'Conservative' Anglo Government Declares Open War on Men

Regular readers will find the following entirely predictable:

Suspected wife-beaters could be banned from their homes for up to four weeks even if there is insufficient evidence for them to be charged under plans unveiled by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The "go orders" will enable police to step in and ban suspected attackers from the victim's home even if they are too afraid of taking action themselves or if no criminal proceedings are possible.

The year-long pilot scheme, which will start next summer in Greater Manchester, Wiltshire and West Mercia, comes as the Government prepares to publish its plans to crack down on violence against women and girls.

A court will then be able to extend the domestic violence protection order, known as go orders, for a longer period, usually between 14 and 28 days.

Figures from the British Crime Survey showed more than one in four women in the UK will (allegedly) experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, with one million women experiencing at least one incident of domestic violence every year and one in 20 becoming a victim of stalking.

SOURCE: UK Daily Mail

There we have it - decisive evidence that 'Conservative' Anglo governments harbour the same rabid loathing of men as their socialist counterparts. Indeed, it must be said that Anglo-Saxon 'conservatism' is ultimately more oppressive than its socialist counterpart, since it considers women untouchable by virtue of their sexual 'ownership'.

Moreover, Anglo-American 'conservatives' - be it American Republicans or British/Commonwealth Tories - are intrinsically aligned with Anglo-Saxon puritanism, a 'traditional' Anglosphere value. And as we all know, this puritanism is at the root of the anti-male, pro-female agenda that defines the English-speaking world. The results of this alignment are twofold:

1. Conservative misandry has much greater leverage than its socialist counterpart. That is, conservative misandry can mobilise every aspect of society - law, politics, the media, mass opinion - to promote its oppressive agenda. That is certainly true in this case, where men's basic human rights are instantly waived at the bequest of rabid feminists with the full and uncritical support of the mainstream media, the police and legal profession. The same is true of VAWA in the United States, advanced with the full connivance of the 'Conservative' Republicans.

2. From a hegemonic perspective, it legitimises misandry. That is, by presenting misandry as a traditional agenda, it covers Anglo-American man-hatred with a patina of respectability, even 'normality'. Were Britain's Labour Party advancing these misandrist 'measures', none of this would apply. Consequently, conservative misandry can push a whole society towards pandemic man-hatred in a way socialist misandry never could.

Of course, the whole notion that there is a need to 'crack down on violence against women and girls' is a vast misnomer, since men are at far greater risk of violence than women in every Anglosphere country. Besides, anti-female domestic violence is more often than not the product of female lifestyle choices - women prefer thugs to decent males because of the 'excitement' they bring to a relationship. Well, if women like 'excitement' so much, why interfere with their 'choices'? They want it all, so let them have it - including black eyes, split lips and fractured skulls.

Response to Thomas Fleming, Deluded White Knight and Misguided Conservative

A reader asked me to respond to the following article:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/25/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights/

So I did...

Thomas Fleming seems to think that men in contemporary western societies should grit their teeth and defend women like males did in earlier, pre-feminist eras, setting them on pedestals and turning a blind eye to their iniquitous conduct. He fails to see that this is not only morally unreasonable, it is also wholly impracticable. Since the late fifties, sixties or seventies (depending on which feminist school you prefer), women have actively rejected conventional males in favor of thugs, deadbeats and sociopaths, along with other ‘cuties’ like violent criminals and swaggering plutocrats. The result is a large rump of sexually and reproductively disenfranchised middle-class males in most Anglosphere societies. These males have followed all the advice given to them by parents, schools, professors and the feminist media and ended up in the living death of involuntary celibacy (or the even worse fate of post-divorce male penury). And still Fleming expects men to view Anglo-American women as Disney princesses above all reproach, as did the bourgeois class in the nineteenth century. Is this man serious? The REAL question American men are asking in ever increasing numbers is: “WHY should I defer to women when all it leads to is false harassment charges, female contempt, involuntary celibacy and, if I’m luck, an icky divorce which leaves me in a trailer-park paying for kids I never see!”


What Fleming fails to grasp is that any complex society is an engine. If one or more components fail, the engine won’t work. Judeo-Christianity is an illogical hotchpotch of competing positions, some of which led directly to the Marxism that most American conservatives claim to excoriate. However, the ancient Hebrews DID realize that monogamy sustains civilization by giving nearly all males a genetic stake in society. This is especially important for the conceptual class, whose cognitive contributions are essential if any advanced culture is to flourish. It is crucial to civilization that genes for intelligence and deferred gratification are maintained in viable quotas, for those qualities ‘oil the wheels’ of civilization, as it were. This is why advanced nations encourage immigration only by cognitive elites – scientists, architects, engineers and other high IQ ‘betas’, seldom criminals or unskilled workers. Unfortunately, unfettered female sexuality prefers layabouts, thugs and sociopaths, leading not only to a sharp decline in collective intelligence and social capital but also a crisis of confidence among middle class males. Are they supposed to maintain their old deference for women, when this results only in female contempt and sexual failure? Are they supposed to lay down their lives for women who despise the very air they breathe? Well, since the feminist/sexual revolution that is EXACTLY what they have been asked to do and frankly, they just aren’t listening any more. In sum, feminism has sabotaged monogamy, THE vital heart of our social engine. All the other components are struggling, as might be expected. Yet Fleming persists in believing that one part of the engine should continue to work as it has always done for no benefit whatsoever, though the rest of the engine does not work at all.

To hell with that! Women cannot shirk their monogamous responsibilities and expect men to respect them on the old terms. In reality, men will only sacrifice for women if there is some genetic payback. Men on the Titanic only sacrificed themselves because their own female kin – sisters, wives and daughters – were in the lifeboats. There is no reason for men to sacrifice themselves when they have no female kin (the lot of a good many pan-Anglosphere males) and most other women actively despise them. The men’s movement has arisen because singleness permits male objectivity on the issue of women. As Camille Paglia once wrote, ‘female beauty is the world’s most potent drug’. Once the promise of sex and beauty is removed, however, men can afford to see women as they really are: grasping, hypocritical, selfish. With many more men single, childless and divorced, there is simply no REASON for widespread male self-delusion or chivalry. Men are now free to rationally criticize women without fear of censure or rebuke, since they are disenfranchised in all senses, anyway… hence, the Men’s Movement. Another interesting expression of this ‘new objectivity’ is a healthy tendency to take women to task for racism, fascism and other forms of intolerance. Until very recently, a ‘blind eye’ was habitually turned to these unlovely female traits – but no longer.

In conclusion, Fleming is suffering from a particularly virulent case of Pedestal Syndrome, a sickness that afflicts many pan-Anglosphere conservatives. Since Anglo-Saxon culture is puritanical and repressive, it reflexively vilifies men as sexual beings while idolizing women as ‘owners’ of sex. This is what renders Anglo-American conservatives so ineffectual in the face of misandrist Anglo feminism; they reflexively defend what they profess to attack, reminiscent of British psychiatrist R D Laing’s concept of the ‘Double Bind’. The reader who has followed me this far can surely see Fleming’s tired formulations as abetting and advancing feminism by vilifying men and idealizing women – in short, defending the puritan cancer that is presently rotting Anglo-Saxon civilization from the inside out. In his warped Anglo-puritan perspective, the female can jettison ALL social responsibilities to men, while men are expected to discharge ALL their traditional duties to women without genetic, social or economic benefit. I wish him luck with that.

Is Left Wing Politics Intrinsically Feminist?

In my previous post, I claimed that people with daughters are more attracted to collectivist, left-wing politics. Here is decisive proof of that claim. Americans, please note that the British Conservative party is the equivalent of the Republican party, while Labour matches the Democrats.

New research by economists Professor Andrew Oswald at the University of Warwick, and Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee at London University's Institute of Education, reveals that the more daughters a family has the more likely the parents are to vote for left of centre parties. Sons, by contrast, make people more right-wing.

The researchers examined the data in the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) - a nationally representative sample of British households containing over 10,000 adult individuals. Individuals were tracked in each year from 1991 to 2004. Left of centre was measured by using individuals? support for the Labour Party or Liberal Democrat Party, and the researchers measured right of centre by counting those who expressed support for the Conservative Party.

The researchers found that 66% of British people with 3 sons and no daughters vote Labour or Liberal Democrat, but that figure increases to 78% among parents with 3 daughters and no sons.

Even after factoring out other characteristics, such as parents? income, education and age, the researchers found that having a daughter was likely to turn political allegiance from right to left of centre parties. They observed 539 switches from Labour /Liberal to Conservative and 802 switches in support from Conservative to Labour/Liberal.

On average, each daughter raises the likelihood of left-wing voting by 2% percentage probability points.

The researchers also looked at similar longitudinal data for Germany -- measuring left of centre as support for the Social Democratic Party rather than the Christian Union Party or Christian Social Democrats. Here they found that for every daughter that a German man has, he is approximately 2.5% probability points more likely to vote for the left.

The researchers believe there are subconscious reasons behind the observed voting decisions. Women, they argue, are inherently collectivist while men are individualistic. They point out that because there is pay discrimination against women, and females put greater importance on public spending on issues like community safety, females are thus intrinsically more left-wing than males. As men acquire female children, those men gradually shift their political stance and, through subconscious concern for their daughters, become sympathetic to the ?female? desire for more public spending and thus a steeper income tax schedule. Similarly, a mother with many sons becomes sympathetic to the ?male? case for lower taxes and a smaller supply of public goods.

The researchers also point out that these results are reflected in the current political complexion of current female Members of Parliament in Great Britain. At the time of writing, there are nearly 130 women in the House of Commons, which is the main legislative body. Of those, less than 20 are Conservative. Approximately 100 of the women MPs are Labour or Liberal Democrat. This contrasts with an approximately equal split among male politicians.

University of Warwick Professor Andrew Oswald said: "These findings are really intriguing. They may be telling us that, even in the privacy of the ballot box, we are all moulded by primitive evolutionary forces that we are barely aware of. It has been a longstanding idea in western society that parents influence the behaviour and psychology of their offspring. This work reverses that habit of thinking. It suggests that children shape their parents."
Source: University of Warwick

Clearly, left-liberal collectivism seems strongly aligned with feminism. In our view, as previously stated, collectivist programs and institutions favor women while excluding and exploiting men. In sum, men pay taxes for these institutions but receive none of the benefits. The British NHS would be a good example: women are its primary beneficiaries, while men are just walking ATM machines who exist to support it.

That is why we need a new, man-friendly conservatism.

New Article Posted on http://www.anglobitch.com

I have recently posted a potent new article on our sister-site, http://www.anglobitch.com/. This piece, entitled: In the Genes: the Anglo 'Goddess Cult' examines the Anglobitch phenomenon from an ethno-cultural perspective. The article can be effortlessly accessed by clicking here.A few posts have recently appeared on the Blog, of low intellectual quality and no value whatsoever to our dynamic enterprise. Well friends, we are bound to get a few numb-skulls on here, armed with a copy of Cosmo and a Polytechnic Degree in Women's Studies. I will not remove the posts, as I am sure my usual Alpha readers will want to point and laugh at them.

Anglo-Feminism: The New Fascism

Anglo feminism is in no sense a radical or revolutionary movement: to the contrary, all its principal themes – elitism, Puritanism, Calvinism, repression and pretence – are entirely derived from the existing social order. As ever, Anglo Saxon ‘radicalism’ merely represents an extension of existing iniquities (often in more virulent form), conveniently repackaged.

Contemporary Anglo feminism has, for example, a puritanical hatred of sex, the body and physical pleasure that hearkens back to the Seventeenth Century. The supposedly ‘radical’ themes of Anglo feminism derive directly from Reformation Puritanism. They are not ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’ at all.


By extension, Anglo feminism perfectly satisfies all the agendas of Imperium late capitalism. By fooling the masses of disenfranchised women that they have more in common with Hilary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice than men who share their socio-economic exclusion, Anglo feminism ideologically coerces them into abject conformity. It is, in fact, a kind of female-orientated nationalism, racism or anti-Semitism, and serves an identical purpose:

The magazine image of Jacqueline Kennedy/Onassis in American womens’ magazines, is interesting on other counts. The massive empire behind a $30, 000-a-month clothes bill was given no comment. Instead, readers of a dozen women’s magazines were encouraged to identity with Jackie’s emotional and domestic problems. Indeed, the working-class readership magazine hardly even referred to her wealth (Downing, 1980:133).

Above all, Anglo-American feminism remains racist and classist to the core:

Black feminists have been particularly angered by Reclaim the Night marches. Intended to assert women’s right to walk through cities free from the threat of sexual assault, these have frequently taken the form of white women marching through minority and/or working-class neighbourhoods. Critics argue that they reinforce false stereotypes about black and working-class sexuality (Bryson, 1999: 60).

Such marches have little to do with affluent white women’s safety: they descend directly from Victorian crusading Puritanism, rhetorical demonstrations of disgust with the coarse vitality of the urban proletariat. No doubt Proto-feminists like Virginia Woolf would be impressed to witness modern Anglo feminists eagerly maintaining her own sordid intolerance.

Anglo feminism in the present is a marginalized failure. It has little appreciable impact outside the elite and academic feminism. This relates to the fact that Anglo feminism emerged in a class-divided culture, whose elites know little about mass experience. Consequently, Anglo feminism is characterised by idiomatic preoccupations – goddess worship, lesbianism and of course, ‘The Boardroom’.

Surely, the moment is long overdue to 'call time' on this gross cultural aberration.

Oranges and Lemons

The oddest thing about the contemporary Anglosphere is the prevailing concept of feminine beauty. For what makes a woman with lemon-hued hair and orange skin ‘beautiful’?

Anglo-Saxon women are physically disgusting: by the age of thirty (sometimes even twenty-five) they are dry, wizened oranges, their ludicrous Permatans hanging in pachyderm folds on their crooked bones. But this decline is in the script: the Anglobitch spends most of her younger life lounging under sunbeds, yearning to turn her skin that peculiar shade of orange so celebrated across the microencephalic Anglo-American media.

No doubt this Anglo yearning for sunshine reflects some Nietzshean obsession with the Dionysian; some Keatsean fixation on the warm south, Provencal song and sunburnt mirth. And this is perfectly understandable, for a people locked in a puritanical prison of their own devising. Unfortunately, Anglos struggle with the sun: their thin, pasty skins sprout cancerous growths or, failing that unlovely fate, soon hang in fluorescent folds. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Anglobitch who, by age thirty, is a waddling monstrosity cased in thickening rind like a wizened, dried-out orange.