 'radicalism' is just an act

We recently crossed the threshold of two million hits on this blog—a staggering milestone that reflects the growing resonance of these ideas across the entire Anglosphere. From London to Los Angeles, Sydney to Toronto, it is clear that the analysis provided here is providing a vocabulary for the systemic dysfunction that defines modern gender relations in the English-speaking world.

As we celebrate this success, it is high time to revisit the central pillar of this site: The Anglobitch Thesis. Far from outdated, the thesis is more valid than ever (although it has evolved in ways that demand fresh scrutiny).

The Global Export of Institutionalized Misandry

One necessary caveat to the original thesis is that the specific Anglo-American brand of sex-negative, misandrist feminism is no longer confined to the borders of the Anglosphere. Indeed, we are witnessing the 'Anglification' of gender relations in countries once thought immune. From the radical '4B' movement in South Korea to shifting social dynamics in Poland and Japan, the toxic export of Anglo-feminist pseudo-grievance culture is globalising.

However, the core of the Thesis remains unshakable: Anglo-American feminism is not a 'progressive' or 'revolutionary' movement at all, but rather a direct extension of traditional Anglo-American Puritanism. As such, it strives to pathologise male nature while demanding a new form of chivalry that exclusively benefits women by artificially boosting their sexual market value via active suppression of male erotic freedoms.

Hyper-Hypergamy and the OnlyFans Economy

The modern digital landscape has only validated the Anglobitch Thesis with terrifying concision. On dating apps, we see the rise of a rabid 'hyper-hypergamy' where women automatically filter out 90% of the male population based on rigid metrics of race, height and income. This isn't liberation at all; it is the institutionalisation of female sexual fascism under the guise of standards. 

Simultaneously, we see the ruthless exploitation of male loneliness via platforms like OnlyFans and TikTok. This is just the 'traditional' female strategy of manipulating male desire in action, rebranded as 'empowerment'. In truth, such behaviour mirrors the Puritan sexual transactionalism of the past, in every detail. Beneath the blue hair and 'revolutionary' rhetoric, these female radicals are still firmly fixed in Seventeenth-Century New England.

The Vilification of Masculinity and the Transitioning Trend

The institutionalized misandry of Anglo-American schools, media, and corporate culture has now reached fever pitch. Masculinity is no longer treated as a virtue, but a disease to be 'cured'. This constant vilification has led to a startling phenomenon: an ever-increasing number of young males seeking to transition into females. When society spends decades telling boys that being a man is synonymous with being a 'predator' or 'oppressor', it is obvious that many would seek to opt out of that identity to find social acceptance and opportunity.

The Stability Crisis: A Society Teetering

The social side-effects of rampant Anglo-American feminism are written in the data:

• The Death of the Family: Marriage and fertility rates are cratering across the Anglosphere.

• The Opt-Out Generation: A massive segment of Gen Z males has simply stopped looking for partners altogether. The juice is simply not worth the squeeze in such a rigged legal and social market.

• The 2030 Projection: Estimates suggest that at least 45% of American women will be single and childless by 2030—a demographic time bomb. 

Despite (or perhaps because of) this unfolding disaster, women and the establishment react with venomous vitriol toward Passport Bros (another development predicted by the Anglobitch Thesis almost two decades ago). Why such antagonism? As always, the Thesis provides the best answer: because extra romantic options for men lower the inflated sexual market value of the modern Anglo-American woman, invalidating their hyper-hypergamy and exalted status. In simple terms, neither Anglo-American women (nor the system that supports them) can tolerate a competitive market.

Conclusions and Prognoses

The Anglobitch Thesis is not just a theory: it is a matchless tool for examining a civilization in terminal decline. By promoting hyper-traditional female behaviour under the false banner of radicalism, Anglo-American feminism has created an environment of unprecedented social, economic, political and cultural instability. We are no longer just looking at a 'gender gap'—the Anglosphere is teetering on the edge of open gender warfare.

But look on the bright side: two million hits suggest that the world is finally starting to pay attention.

Hyper-hypergamous pseudo-radicalism

  

 

Old Maps and New Territories: Why is the Anglosphere stuck in 1958 on the Verge of 2022?

The 1950s ideal looks good; but don't rely on it

On the eve of 2022, it moves us to ask this urgent question: why are so many men still using outmoded information to navigate gender relations? Although most Anglocunts are either chasing tattooed thugs or angling for some Blue-Pilled beta to marry before running into the Wall, most Anglo-American males still worship them as secular deities. 

Why?

The hideous reality of the 21 century Anglobitch 

Answering this question necessarily involves addressing the whole of Anglo-American culture, of which gender-relations form but a small part. Such a timely appraisal will reveal that the same outmoded values govern politics, the media and law: a temporal false consciousness strongly akin to Sexual False Consciousness, which I will here call ‘1958 False Consciousness’. The ridiculous 'War on Drugs' is a good example, despite law enforcement knowing it to be a costly and abject failure.

There is more. In the Anglosphere, the most urgent issues are ignored while politicians and the media fixate on issues that are decades out of date (or just completely irrelevant, like 'trafficking'). While I do not rate Bernie Sanders’ policies, he deserves great credit for pointing out that most poor Americans do not vote at all. No mainstream American politician discussed this ‘elephant in the room’ until he did. In fact, Anglo-American politics itself is a ludicrous relic: electoral colleges, ballot boxes, wooden rhetoric and doddering politicians still fighting the Cold War. Meanwhile, the real issues - including mass male sexual disenfranchisement, institutional misandry, male suicide rates and the declining value of college education - are completely sidelined. In sum, the prevailing wisdom on most things in the Anglosphere is old and outmoded, if not completely useless.

On the cusp of 2022, we need to know how and why this ridiculous situation arose. Here are a few suggestions:

Boomer Domination of Mainstream Culture

The Boomer domination of mainstream media, politics and the cultural life is beginning to decline as they die off, yet remains a powerful force. For example, the Boomer assumption that attending college automatically confers 'middle class' status still governs mainstream discourse. Boomer assumptions still govern gender-relations, too; the lame Tradcuck canards that snotty Anglocunts are ‘oppressed’ or attracted to physics professors being good examples. Supposedly 'cutting-edge' commentators like Aaron Cleary and Jordan Peterson are essentially Tradcuck Boomers, in all but name. Peterson’s views are worthless to sub-8 men in the 21^st century, yet he enjoys vast popularity as a ‘revolutionary’ thinker. Meanwhile, LMS and myself are marginalised figures even within the manosphere.

It is fair to say that the Manosphere arose to fill the vacuum between the reality of life for sub-8 men and the Blue-Pilled Boomer rhetoric that still dominates films, TV shows and pop music. Indeed, the Anglosphere’s strident ‘All women are victims!’ agenda is a fifties relic; given that they are now shown preferential treatment in every sphere of life.

The Boomer garbage we were raised with

Legacy Puritanism

Some of the Anglo-American aversion to reality arises from legacy puritanism and its reflexive tendency to suppress ‘unpleasant’ features of human nature; hence the hysterical and dysfunctional 'zero tolerance' policies concerning drugs and prostitution in the USA. By contrast, the Hispanic world is comfortable with both diversions. Similarly, the Anglo authorities would rather dismiss the issue of mass male sexlessness than accept the 'unpleasant' reality of human sexual needs. Unfortunately for them, reality cannot be banished indefinitely.

Legitimate Nostalgia

The post-war era, especially the period from 1958 to 1975, was an anomaly in economic terms. Because of its relative peace, prosperity and cultural significance, it has become a permanent lifestyle template for the Anglosphere (and indeed, the West in general). This is why the post-war era continues to ‘haunt’ the Anglosphere as an ideal, preventing rational appraisal of the present in many different spheres: education, law enforcement, politics and (above all) gender relations. Putting it bluntly, many people find wallowing in a half-mythical past far preferable to confronting (or even acknowledging) urgent contemporary problems. 

Anglosphere Atomisation: Social Isolation, Homosociality, Generationalism, Racism and Class Distinction

Because of its distinctive colonial history, laissez faire economics and ingrained homosociality, different classes, races, generations and sexes share few common experiences in the Anglosphere countries. Clearly, this conflicted situation will never promote objective appraisal of reality; consider how upper-middle class white Boomer politicians remain stuck in the 1950s, completely unaware of anyone else or their experiences. Similarly, homosocial academic feminists harbour distorted views about non-white or sub-8 men as 'privileged', since they never meet any. The Anglosphere's black urban underclass lives in an insular world of rap music, bogus aspirations and drive-by shootings, as if nothing else existed. Such atomised societies can never develop common arenas of discourse, the true engines of socio-cultural development. Inevitably, this results in a kind of existential inertia with no capacity to adapt or improve.

Conclusion: How Using the Right Map Confers Success

Rampant Blue Knights = Blue Balled Losers and Fantasists

For all the reasons outlined above (and doubtless many more), Anglo-American civilisation is trapped in a prison of outmoded information. As individuals, Anglo-American men are also applying outmoded information to their own lives; in sum, trying to navigate the twenty-first century with social and mental maps from the mid-twentieth century. This is potentially disastrous, given the reflexive misandry of the modern Anglosphere; a good analogy would be a modern traveller using a map of the Roman Empire to navigate around Europe and North Africa.

So here is the great lesson of this timely post: the Blue Pill in all its forms is a redundant map that no longer reflects reality. This is why those who follow it are invariably failures: Incel Tears are sexless Simps in denial; Blue Knights are blue-balled losers trapped in the cloying fog of Sexual False Consciousness; and PUAs are regularly fined (or arrested) for 'sexual harassment' (the feminist legal term for 'cold approach'). In sum, these Blue and Red Pilled clowns are trying to navigate the 21st century with maps drawn in 1958-1975: surely the road to nowhere, if ever there was one.

However, the converse must also be true: if the Black and Crimson Pills are accurate maps of reality, surely they ought to confer success instead of failure?

As John Smith says, the Crimson-Pilled man is primed to maximise his situation: he improves what he can while accepting his unchangeable limitations. After all, a sub-8 male kidding himself that 'looks or ethnicity don't matter' is on the royal road to failure. However, if he focuses on careers based on brain power and diligence alone (computing, engineering, finance, medicine) his life-chances improve exponentially. Similarly, a sub-8 male in misandrist North America should not waste his time pursuing hyper-hypergamous, racist Anglo women; far better to relocate to regions where gender-relations are more congenial (Latin America, Western Europe, Scandinavia, South East Asia).

In sum, the Crimson-Pill's skilful balance of self-improvement and objectivity guarantees personal success, within viable limits. In the 21st century, use a 21st century map; while the 1958 map looks nice, it no longer delivers.

Happy 2022!

If you look like this, try not rely too much on your 'personality'

More Insights from John Smith: Active Resistance for Enlightened Anglo-American men

Here is another post inspired by the thoughts of reader and commentator John Smith, complete with commentary by myself. What I like most about John's writing is that it returns us to the first principles of the Anglobitch Thesis: namely, informing Anglo-American men about their perilous situation in the Anglosphere while giving them effective strategies to realise better personal or romantic experiences elsewhere in the world.

Greetings again, Rookh,

I recently read your latest article, another excellent piece as always . I must admit that I had been checking your website several times a week in anticipation of a new article. In it you mentioned detachment from the anglosphere and active resistance and wanted to share a few thoughts I had.

Rather than simply staying alive and existing within the anglosphere, men should actively fleece it and take advantage of the few things left it has to offer, Relampago Furioso did a version of this strategy, or rather described it in his work. I can speak only for the USA, but a main advantage of living and working in the USA is, in comparison to the rest of the world, the higher average salaries and the strength of the dollar overseas.

The Anglosphere certainly retains a lot of 'soft power' in the world, although its military and educational standing is starting to decline after decades of misandrist feminism and elite mismanagement. Its language, colleges and mass culture are still dominant at a global level. Think about it: educated people in India and China all want to learn English; but how many Westerners want to learn Mandarin or Urdu? So while Anglo-American men are treated as garbage WITHIN the Anglosphere, there are still great opportunities for them outside it. And now is the time to exploit these opportunities, before the Anglosphere collapses completely.

Being reduced essentially to mercenaries, men living in the USA or anglosphere (I only mentioned the USA separately because I cannot speak for other countries in the anglosphere) from the ages of 18-30 should take advantage of every free thing they can get such as education and job training, save and invest, stay out of debt, learn a new language if desired and if they choose to, take their skills and money overseas to friendlier cultures that will actually treat them like men with needs and will appreciate their skills.

Absolutely. The basic Crimson Pill dictum - change what you can, accept or de-emphasise what you cannot - fits the needs of young American men like no other Manosphere philosophy. While Black-Pilled incels obsess over their unchangeable shortness or baldness and Red-Pilled fantasists naively pretend appearance does not matter, the Crimson-Pilled man focuses all his energies on what he can improve, to his boundless health and benefit. He can travel, pursue a course of remunerative education or explore his sexuality in Germany or Latin America and his height or looks will not matter a jot.

Incentives matter, and when the enlightened man looks at what his incentives are in the anglosphere long term it truly only boils down to money. When men are not saddled with insane student loan debt, an anglobitch wife and a mortgage weighing him down, a financially savvy man can find that even a modest sum of 50k can go very far. However, if one chooses, getting a highly skilled job such as a surgeon, engineer or pilot can almost definitely find easy employment overseas, so much the better if he gets the education and training for free on the anglosphere's dime.

Exactly. Since the Anglosphere (and North America in particular) has declared war on men, Anglo-American men have got to discard the patriotic 'social loyalty' drivel that lamestream society tries to lay on them from birth to death. Why should men be loyal to a society that views and treats them like third class citizens? Canada and the US should have considered this when they were treating men like shit. In fact, men are now little more than 'Guest-workers' in the Anglosphere, after the manner of Turks in modern Germany; they are certainly not true citizens, with the same rights or freedoms as the Anglobitch (or her pseudo-female surrogates in the deviant communities). Since this is so, Anglo-American men should also reject all the informal social obligations associated with citizenship: loyalty, conformity and self-sacrifice. If you are treated as a mercenary, you might as well act like one.

My only concern with this strategy is if it were to ever go mainstream, the anglo-cucks in charge would try to crack down on it and keep enlightened men from leaving or punish them like they did with Cuba Dave. Like you said in the article mentioning him, anglo-cucks wont let men leave, their productivity and brain power is essential to keeping the economy going, society knows this but fails to recognize that men are adapting to the insanity brought on by feminism and reflexive misandry. They expect men to keep busting their ass and paying taxes (and potentially die in the case of a war) to protect and uphold a system that actively seeks to turn them into sexless non thinking automatons.

This piercing analysis makes me think of Boomer Uber-Cuck, Jordan Peterson. He spends his days proclaiming that young men should 'grow up' and 'be men' - yet without offering any reward or recognition for such diligent conformity. Meanwhile women can roam about the Anglosphere without any responsibilities whatsoever, getting railed or knocked-up by whichever tattooed thug happens to be prowling the landscape. The problem with Boomer tradcucks is that they are still firmly living in 1958: Peterson genuinely thinks that masculine diligence is still rewarded, both sexually and socially. But as we all know, the Anglobitch despises the competent Anglo-American man in favour of sociopathic thugs like Charles Starkweather or Jeremy Meeks. 

And of course, the authorities will not like men leaving the Anglosphere or going off-grid. Why would they? The goose that lays their golden eggs is leaving town, leaving the Anglo 'elite' with a society of whining, entitled females in pointless make-jobs. Of course, they will try to subvert the law to punish men like Cuba Dave from fleeing the Plantation for the sexual freedoms beyond America's repressive shores. But as long as the Crimson-Pilled man operates in the shadows, playing his cards of enlightenment close to his chest, there is presently little they can do. 

Of course also, this strategy is not without risks and nothing is guaranteed or simple and this strategy will of course work better for some men than others. However, as the crimson pill guides us, we know there are some things we cannot change and some that we can. Namely our finances, fitness and location.

That's about it for my thoughts on this matter for now. As always thanks for taking the time to read and thank you for taking the time to continue writing articles and enlighten men.

- John Smith

While there are always risks in resistance, just consider how uneducated Sicilian immigrants - namely, the Mafia - were able to manipulate American law enforcement and monopolise organised crime for decades. If such mediocre men could wreak such havoc by refusing to 'play by the rules', just imagine the damage that able and determined men should be able to cause! With his mercenary mindset, clear-eyed awareness of female nature and accurate mental map of the host society, the Crimson-Pilled man should be able to achieve anything he wants. Our 'elite' opponents are Bible-thumping trad-clowns stuck in the 1950's and laughable, low-IQ feminists in pointless make-jobs; hardly fearsome opposition. As I have always said, success is the best measure of any life-philosophy: so be about it. 

Finally, John Smith furnishes us with two incredible case studies underlining the present state of the Anglosphere:

Some extra gems I found recently:

Boomer Anglocuck professor warns of a mating crisis and thinks women are only attracted to men with degrees and men signal their success on tinder with college degrees. Get fucking real dude, the average man would be far better off improving his mating chances by getting shredded, getting tatted up and getting in a few street brawls. Doing some time in the slammer would probably help too (not that I advocate this approach). Would love to hear what this professor thinks about the woman who sought out Charles Manson WHILE HE WAS IN PRISON and married him. I'm sure his multiple college degrees were really what made her pussy wet
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mating-crisis-us-women-college-nyu-b1927704.html

Another case of rampant hyper-hypergamy in action, a millionaire surgeon divorces his wife who was moonlighting as an escort for rich men. You can give an Anglobitch a lifestyle that surpasses 99 percent of the world's women and instead of submitting to her husband and being faithful she decides to fuck rich men behind her husband's back. This surgeon would be a good candidate for my advice I think, seeing how he is already an experienced surgeon and maybe has quite a bit of money.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3358002/surgeon-divorces-beauty-queen-wife-escort-claims-nyc/

Case One enlightens us at so many levels it is beyond good. It highlights the inane delusions of Tradcon Boomer academics who still assume the Anglobitch wants a 'provider', when that role has long been appropriated by make-jobs and the Welfare State. As my man Richard Scarecrow (where the heck is he?) once pointed out, the modern Anglobitch only gets pussy-tingles for roided thugs who regularly hospitalise her: anything less is 'boring'. 

Case Two is also brilliant, showing the Anglobitch at her evil worst. First she lies about studying biology at college when she did not even graduate High School, in order to acquire a well-paid male dupe. Then, incapable of normal wifely loyalty and still thirsty for sexual validation by the Caucasian power-elite, she becomes a high-class hooker behind his back. The ultimate moral of this story is that you can take the Anglobitch away from deceit, racism and hyper-hypergamy; but you can never take the deceit, racism and hyper-hypergamy from the Anglobitch... 

And the man who tries is doomed to the same fate as this poor sucker:

'They should have been more Honest': Sexual Hauntology and the Sexual Revolution that Never Happened

Why were these 60s 'Free Lovers' always rich, attractive and white?

This will be quite a demanding essay but I hope the reader stays with me to the end because this little  piece has quite profound implications for awakened men living in the Anglosphere.

Jacques Derrida

In its original form as devised by the philosopher Jacques Derrida in his 1993 book Spectres of Marx, 'hauntology' is a narrowly political concept. Since the ‘inevitable’ Communist utopia promised by Marx never materialised, Derrida claims that Europe is now haunted by nostalgia for a 'lost future' that never came to pass. Unsurprisingly, the Anglosphere (where Marxism is an intellectual non-event) has applied Derrida's concept to a much broader range of cultural activities.The Wikipedia entry for Hauntology reads:

Due to the difficulty in understanding the concept, there is little consistency in how other writers define the term.

In the 2000s, the term was taken up by critics in reference to paradoxes found in postmodernity, particularly contemporary culture's persistent recycling of retro aesthetics and incapacity to escape old social forms. Writers such as Mark Fisher and Simon Reynolds used the term to describe a musical aesthetic preoccupied with this temporal disjunction and the nostalgia for "lost futures". So-called "hauntological" musicians are described as exploring ideas related to temporal disjunction, retrofuturism, cultural memory, and the persistence of the past.

However, in my view the real 'hauntological' factor haunting the Anglo-American world is sexual: the west is haunted by a sexual revolution that was extensively promised in the 1960s and 70s, but never came to pass for the vast majority of men.

In short, we are haunted by nostalgia for a sexual revolution that never happened. This painful nostalgia is best described as 'Sexual Hauntology'. 

Truly, this realisation is equal to my concept of Sexual False Consciousness in its implications for Manosphere thought and the growing corpus of incel ideology. Of course, the West is haunted by many more broken promises than just its sexual ones, some of which directly relate to Sexual Hauntology: failed multiculturalism, failed Christianity (Jesus never returns) and the failed promise of the Aquarian 'New Age'. However, most men reading this are primarily haunted by the failed promises of endless sexual bounty promoted throughout the 1960s and 1970s; promises not only broken, but actively reversed by the Tinder Age. Feeling 'haunted', experiencing a sense of Sexual Hauntology, is our painful reward for Black Pilled knowledge.

The white, educated, able-bodied, upper-middle class 60's 'Sexual Revolution'

Of course, Blue Pilled ‘normie’ society believes the Sexual Revolution was not only fully realised but remains an ongoing reality for the vast majority of people. These cucks seriously think that inceldom is a 'lifestyle choice' for sub-8 young men and that 'everyone' is having free sex on a 24/7 basis without regard to appearance, wealth, ethnicity or other social striations. Of course, these absurd Boomer delusions arose from the rarefied experience of a small minority in the first place - namely, pampered upper-middle class whites practising 'Free Love' on college campuses - but that did not prevent them being amplified by the lamestream media into an unquestioned (if imaginary) 'norm'. 

Little wonder - only over the past ten years (with the rise of our Manosphere) has this faux 'consensus' being challenged at any level.

Of course, the Black Pilled reality is completely different. Instead of a sexual utopia, Tinder and the debased reality of female nature (Dog pill, hyper-hypergamy, sexual fascism) have unleashed a wave of mass sexual disenfranchisement for sub-8 and ethnic males; a tsunami of incel frustration that deprives the bottom third of young males of any sexual expression. The spectre of Sexual Hauntology only makes this grim reality all the more painful by contrast, explaining the acute sense of sexual grievance felt by incel killers like Elliot Rodger or Alek Minassian.

In the Anglosphere, Sexual Hauntology is amplified by another broken promise – namely, multiculturalism. The endemic sexual racism of Anglo-American white women is a potent colonial residue, contributing greatly to the sexual disenfranchisement (and general social ostracism) afflicting most non-white males residing in the Anglosphere. As several learned men have commented on this site, the colonial Anglosphere is defined by genocidal crimes against aboriginal peoples (Maoris, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines), as well as the more obvious crime of black slavery; all crimes the Anglosphere has never come to terms with (or, until recently, even acknowledged).

In the 60s and 70s, the rise of feminism became associated in the popular mind with sexual multiculturalism. However, this perception only arose because liberal observers falsely associated Anglo-American feminism with progressive values. As I have been saying for the past decade, Anglo feminism actually represents the extension and expansion of core Anglo-Saxon values - puritanism, misandry, sexual classism and racism - across the Anglosphere nations and even beyond. This is why non-white males in the post-feminist Anglosphere are even more sexually disenfranchised than they were in the first place.

False Promises: No one-eyed Indian Janitors wanted here

I hope the reader has enjoyed this little foray into post-modern philosophy and its implications for the Anglo-American Manosphere. We all know the Dog Pill is a real and present danger but I feel a need to return the blog to a more conceptual footing. Concepts like Hyper-Hypergamy and Sexual False Consciousness are now common currency in the Manosphere, and I feel Sexual Hauntology deserves to join them.

When Anglo-American men are growing up, they are generally fed the fiction that their adulthood will be filled with endless sexual encounters with warm, willing beauties, like a living James Bond movie. The naive Joe Buck - hero of Midnight Cowboy - is the classic example of this. For most men of course, this fantasy never materialises; and they are haunted by it for the rest of their lives, trapped forever in a state of Sexual Hauntology.

From this standpoint, the incel subculture is more a vengeful 'blowback' against broken promises far more than it is a 'cult' or 'movement'. Similarly, high-value dissident men who seek women outside the Anglosphere are striving to escape their 'haunting' by misandrist, low-value Anglo women.

Really, the concept of 'Sexual Hauntology' explains so many things.

Joe Buck: His Ladies are Waiting... Not.

Equal Opportunity Evil: Is the Anglobitch Thesis Going Mainstream?

When I began writing on these issues in 2010, I was viewed as a marginalised commentator, even in the manosphere. In 2020, many of my views on Anglo-American white women have already become mainstream. Over the past decade a veritable army of researchers have emerged who openly discuss white North American women's complicity in slavery, racism and other social malfeasance. Check out the following editorial piece from the New York Times, in which 'radical' or 'progressive' white women's complicity in institutionalised racism is openly discussed:

White Suffragist Racism
Last year, Chicago renamed a prominent downtown street for the celebrated newspaper editor and anti-lynching campaigner Ida B. Wells, who also played a starring role in the earlier 20th-century suffrage movement. Less well known in the city today is the estimable Wells contemporary Fannie Barrier Williams, a member of the black elite who had a profound impact on Chicago during more than three decades of civic and political activism.

As her biographer, Wanda Hendricks, points out, Barrier Williams broadened her influence by crossing racial lines, becoming the first black woman admitted to the Chicago Women’s Club, one of the most powerful white women’s groups in the country. She led the charge to get black women politically engaged and worked tirelessly to open the business world to them as well.

As Harper did, she dissented from the white suffrage movement’s gender-centric view of voting rights, arguing that “black women had unique needs that were defined as much by race as they were by gender and region,” making clear that she was less interested in a political candidate’s gender than in what he or she had to say about the plight of African-Americans. Beyond that, she bluntly reminded white women that racism in their ranks represented a prime obstacle for black women, writing “that the exclusion of colored women and girls from nearly all places of employment is due mostly to the meanness of American women.”

When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy, Brent Staples, New York Times, Feb 2, 2020

While it might not be the Anglobitch Thesis in its purest form, the essential lines of the Thesis are present in the article quoted above. In brief, the author asserts that 'progressive' Anglo-American feminists have an uncanny knack of retaining racist and reactionary values from traditional Anglo-Saxon culture even while preaching for 'revolution' and 'change'. Although Ben Staples' focus is narrowly political, the Anglobitch Thesis demonstrates that white women's staggering hypocrisy extends into all other areas of life. For example, they retain giga-levels of sexual elitism, puritanical sex negativism and female entitlement even while marching around with placards calling for 'revolution' and the impeachment of President Trump.

In addition, Anglo feminists strive to hide their reactionary addictions behind a smoke-screen of 'genderism' - the ludicrous fiction that gender transcends all other considerations (status, wealth, ethnicity) in the Anglosphere. This conceptual trick serves to mask their own complicity in slavery and other historical crimes, not to mention contemporary racism.

In sum, white Anglo women's hypocrisy is so total that it almost defies comprehension. 

Moreover, serious academic research is starting to expose the Anglo-American white woman's complicity in slavery and other evils intrinsic to Anglo-American culture. Far from being coerced into obedience by 'evil' white men, white female slave-owners were perfectly capable of performing the most evil deeds on their own account.  Check out the following book review from 2019:

Equal-Opportunity Evil 

A new history reveals that for female slaveholders, the business of human exploitation was just as profitable—and brutal—as it was for men.

Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers opens her stunning new book, They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, with a story about Martha Gibbs, a sawmill owner in Mississippi who also owned “a significant number of slaves.” One of them, Litt Young, described her owner as a woman in total control of her financial affairs, including the management of her enslaved workers. Young remembered, for example, how Gibbs’ second husband tried and failed to convince her to stop ordering her overseer to administer “brutal whippings.” After the Confederates surrendered, Gibbs “refugeed:” She took some of her enslaved workers to Texas, at gunpoint, and forced them to labor for her until 1866—“one year after these legally free but still enslaved people ‘made her first crop.’ ” Then, writes Jones-Rogers, “Martha Gibbs finally let them go.” 

Early books about female slaveholders, written in the 1970s and 1980s by historians of women’s experiences, tended to be about elite, wealthy Southerners who fell into that role when their husbands or fathers died. The women in these histories were depicted as having had a conflicted relationship with their role as slaveowner, and some historians posited that these plantation mistresses themselves were restricted and oppressed by the patriarchal society of the Old South. In this telling of history, the women who owned people didn’t directly involve themselves with the day-to-day management of enslaved workers, and certainly not with the selling and buying of the enslaved. 

It’s these assumptions about female slaveowning as a kind of passive, half-hearted practice that Jones-Rogers is challenging with her book—and with them, the idea that white women were innocent bystanders to the white male practice of enslavement. Her goal, she told me in a phone interview, was to paint a picture of the way white women economically benefited from their own slaveholding. For some women, slaveholding helped them attract husbands. Within their marriages, a woman like Martha Gibbs who owned enslaved people might retain a measure of independence by maintaining control of “her” slaves. And if those husbands died, or turned out to be failures at business, their wives figured out ways to retain the human property that would ensure their continued material security. 

Jones-Rogers began this shift in historical perspective by looking away from letters and diaries of elite white women that formed the documentary basis for earlier histories, and toward the testimony of the people who had been in bondage. Looking at life narratives of formerly enslaved people recorded during the Great Depression by the Works Progress Administration (Litt Young’s was one of these), Jones-Rogers found multiple instances of these witnesses naming the women who owned them—not simply as “mistresses” but as owners, with everything that entailed. She found stories of times when these women “reinforced their property claims in conversations with or in the presence of their slaves” and “challenged their male kinfolks’ alleged power to control their property, human or otherwise.” 

Examining other kinds of records, Jones-Rogers found female slave-owners all over the archive of American slavery: female authors of the advertisements placed in newspapers when enslaved people ran away, identifying themselves as the runaways’ owners; women awarded compensation for the deaths of enslaved people who had been executed or sold away after being found guilty of fomenting insurrection; women compensated by cities who hired enslaved workers for public works projects. Married women, who under the legal doctrine of coverture were not commonly allowed to hold property once they had husbands, petitioned courts to gain economic rights to the enslaved people they had owned before marriage—and judges often agreed with their pleas. 

The stories from WPA narratives show that from the perspective of the enslaved, female slaveholders weren’t much different from their male counterparts. Many of them were just as physically cruel as men, and they didn’t hesitate to make decisions to “sell away” enslaved people or their relatives. Stories of women who whipped enslaved people with nettleweed or fed enslaved children spoiled meat, and an entire heartbreaking chapter about the practice of separating enslaved women from their infants so that they could act as wet nurses for their mistresses’ offspring, make it clear that Southern women who owned people weren’t kind “mothers” making the best of a bad situation. “If we look carefully at slave-owning women’s management styles, we find that these differed little from those used by slaveholding men—and they rarely treated enslaved people as their children,” Jones-Rogers writes.  

To some (let’s be honest, probably mostly white) people, the fact that white women have the capacity to inflict violence and to cruelly manipulate the lives of others—to be what Jones-Rogers, in our conversation, called “evil and dastardly”—is an eternal revelation. That’s why we still get curious, “look at this weird phenomenon” articles about white women at Unite the Right, or within the alt-right movement. Or why we need to be reminded again and again that white women gleefully attended lynchings, flocked in the thousands to form auxiliaries for the Ku Klux Klan, and avidly protested school integration in the South and the North. This history of slave-owning women’s economic relationship to slavery, Jones-Rogers says, should “remove the surprise.” “If you think about the value, the importance of whiteness in their lives, being a source of power, being a source of empowerment and emboldenment, then throughout history these little things make sense,” she said. “Women can hold their own when it comes to violence.” 

Perhaps it’s a particularly American tic to want to believe in white women’s innocence in the cruelty of American history. Jones-Rogers reports that when she would present her work to scholars in Europe, they’d be unsurprised at its contents. “There was this kind of consensus among them that women could do these things. But when I talked to American historians, and American scholars, they were saying—‘What??? Wow!’ ” 

While writing her book, Jones-Rogers read Hitler’s Furies, Wendy Lower’s history about Nazi women’s participation in genocide on the Eastern Front during World War II. “One of the arguments Lower makes is, the reason why we may be shocked is, we hold onto this hope that at least one half of humanity still has some good in it,” Jones-Rogers says. “We need some part of humanity to have this inherent, natural empathy. When we find out women can be just as vicious and atrocious, it’s very disillusioning. Because who else is left?”

Rebecca Onion, Slate, February 14, 2019 

This compelling review also highlights how the pedestalising puritanism of Anglo-American culture inhibits objective assessment of white Anglo women's historical and ongoing crimes. Since European researchers were not steeped in gynocentric puritanism, they accepted Jones-Rogers' research far more readily than their North American counterparts.

While such works are worthy enough, and it is good to see the Thesis taking root in the Anglo-American mainstream, it will be noted by my long-time readers that my first book, Havok, was describing historical Anglobitch perfidy as early as 2009.

And I am still way ahead of the cultural curve. I predict that in 2030, issues like the Dogpill, Hyper-Hypergamy, Sexual False Consciousness and female child abuse will be as 'mainstream' as white Anglo-American women's historical racism is today.

History's Black Swans: Why Societies Which Regulate Female Sexuality Endure

Studying our own tumbledown age with a critical eye, it is easy to think that ancient people were far smarter than we are. Above all, they seemed to understand the reality of female nature much better than we do. Although they cloaked their insight in mystical trappings for the ignorant masses of their own times, the wisest of the ancients definitely seemed to know that allowing women unlimited sexual freedom leads inexorably to the cock carousel, rampant hyper-hypergamy, mass inceldom, the proliferation of Dark Triad genes and  social decay. Most of their laws and customs seemed to focus on strict regulation of female sexuality for this very reason, although it was seldom stated openly.

However, I do not believe the ancients all had Tesla IQs. It just seems that way because the ancient cultures which still exert an influence on our own time were only a small minority of those which ever existed. In truth, the vast majority  of ancient societies died forgotten because they failed to regulate female sexuality; 'successful' ancient societies which restricted female behaviour were unrepresentative Black Swans, not the normative standard. We know very little about the matriarchal Etruscans or Carthaginians compared to the patriarchal, co-alpha Romans who conquered them; and this is because matriarchal societies lose wars, achieve little and leave no imprint on history. This uneven impact on posterity distorts our perception of the ancient past, creating the false impression that all ancient cultures shared the same insights into female nature; in truth, they did not.

The Fall of Carthage: Matriarchies leave little beyond ruins

Doubtless some men in history's successful cultures did have the Tesla IQs necessary to create robust patriarchal memes in the first place; perhaps they studied history or the dysfunctional cultures around them, or simply observed the lower classes in their own societies. Smart men in ancient Greece or Israel must have noticed that their own national underclasses achieved very little compared to social elites, just as in our modern Anglosphere. Modern underclass 'culture' (rap-babble, tabloid newspapers, Netflix, sport) will be forgotten in 40 years, while the upper middle-class academic culture in the STEM departments of elite universities will endure for centuries. That is because upper middle-class culture is still rooted in monogamy and stable family structures, while underclass culture is built on the sociopathic chaos arising from unrestricted female mate choice; that is the only difference.

British Chavs: Underclass Chaos personified

Considered as a whole, the ancients were no smarter or wiser than we are; it just seems that way because we only 'see' the 'successful' patriarchal Black Swan cultures of history.

Too Good for Any Man: This is What Hyper-Hypergamy Looks Like

Anglobitch Emma Watson is now officially 'self-partnered'...

Anglobitch icon Emma Watson has been making waves recently with the revelation that she is not single but 'self-partnered':

Approaching a milestone birthday inevitably forces us to evaluate what we've achieved and where we feel we've fallen short — both personally and professionally. In a recent interview with British Vogue, actress Emma Watson said one thing she's made peace with as she nears her 30th birthday is her current relationship status. "It took me a long time, but I'm very happy [being single]. I call it being self-partnered," she said.  

What does that mean, exactly? Carla Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist based in California sees merit the idea. Manly describes the relationship status this way: "self-partnering focuses on the ideal of being happy and complete as a solo individual. A self-partnered person would feel whole and fulfilled within the self and does not feel compelled to seek fulfillment through having another person as a partner." 

That doesn't necessarily mean a self-partnered person doesn't date or never hopes to get married someday. It's that they're taking the time to know themselves first. "To be truly self-partnered, one must often invest a great deal of time and energy on personal development," says Manly. 

Watson isn't the first celebrity to shift what's normally viewed as a negative relationship status into a positive. In 2014, Gwyneth Paltrow used the term "conscious uncoupling" to describe her divorce from Coldplay singer Chris Martin. Why has reclaiming these terms become a trend now? "There’s a big shift in renaming the terms of relationships because there’s also a huge shift towards individuality in younger generations who are no longer wanting to be defined by the standards of traditional generations," explains Travis McNulty, a therapist practicing in Florida.

SOURCE: NBC News, November 2019 

However, Watson isn't 'self-partnered' at all. She is suffering from the Anglobitch condition known to the wise as hyper-hypergamy: the notion that no man on earth is good enough for her. She would rather end up a childless, lonely hag than marry a man and submit to normal womanly duties like child-bearing. Contrary to what some in the Manosphere think, many Anglo-American women think a billionaire with the Rock's body and the face of Chris Hemsworth is still beneath them on the sexual totem-pole. Watson is one of these, although Jodie Foster is another hideous example of the breed. In sum, they think all men are sexualized pieces of dogshit however handsome, rich or intelligent they might be.

Too good for any man?

The following excerpt from my book, Hope on Distant Shores, explains the concept of hyper-hypergamy with specific reference to the Anglosphere's distinctive sex-negativism, misandry and ethno-cultural imperialism:

Another factor one might consider is the high ‘power distance’ or depth of inequality experienced in Anglo-American societies. The Anglosphere is a potent colonial bloc that still bestows considerable status on white Anglo-Saxons in a global context. Anglo media, culture and institutions remain the primary global exports, in ideological terms. The obvious international power of say, Victorian Britain or post-War America surely wrought some heightening effect on female hypergamy in those nations. After all, the ‘hypergamy bar’ is necessarily raised when a country is a great colonial hub with huge international influence and prestige; since the female frame of reference reflexively broadens and deepens in response. In this view, the Anglo female's misandrist hostility is an insane extension of natural hypergamous instincts: almost no male or his offspring is good enough for a female raised in a global superpower. Here is one of my anonymous correspondents on the wider social ramifications of this tendency: 

Feminists in North America are now in the process of formally making sex equal rape, and the man has no defense. So I guess the fertility bearing rate of the Anglosphere is about to drop to 0.5. Oh, except for the Africans, Latino groups, native Americans and of course the Muslims, who ironically enough, actually will mass rape and then impose a real shari'a patriarchy on the stupid Anglobitches who no longer have the protection of the men or more rational women who've all left. North America is toast. Leave while you can (Appendix F, p.240). 

This exalted form of Anglo hypergamy is best called ‘hyper-hypergamy’, female sexual elitism and selectivity carried beyond all rational measure. This is not exclusively associated with the Anglo West's colonial values. Britain and America have lower social mobility rates than other industrial societies, together with wider wealth and power divisions. This must also exert a strong impact on female hypergamy, with a much larger proportion of males being dismissed as potential mates than in progressive, egalitarian societies. 

It must be said that modern romantic life in the Anglosphere has become a form of misandrist eugenics, where women arbitrarily select which males get to breed on the basis of hyper-hypergamous criteria. This even applies to sperm donation, where donors have to pass the most stringent criteria related to intelligence, education, height and health. In sum, fat, ugly Anglo women riddled with personality disorders get to sit in genetic judgement on the gender that created and maintain civilization. Of course, mass abortion is an even more active and deadly expression of eugenic hyper-hypergamy, predictably falling heaviest on the offspring of low status males (which is almost all males in the Anglosphere).

Jodie Foster: The Anglobitch Made Flesh

And there we have it: Watson's ludicrous 'self-partnering' is little more than a trite addendum to the Anglosphere's diabolical agenda of usury, misandry and death.

The Case of Stephen Curry: Rampant Hyper-Hypergamy in Action

In America, even ugly old boots think they're 'it'

Sometimes we have to get back to first principles.

For me, the first principle of my thought is that Anglo-American culture is essentially puritanical and inherently misandrist, since puritanism reflexively loathes male sexuality. Because of this, Anglo-American feminism has a potent misandrist element which is fairly unique, although it is rapidly spreading via cultural contamination. Anglo feminism is also predictably sex-negative, since sex-negativity raises the scarcity-value of sex. Not only is Anglo feminism antagonistic to prostitution and sex tourism,  the fact that 28% of American men had no sex in 2018 demonstrates that a female 'sex strike' is already in full swing across North America.

Further, Anglo-American feminism receives unstinting support from the cultural establishment, since it shares most of the same goals and values. At a personal level, the mass sexual scarcity reflexively associated with puritanism imbues Anglo-American women with an extreme form of hypergamy which I call 'hyper-hypergamy': an inflated and 'hyperreal' form of hypergamy which no real-world male can ever satisfy. Of course, this is why so many Anglo women 'hold out' for imaginary Sir Galahad figures into late middle-age and fail to reproduce.

In short, Anglo-American women don't like men, alpha or otherwise. Essentially misandrist and homosocial, they view men - all men, however high value - as disposable resources to be dropped as whim or the situation dictates. In the video below, VVS describes a famous basketball player who - despite good looks, height, fame and millions of dollars in the bank - is being derided by his substandard foid for not giving her enough 'attention':

There it is: if Stephen Curry can't satisfy his ageing foid, what chance have ordinary males got? While such Alpha males can attract women in the first place, the hyper-hypergamous Anglobitch hind-brain is never truly satisfied with any man, however high-value; when his lustre fades, the Anglo-American Divorce Courts are ready and waiting. And in the modern Anglosphere, many solvent and personable middle class men are single or even incel, in any case. Which reinforces my main point: at heart, the modern Anglobitch does not want an alpha, high value male: she wants a fantasy figure from Game of Thrones or Tennyson's Morte D'Arthur, someone who doesn't exist. Given this insane gynocentric reality, no wonder all reasonable men are deserting the Anglosphere for love and sex on distant shores.

The Chateau has Fallen

Sad to hear that Chateau Heartiste's famous blog has been shut down by Wordpress. His first mistake was thinking that Anglocunts want short, bald, ugly men with flashy hats instead of hyper-hypergamous fantasy figures or handsome criminals. The whole PUA agenda began to ring false about eight years ago, when even Roissy's fan base began to admit PUA techniques were completely ineffective. MeToo, Timesup and other misandrist agendas were the last nails in its coffin, together with the emergence of Tinder and other dating apps which elevate physical appearance and gift women boundless male attention for free. From that time on, PUA began to be replaced by the Black Pill and my own theories at the cutting edge of Manosphere thought. The old order changeth, and all that.

Roissy's second mistake was turning his anodyne PUA blog into an Alt-Right, white power nexus in the midst of a fierce culture-war for America's future. I personally thought this phase of his operation was infinitely more interesting than his PUA work; it was certainly far more honest and revolutionary. But did he really think the Anglo-American authorities would stand for such revolutionary honesty? The obvious fact is that ((they)) are losing control of the narrative and want North American men back on the plantation. This is why ((they)) are pushing tradcucks like Jordan Peterson to the fore, fools who tell men to 'man up' and become disposable post-divorce cash cows for Anglobitch convenience. Unfortunately for these simps and shills, a whole generation of young men raised on Manosphere wisdom are wise to their nonsense. The horse has bolted: male dissidence is taking off like gangbusters in the US and soon the whole Anglosphere will follow suit. 

So even though his blog is gone, Roissy can take some pride in girding a whole generation of young men with a certain level of insight which will serve them well in the years to come.

Why do Filicidal, Homosocial, Misandrist and anti-Life Anglo Women Even Exist?

I have been pondering a deep problem: why do Anglo-American women still exist, given their obvious anti-life, anti-male, selfish, homosocial and filicidal (child murdering) tendencies?   It is an interesting question. According to evolutionary theory, misandrist and selfish women with a strong aversion to bearing or raising children should have died out long ago. Yet since they do exist, why do they exhibit such 'unnatural' misandrist and filicidal behaviour?

A thorny riddle indeed. How can grossly unnatural behaviour become normalised among the mass of Anglo-American women in such a short time? Surely such a thing goes against all evolutionary theory? However, these monstrous Anglobitch tendencies are not wholly unnatural, as such. We should rather consider them a perverse caricature of natural female instincts: an extreme and unnatural form of hypergamy.

Unique to the Anglosphere, this 'hyper-hypergamy' is created and sustained by the extreme inequality in Anglosphere countries (where a far higher proportion of males fall into the 'undesirable' bracket) compared to more egalitarian regions. Beyond this, residual repression in Anglo countries inflates women's SMV (Sexual Market Value) to insane levels, creating a seller's market for sex.  The sexless Disneyland tone of the Anglosphere means that all Anglo-American women grow up with impossible fantasies of ideal love as natural expectations. And because of the SMV imbalance, even 300 pound landwhales riddled with STDs think they are 'too good' to breed with solvent, law-abiding, educated men.

She decides whether you're fit to breed, guys...

Finally, the high cultural status of the Anglosphere (with its distinctive colonial heritage) makes the eugenic pressure on Anglo-American men even greater. Average men are not good enough to breed in such an exalted region; instead, low status males and their children are considered disposable trash to either be aborted or denied existence altogether. Of course, the rise of advanced reproductive medicine has gifted women total eugenic control over these decisions. As with so many things, the puritan undercurrents of the Anglosphere have perverted natural female instincts into monstrous caricatures while misandrist Common Law and Anglo empirical machine-culture have armed them with near infinite power to impose them on society at large.

Abortion is the most important manifestation of these hyper-hypergamous tendencies. Killing low-status men's children is a very direct form of eugenics yet is always couched in terms of 'choice'. However, when redefined as an expression of hyper-hypergamy the West's abortion-industry makes a lot more sense. The same can be said of sperm donation and its increasingly stringent demands on donors. Men must be young, healthy, tall, educated and (usually) white if they want to reproduce; while fat, stupid women with clod degrees sit in judgement on the sex who created and maintain all civilisation.

The concept of hyper-hypergamy helps us understand how how - with the help of puritanism, repression, reproductive medicine and high socio-cultural inequality - perversity became normal in just a few decades.