Are Anglo-American 'Gay' Men just Priapic?

pri·ap·ic/prīˈapik/Adjective
1. Of, relating to, or resembling a phallus.
2. Of or relating to male sexuality and sexual activity.

In the Anglosphere, ‘gay’ culture is defined by a cloying obsession with sex. Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men. Gay writers, film directors, artists and philosophers are all enslaved by their sexual urges, to the exclusion of all else.

This fact set me to thinking: are most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it. Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.



This state of affairs is strongly reinforced in the Anglosphere, with its undertow of puritan repression and attendant pedestalization of women as ‘owners’ of sex. In our view, the hyper-sexualized adoptee of homosexuality is far more common in the Anglo-Saxon countries than elsewhere, for this very reason. Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.

Let us consider another aspect of homosexuality – the vaunted ‘giftedness’ of gay men. Short and dirty IQ tests generally suggest that gay men are the sexual orientation whose median IQ ranks highest. A self-evident observation across the Anglosphere (especially in the United States) is that women actively dislike males of high intelligence, preferring swaggering thugs and moronic misfits. Now, this offers a plausible alternative explanation for the high incidence of homosexuality among intelligent males than the pseudo-scientific explanations currently in vogue – simply put, homosexuality follows intelligence, not the other way round. Left with no other option for attaining sex, highly sexed and intelligent males adopt homosexuality as a recreational life-strategy and genes have little to do with it.

These views may not be beloved – but then, truth seldom was. As we all know, Anglo-Saxon culture reflexively exonerates females of responsibility for pretty much everything – and homosexuality is doubtless another statistic. The very notion that homosexuality may be enforced by female sexual ostracism of intelligent males would never be admitted in the legacy media, yet the evidence for such a conclusion is impressive. Indeed, very few gay men would accept such a contention, since that would redefine their hedonistic lifestyle-choice as simple, unbridled lust, not the mystic ‘orientation’ it currently presents as.

Of all the pretty lies in the Anglosphere – liberation, democracy and equality - homosexuality remains the biggest.



Of no small significance is the fact that homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. Feminism and homosexuality are usually considered to be unrelated phenomena – or at best, phenomena independently linked to the rise of the Baby-Boomers’ ‘permissive society’. However, an alternative view is that feminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere. Certainly, genetic explanations of gay giftedness remain flaky at best, while Anglo-American sociobiology remains firmly trapped in the flawed assumption that women find male intelligence attractive, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Finally, the rabid female hatred of male homosexuals ‘seals the deal’ on this issue. As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose. Women who like gay men are a tiny, unrepresentative minority of the educated middle class inflated by the legacy media – the vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. The present author recently heard a discussion about homosexuality on BBC Radio Five. One gay youth described being savagely attacked by a girl wielding a cricket bat. That sums up the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality: the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.

The Anglo Vice: Male Homosexuality in Anglo-Saxon Countries

‘You cannot imagine it in the history of France… Frenchmen are much more interested in women; Anglo-Saxon men are not, and this is a problem that needs analysis.’

- Edith Cresson (French Politician)

Homosexuality can rightly be called an Anglo-American vice. Homosexuality is particularly prevalent in Anglophone societies; many male entertainers, actors, writers, artists and intellectuals make no secret of their attraction to their own sex.

Biological explanations of homosexuality are currently in vogue. While they hold some truth, they do not really explain why homosexuality is more prevalent in Anglo-American countries than, for example, the Hispanic world (where it is viewed with horror). After all, if homosexuality were entirely biological in origin, it should not be culturally specific. The fact that it is implies that culture plays a decisive role in shaping homosexuality in men.

What Anglo-American cultural features dispose men to homosexuality? The answer is very simple: poor relations between the sexes. Interaction between the sexes is so unpleasant and mercenary in the Anglo-American bloc that many men derive more from relations with their own sex rather than women. This leads to exceptionally high incidences of homosexuality among Anglo-Americans.

In a crude sense, homosexuality is the best way to experience plenty of sex in a repressed society where women are taught to commodify themselves from infancy. For men of low socio-economic status, whom Anglo women automatically strike off as potential mates, homosexuality is simply the only way to get bountiful supplies of free sex.

The term ‘gay’ has unique significance in Anglo culture. ‘Gay’ shouts fun, happiness and liberation in societies largely bereft of all three. Why no one has ever noted that only Anglo-Saxon cultures associate homosexuality with happiness shows how blind commentators are to the failings of Anglo culture. Why aren’t straight men ‘gay’? In a society where women view sex as a form of material barter straight men are inevitably unhappy and unfulfilled. Additionally, heterosexual relationships are fraught with peril: divorce, penury, contrived pregnancies. These facts go some way to explaining why only homosexual Anglo males consider themselves ‘happy’.

On honest consideration, homosexuals in Anglo cultures have everything to gain by their lifestyle, very little to lose.

The Rise and Rise of Anglo-American Lesbianism: Introducing the Vantablack Pill, the Pill Beyond Cope

In an earlier post, I touched on the Dog Pill; the Anglo female's sexual preference for dogs over sub-8 men. In this post, I want to discuss an equally potent factor contributing to mass male sexual disenfranchisement: the Lesbian Pill. Few people in the manosphere grasp how widespread lesbianism actually is; yet it is a major force in the West's ongoing sexual crisis. As ever, the homosociality of the Anglosphere makes it even more common in Anglo-American countries.

The Dog Pill: A Rampant Force across the Anglosphere?

Although lesbianism has a relatively low media profile and receives much less discussion than male homosexuality, the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it is far more widespread. Unlike male homosexuality - largely restricted to the upper and middle classes - women of all social stripes engage in lesbianism:

Do All Women Experiment with Lesbianism at College?

Based on 13,500 responses, almost 10% of women ages 22 to 44 with a bachelor's degree said they had had a same-sex experience, compared with 15% of those with no high school diploma. Women with a high school diploma or some college, but no degree, fell in between. Six percent of college educated women reported oral sex with a same-sex partner, compared with 13% who did not complete high school.

SOURCE: Medical News Today 

Although a little dated (2012), the figures clearly show that homosexual attraction is somewhat more common among females. Almost all studies tend to replicate these findings, showing lesbianism to be far more common than male homosexuality. My own view is that female sexuality remains poorly evolved (conventional psychology misnames this tendency 'sexual plasticity'), since intra-male competition and social dominance simply obviated the 'need' for coherent female preferences for most of human history. When Ghengis Khan co-opted women into his harem, female sexual preference simply did not matter; sexual dissenters were terrorised into submission or simply killed. Moral questions aside, that was how things were.

The steady rise of overt institutional misandry in the Anglo West has eroded the last vestiges of male authority, allowing women to do whatever they please with complete impunity. Released from societal expectations and economic dependence on men by misandrist common law and feminist pseudo-careers, disordered female sexuality is now given free rein across the Anglosphere. Fucking dogs, abusing children and a massive increase in lesbianism are the inevitable results:

Psychologist John Buss estimates that for most of human history, perhaps 2% of women have been lesbian or bisexual. Not any more. Recent surveys of teenage girls and young women find that roughly 15% of young females today self-identify as lesbian or bisexual, compared with about 5% of young males who identify as gay or bisexual.

 SOURCE: Psychology Today

And so we see an obvious cause of the mass male sexual disenfranchisement engulfing the Anglosphere: many women are simply opting out of heterosexual relationships relative to men, leaving a large surplus of sexually disenfranchised males. Why so many otherwise awakened Manosphere commentators cannot see this astonishes even me.

But, as Professor Roy Baumeister at Florida State University and others have shown, sexual attraction in many women seems to be more malleable. If a teenage girl kisses another teenage girl, for whatever reason, and she finds that she likes it—then things can happen, and things can change. If a young woman finds her soulmate, and her soulmate happens to be female, then she may begin to experience feelings she's never felt before. 

Especially if all the guys she knows are losers.

 SOURCE: Psychology Today

With typical Boomer gynocentrism and Anglobitch-worshipping self-delusion, the author blames male 'losers' for the increase in lesbianism. He then sails into a diatribe against male 'immaturity', completely ignoring female racism, lookism, heightism and all the other bracing goodies in the hyper-hypergamic package. Of course, admitting the reality of Anglo female hyper-hypergamy would mean actually accepting that Anglo-American women aren't 'perfect': and that is a bridge too far for any Anglo-American academic in the present age of Anglo-cucked degeneracy.

Indeed, the Dog Pill and the Lesbian Pill are so degenerate that they transcend normal Black Pill classification and deserve a new colour classification all their own: VantaBlack . Vantablack is a material developed by Surrey NanoSystems in the United Kingdom and is one of the darkest substances known, absorbing up to 99.965% of visible light (at 663 nm if the light is perpendicular to the material).

Vantablack: the World's Blackest Black

Most Black Pills arise from an individual's personal issues (autism, shortness, ugliness, ethnicity, poverty) and are thus manageable in psychological terms. However, the Lesbian Pill (like the Dog Pill) is infinitely more pernicious since it arises from factors transcending any individual, namely misandrist Anglo-American culture, raw female degeneracy or being born into the post-patriarchal Matrix as a victimised male Xer, Millennial or Zoomer.

Lesbianism and the other VantaBlack Pills are like tsunamis or earthquakes, terrible forces which leave men numb with impotent despair. The blunt fact that many western white women prefer sex with dogs or other women over sub-8 men automatically renders all remediation attempts (other than expatriation, which costs time, money and effort) utterly futile, pre-consigning millions of Western males to sexlessness, childlessness and existential despair.

When the VantaBlack Pill strikes, abandon all cope.

What's Wrong with David Futrelle: A Comprehensive List

The execrable David Futrelle recently 'subjected' one of my posts to scathing and ignorant 'rebuttal'. However, his schoolboy attempts to comprehend (let alone rebut) my arguments merely highlighted the shortcomings of this errant White Knight. His puerile efforts were not wasted, however. Obscurely, Futrelle's ignorance illuminates certain features of the Anglobitch Thesis, while simultaneously showcasing the extent of his own folly.

Although clearly a liberal progressive, Futrelle displays the same pro-female self-abasement that defines Anglo-American conservatives like Thomas Fleming. One wonders whether this tendency has masochistic undertones - and whether his public utterances partake of a troubled private life.

Below, I engage with Futrelle's piece point by point. I don't see a single valid point in his juvenile fulminations, let alone authentic understanding of my position.

1. Introductions

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog -- devoted to the notion that "Anglo-American Women Suck!" -- has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an "inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men" in the "Anglosphere."

Florid references to a "rambling, loopy rant" indicate a specious argument is on the way - and David does not disappoint. After all, he misrepresents my argument from the first. I do not say hate crime legislation is inherently misandrist, I merely argue that men are seldom (if ever) beneficiaries of it, when considered solely as MEN... yet, as numerous examples demonstrate, men ARE extensively discriminated against as MEN, for example in the media and before the law. Far from decrying hate crime legislation, I call for its extension to protect men as men. And why is Anglosphere mockingly enclosed in speech marks? Isn't David aware that many reputable academics in economics, law and politics accept that the English-speaking nations are bound by more than language? Ask a silly question...

2. Murdoch's Agenda

His first example of this is ... Rupert Murdoch's media empire. I'm not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind...

Murdoch does not need to be elected as head of state to promote the latent misandry implicit in pan-Anglosphere civilization. I think Futrelle is getting confused by structural/cultural issues (somewhat expected, since he is confused by most things). Anglo culture and its puritanical memes will utilize the media to promote its agendas, whether Murdoch or his minions are aware of it or not. Since Murdoch is the Anglosphere's premier media mogul, his media empire necessarily promotes the core memes of Anglo culture, prominent among which are misandry and soft-feminism. Nor is this mere conceptual rhetoric on my part - Nathanson and Young's excellent study Spreading Misandry: the Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture proves beyond doubt the presence of misandrist agendas in the Anglo-American media. Murdoch's lurid offerings are not exceptional, but certainly characteristic.

I don't remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from "the outcast group (in this case, men)" spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there's Gretchen Carlson, but she's got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can't see Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?

But 'reactionary nonsense' is, in the Anglo-American context, closely allied with feminism. This is because 'traditional' Anglo-Saxon culture, being puritanical and repressive, reflexively vilifies men and exalts women. Because these presenters are men forwarding a nominally 'conservative' agenda does not make them opponents of feminists, or automatic allies of ordinary men. The British 'Conservative' party recently retracted its earlier pledge to grant accused males anonymity in rape cases, under 'pressure' from left-wing feminists. Is Futrelle really trying to tell us that - were Madeleine McCann a male, working class child - the British media (including Murdoch's) would have batted an eyelid? Is he really that stupid? Isn't Missing White Woman Syndrome a self-evident fact in the Anglo media? Moreover, one that neatly conflates endemic Anglo misandry, racism and puritanism.

Further, Futrelle's distasteful observation about there being few Jews at the top of the Nazi party is irrelevant (and possibly wrong, as someone pointed out). There are many historical examples of people oppressing and abusing their own kind. Does he really think that, in Medieval England, all the male peasants were 'high-fiving' with the Lords, presenting a united bloc to oppress women and gays? What nonsense: most men throughout 'patriarchal' history enjoyed few or no rights, with the added dangers of gendercide and conscription.

3. Legal Matters

Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that: many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.


Well, so it is. That's why American men don't get married, any more. But it's worse than that, David...

Ex-husband of Italian heiress forced to wait tables by 'manifestly unjust' divorce settlement

A waiter who married Italian multi-millionairess but had to return to waiting tables after their relationship collapsed is seeking to overturn a "manifestly unjust" divorce settlement under which he is forced to pay her maintenance.

Francesco Traversa's marriage to Carla Freddi ended after 20 years in 2008 and he was ordered to pay her maintenance and vacate the home they shared despite the "enormous" divide in their wealth, top judges were told.

But now, in a case which puts both prenuptial agreements and sexual equality under the spotlight, he is arguing his treatment was "manifestly unjust" - and would never have been meted out had he been a woman.

Mr Traversa, 51 - a restaurant waiter from a "modest" background - in 1987 married Miss Freddi, 45, an independently wealthy member of a monied family of industrialists, with a personal fortune estimated at between £1.7m and £4.2m.

Ms Freddi relocated to London where the couple had two children and the first of a series of restaurants in the capital, financed by Ms Freddi's family money, was opened in 1993.

In 2008 Ms Freddi divorced Mr Traversa, of (25) Conniscliffe Road, Palmer's Green, north London, in an Italian court, which - after taking a prenuptial agreement into account - ordered him to leave their matrimonial home in London where he had lived for eight years.

On top of that, he was "required to pay maintenance to his wife, despite her enormous economic advantages," his barrister, Frank Feehan QC, told London's Civil Appeal Court, and is now almost £57,000 in debt to her.

Mr Traversa is now trying to win financial relief in England, but has already been rebuffed by a High Court family judge, despite arguments that "Mr Traversa was economically dependant on Ms Freddi" and that "were the husband a woman" the outcome would have been very different.

Source: Daily Telegraph, 17th November

And there we have it, the 'patriarchal', 'misogynist' machinery of western (and Anglo-American) law in operation. Divorced female millionaires take maintenance from waiters while divorced male millionaires end up on Skid Row... ho hum.

4. Welfare and Conscription

After a brief denunciation of the welfare state -- men pay the taxes and women benefit! -- Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register "despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media." Hey, I didn't like having to register, and I don't think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war.

I do not denounce the Welfare State as such, merely the fact that women are its primary beneficiaries (that's why 95% of the UK homeless are male, David, a figure doubtless echoed across the Anglosphere) while males are its primary contributors (at least don't deny the feminists' awful 'wage gap' - even though it is the fruit of too many female toilet-roll 'degrees' in flower-arranging and Womyn's Studies).

Whether anyone has been drafted since Vietnam is irrelevant. You really mean, no one has been drafted YET, but that might well change. I doubt David will be feeling such a chipper mangina after losing both his legs to a Taliban roadside bomb in Afghanistan, although it would furnish us all with considerable amusement... specially after his 'caring' Anglo-American feminists leave him sexually disenfranchised for the rest of his days (a 'loser'). But I digress... the US male-only draft remains a potent symbolic weapon held against men, tacitly telling them: women have rights, you have obligations. And this mantra is echoed everywhere in American society. A footnote: American female 'conservatives' fight the female draft tooth and nail, while reaping the many benefits of post-feminism. Again we see Anglo-American 'conservatism' in its true, misandrist light - a heady cocktail of feminist self-interest and semantic manipulation.

5. Try Conclusions

So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes "that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere."

David's adumbration is so riddled with conceptual errors it is actually amusing... vaguely. Nowhere do I say Murdoch is the State, although his media empire abets the misandrist, pro-female agendas shared by all Anglo-American States. He is not a conscious left-liberal feminazi, but his media promote feminazism, anyway - by complexity-driven social processes and mere replication of puritanical, Anglo-American memes implicit in the dominant culture.

6. Homophobia

Oh, but he's not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing: It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Note my words: adopt homosexuality. Anglo-American homosexuality (especially its English variant) is a cultural, not a biological product. The biologically-determined male homosexual is the product of late birth order and hormonal levels in the womb altering the foetus' brain structure. However, due to repression, misandry and feminism, many males in Anglo countries adopt homosexual lifestyles contrary to their true heterosexual nature. For example, many English privately-educated males report homosexual orientation in post-adolescence, due the homosocial nature of the schools they attend. While biologically-ordained homosexuality can be seen as a natural outcome, the culturally-determined form so common in Anglo countries must be seen as a dysfunction since it warps an individual's true nature. This insidious perversion of native instinct is identical to feeding a rabbit meat, or a wolf carrots. My use of the term 'healthy' merely denotes a male who eschews the sickly, culturally-determined homosexual role, not all homosexuals. Indeed, I broadly approve of full civil rights for all gay people. Speaking of homosexuality, Futrelle might do well to address the rabid homophobia that characterizes Anglo-American women in general, including feminists. This arises from their primordial fear of sexual redundancy (a natural corollary of male sexual freedom), a fact even admitted by Andrea Dworkin in Right Wing Women.

Thus, my 'healthy potent male' is not presented in conceptual opposition to biologically-configured transsexuals and homosexual males (thus connoting them as 'unhealthy'), but only their culturally-shaped facsimiles. All other conceptual oppositions exist only in Futrelle's fevered and uninformed imagination.

7. Parting Insults

Dude, you're an Anglodouche.

And you're a moron. I know which I'd rather be.

Prostitution, Post-Marriage Relations and Obama’s Unlikely Election

Obama: Elected on the back of soft polygamy, Welfare and the Marriage Strike?

Prostitution is a topic that sharply divides MRAs. On the one hand, some consider prostitution a largely benign institution that cheapens the power of sex, thus knocking Anglobitches off their pedestals of entitlement. Other MRAs point out that many feminists view prostitution as a ‘reappropriation’ of female sexual independence – making it something to be obviously opposed by MRAs. (However, yet other feminists strongly oppose prostitution, concocting bogus figures about levels of trafficking and coercion, further muddying the waters).

In short, prostitution is a baffling topic, on which there is no clear consensus among either MRAs or feminists. What is our own view?

The Anglobitch Thesis broadly considers prostitution in the Anglosphere to be quite distinct from that which occurs in other cultures. This relates to the Disneyfied, puritanical repression that undercuts sexual relations in the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, sex is viewed as a physical function, like eating, not some quasi-mystical sacrament bestowed by women on men. Hence, in the Anglosphere it is broadly in women’s interests to keep this high ‘exchange value’ attached to sex, for any decline in its value means a loss of that ‘princess’ status uniformly granted to women in the Anglosphere. That is why, broadly speaking, prostitution is opposed by Anglo-Saxon feminists like Harriett Harman, and all blame for it laid at the door of (largely imaginary) ‘traffickers’, pimps and most of all, men.

Prostitution attracts the utmost controversy among Anglo-American MRAs

However, many women also oppose prostitution for entirely personal reasons. If men can obtain a cheap, steady supply of sex, more women will end up without a mate, a mortifying fate for most females. After all, most men marry to assuage sexual needs and an endless supply of cheap young female bodies is infinitely preferable to spending half one’s life with an ageing, turkey-necked scold. Of course, the ‘Brazilification’ (socio-economic inequality) that has recently emerged in the Anglosphere also means that fewer men can can now attract a wife, anyway. In short, many women are also on Marriage Strike, in that too few Anglo-American men can now afford to keep one. Many evolutionary psychologists argue that prostitution is very prevalent in Third World countries because there, it is more cost-effective for women to prostitute themselves than marry an impoverished husband. In western countries only 1% of women are prostitutes; in African countries the proportion of prostitution-women is as high as 25%. Indeed, the ‘soft polygamy’ that is arising in the Anglosphere probably represents an expansion of prostitution in response to ‘Brazilification’ – that is, we are rapidly returning to a pre-modern, pre-patriarchal socio-sexual compact closer to the Stone Age than advanced industrial society.

So now we begin to explain the differences of opinion among gender activists of both sexes on this crucial topic. Young, attractive, lower-class women will of course favour prostitution, since they can use it to exploit male sexual needs and earn far more than they ever could in conventional employment. However, old or unattractive women will automatically oppose prostitution, for the same reason they oppose male homosexuality – it will likely leave them childless and mateless in old age, as men opt for quality sex over marital commitment. Indeed, old elite women (a la Harman) are invariably most opposed to prostitution for this very reason.

The same distinction can probably be found among MRAs. The Anglo-American MRA movement is broadly divided into conservatives and progressives. Conservatives, represented by sites like American Women Suck, tend to hold Christian beliefs and strongly oppose prostitution. Progressives, as represented by MGTOW, tend to be agnostic materialists and broadly accepting of prostitution and homosexuality. Both positions hav their problems, however.

‘Anglo-American’ conservatism is somewhat of an oxymoron, in that America is a nation forged in revolt. Moreover, Protestantism is a faith of revolt, and Christianity (sans the Judeo) is a revolutionary hotpotch of idealist eschatology, pacifism, paganism and Marxism (turn the other cheek, accept the pagan Trinity, give away all your possessions). Besides, ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon puritanical culture inherently promotes matriarchal values, so adhering to it is hardly likely to challenge feminism. By contrast, the progressive strand of men’s activism acknowledges some of the problems inherent in Anglo culture, even if its solutions may still be invalid.

In sum, the issue of prostitution is complex, and opinions on it are formed by personal circumstances, politics and culture. That the West is changing, moving away from Marriage towards ‘soft polygamy’ (another form of prostitution, after all) is impossible to doubt. This is shaping new cultural trends – increased rates of singleness, the Marriage Strike, more use of hired sexual services and a rapid expansion of alternative sexual lifestyles. What has not been noted before is that these trends are starting to influence mainstream political events in the Anglosphere, as can be seen in the election of President Obama.


The great unstated truth about Obama is that young, single women made him President. There is something about being a young, single woman that makes someone strongly enamored of generous Welfare programmes. The fact that most young, single women earn little, tend to study non-renumerative subjects at college and have a pronounced sense of entitlement in Anglo-Saxon societies all disposed them to vote for Obama in droves. Of course, the crucial factor in their situation is singleness- specifically, singleness occasioned by the Marriage Strike. Simply put, in the ‘Post-Marriage’ era, an elaborate Welfare State is essential for such women. Since men still earn more, yet no longer trust them enough to marry them, young single women must necessarily look to the State for survival provision. Of course, the Welfare State inherently favours women, anyway – just look at Britain, where men pay most taxes but get little Welfare help - which further explains these women’s electoral choice.

Theirs was a vote for misandrist matriarchy, and long will American men rue their present political administration.

Another Factor in the Ascent of Misandist Anglo-Feminism: The Colonial Heritage

The Face of Evil: Anglofoid Gloats Over Lynching Victim

Why has misandrist feminism been so successful in Anglophone countries? This question has begun to haunt me. Too many anti-feminists use conspiracy theories to explain the rise of misandrist Anglo feminism. While there have certainly been a number of social, political and religious groups promoting feminist agendas, their writings would never have achieved mass or institutional support if such support did not already exist. The Frankfurt School and other pro-feminist intellectual movements can only flourish if the social soil is already receptive to their message. For example, the Frankfurt School only adopted an infiltration agenda when its calls for a proletarian revolution failed in affluent post-War North America. There is also the issue of institutional compliance. Some nations or cultural blocs have pre-existing institutions which are especially ripe for subversion. For example, the Anglo-American Common Law legal system has proved incredibly susceptible to feminist manipulation in recent years. Similarly, existing historical memes or traditions can hinder or facilitate subversive agendas; and one of these is my topic here.

A former corrections officer gave us an extended essay in which he argued that the distinctive cultural heritage of the Anglosphere countries had a major role in the emergence of misandrist feminism. His view was that Anglo feminism exploits the residual resistance of former subject races in post-colonial Anglo countries to lever outrageous and unwarranted privilege for entitled white women.

While this assessment is accurate enough, I have begun to detect another pro-feminist dynamic in the colonial legacy. This is kind of residual racist puritanism deriving from a distinctive Anglo-Saxon obsession with limiting the reproductive fecundity of 'subject' races or classes. It is no surprise that this obsession is strongest in the Anglo countries with a troubled colonial past built on slavery and genocide, such as Australia or the United States. After all, those nations had most to gain by regulating or limiting the reproductive fecundity of slaves and ‘subject’ races.

Aboriginal Heads on Display

This realization came to me from free discussions with Hondo Solomon, an insightful black American writer who teaches the virtues of polygamy. In his view, the Anglo-Saxon obsession with imposing sexual repression on subject peoples is largely to keep their numbers low, thereby minimizing the threat of revolt. In addition, Hondo also claims that Anglo-puritan monogamy was also promoted to keep subject populations at a low genetic standard by deliberately preventing the natural proliferation of alpha genes for leadership and intelligence: a kind of soft dysgenics.  Judging by the hunchbacked, autistic morons inhabiting English towns and cities, this policy has proved fairly effective in the British Isles – its original testing-ground. Hondo also claims that the American obsession with professional sports also derives from its colonial legacy – the obsessive measurement of physical attributes and performance originating in the slave trade.

Wingspan: The American Sports Fixation

Returning to The Anglobitch Thesis, if we focus on the sexual elements of Anglo-American colonialism we see a ubiquitous and concerted attempt to associate religious guilt with sex among subject populations. We also see a determined attempt to replace religions which celebrate reproductive fecundity (voodoo, Islam, Catholicism, Judaism and Hinduism) with guilt-laden Anglican Christianity and its sickly cult of reproductive sterility. Let us note that this insidious campaign is colour blind: it oppresses Highland Scots or the English lower classes as much as is does Black Americans, Aryan Hindus or Black Africans. Wherever he goes the patrician Anglo-American tries to impose his woman-worship, guilt and latent homosexuality with one goal in mind: to limit subject populations’ numbers and genetic quality, thereby reducing the threat of revolt against his rule.

Even though its original inspiration has long gone, the same repressive spirit persists as a habitual residue in all Anglosphere countries. Moreover, it is one of the residual memes that has contributed most to the rapid rise of sex-negative misandrist feminism across the Anglosphere. As usual, Anglo-feminism draws strength and succour from the very forces it claims to oppose. 

Anglofoids enjoy Lynching

 

Anglo feminism has nurtured a racist seed since its very inception, so such an alignment should come as no surprise when we consider the colonial origins and uses of Anglo-American Puritanism. Lynchings and other Anglo-American race-crimes typically represented a working collusion between early feminists and imperialists, typically framed as a hysterical campaign to ‘protect’ exalted white women from the animal lusts of black slaves. This sexual Nazism still contaminates Anglo feminism, albeit at an unstated and subliminal level (consider feminist Reclaim the Night marches through black areas, which covertly assume that all black men are rapists). Of course, inculcating the colonising race with puritanical values also serves the colonial enterprise by inhibiting interbreeding with subject peoples, with obvious benefits for the colonial project. It is far harder to maintain a colonial culture of exploitation when many of the exploited share genes from the colonising race. The ‘Pretty White Girl Syndrome’ which saturates the Anglo media is entirely dedicated to exalting white Anglo girls as unattainable deities beyond all reproach; surely another warped legacy of colonial Anglo-elitism.

Too Good for You: Anglofoid Sexual Elitism

My thought has reached a crucial impasse on the issue of sex-negative, misandrist Anglo feminism. It is no longer enough to consider the Anglosphere’s puritanical religious heritage the only force underpinning the Anglo-feminist agenda. Other countries have a strong Protestant tradition (Holland, Germany, Denmark) yet still lack sex-negative feminism of the Anglosphere variety. Other factors must underlie misandrist Anglo-feminism, while sustaining its agenda. Obviously, malleable Common Law is one of these; other prime candidates are genetics, empirical machine values, homosociality and class distinction.

However, the post-colonial dynamic also serves and abets Anglo-American feminism, as we have seen. Its legacy gives Anglo feminism its distinctive racist, misandrist and sex-negative character, especially in those countries where colonial oppression was strongest.

Anglofoids: Exalted Deities?

The Truth Behind TRANSMAXXING: Gender dysphoria is a MYTH

Transmaxxing: A WIN-WIN Solution for low SMV/Priapic males

The phenomenon of Transmaxxing has recently received a lot of attention in the lamestream media, especially among cuckservatives and misandrist Anglo-American feminists. 

 

In simple terms, Transmaxxers are males who want to transition into females because they think they will enjoy better lives as women than they do as low-value, sexually-disenfranchised males. Crucially, they do not claim any sense of ‘dysphoria’ or gender-confusion behind this desire: their motivations are entirely rational and self-interested. Indeed, most Transmaxxers want to retain their male genitalia in order to enjoy post-operative sexual relations with lesbians and other ‘Woke’ women.  

 

None of this is new to me, however. I wrote about the true motivations of ‘gay’ men back in 2011, in typically classic style. My key argument was that gay men ‘reject’ heterosexuality because it is far easier for them to get sex with other hyper-sexualised men as opposed to ‘heterosexual’ women, who are typically frigid, misandrist and hyper-hypergamous. There is nothing genetically or psychologically different about ‘gay’ men, for the most part: like men locked in jail, they can simply get far more sex from other ‘gay’ men than they can from ‘heterosexual’ women. This is not an especially complex argument: in the puritanical Anglosphere, its truth is entirely self-evident.  

My 2011 article received a laboured riposte from the execrable David Futrelle, who – after arguing around the houses for five thousand words – eventually agreed with it: 

Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex.  

Predictably, lamestream and tradcuck commentators have attacked the Transmaxxer’s ‘Manifesto’, calling Transmaxxing a fraudulent challenge to authentic ‘dysphoric’ transsexuality. There are several problems with their critique, however:  

 

• Since ‘dysphoria’ is an entirely self-reported condition, using this mental state to distinguish authentic transsexuals from Transmaxxers has no medical value whatsoever. 
• The lamestream doubtless fears many low-value, sexless men will opt to Transmaxx given their despised and sexually-disenfranchised status in the misandrist Anglosphere. This will result in reduced economic productivity as males reject the ‘striving’ memes that oil the wheels of consumer capitalism for a more retreatist, low-stress lifestyle.  
• Why are tradcon women who weaponise sex against low-value men so worried about them Transmaxxing? Surely they reflexively hate such men and desire their genetic eradication? However, fewer men and more ‘nominal’ women in society necessarily lowers female sexual market value. If just 5% of American males Transmaxxed, it would immediately upset women’s exalted scarcity value in the sexual market place. 

 

My overall point is this: like males who adopt a gay lifestyle in order to get more (or any) sex, male to female Transsexuals are adopting a female identity to acquire the exalted status of ‘honorary’ females. None of them are suffering from ‘gender dysphoria’ or any other psychological condition. They merely nurture a rational desire for improved sexual opportunities and higher social status.  

 

In other words. ALL TRANSSEXUALS ARE TRANSMAXXERS: Gender dysphoria is a MYTH. 

 

In the Anglosphere, where dating apps and residual puritanism have inflated women’s sexual status to Olympian proportions (and where most sub-8 males are sexual pariahs), the ground is especially fertile for both male Transmaxxing and recreational homosexuality. In sum, a substantial proportion of men have everything to gain and nothing to lose (not even their genitalia) by discarding their despised existing gender roles or sexual identities.  

 

As the Transmaxxing Manifesto says, trans women are on ‘the right side of history’; not unlike the feminist teachers who show their anuses to toddlers in Toronto’s schools on a daily basis. 

 

Definitely on the right side of history...

Don’t Vote for Donald Trump - Sex is Wrong!

The Donald signs a Tit - shocking!

In many respects, the unfolding US presidential election represents the age-old Anglosphere conflict between Saxon and Celt. Hillary embodies Anglo-Saxon values – a former lawyer (law is of course the keystone of Anglo civilization), an anaemic liberal, a default feminist and of course, an entitled woman. With his Scottish genes, Trump is the living expression of alpha manliness, charm, flair and visionary enterprise – all Celtic traits. Hillary is obsessed by procedural details, Trump focuses on the big picture – ‘the big stuff,’ as he puts it. In time-honoured Anglo fashion, Hillary refuses to acknowledge that decades of misguided collectivism have led to national decline. In typical Celtic style, Trump recognizes the crisis engulfing America but offers few concrete solutions beyond his vague national ‘vision’. Edward I and William Wallace, Hotspur and Owen Glendower, the Jacobite rebellions and even the American Civil War – the battlefield changes but the ancient adversaries remain the same.

However, the election also shows how totally Anglo feminism ‘owns the ground’ in the United States. Far from being oppressed or marginalised, ‘mainstream’ American institutions (including the Republican party) have universally decried Trump for statements affirming his attraction to fertile young women. His worst ‘crime’ was daring to say that women let rich celebrities ‘grab them by the pussy’ – a statement he made long before entering politics. Besides, Mr Trump was merely stating an obvious truth: that women are attracted to men with wealth, power and celebrity. This is entirely obvious to anyone with even half a brain. Women let rich, famous men ‘grab them by the pussy’ without complaint because they are (for the most part) hypergamous and sexually elitist. Mr Trump is excoriated not just for his attraction to women, but because he tells the truth about them.

Of course, women are sexually indifferent to wealth and fame!

Above all, the witchhunt against Mr Trump hinges on the fact that he is a heterosexual male with healthy erotic drives and interests. The American cultural establishment seemingly expect the President to be a denatured eunuch with no human drives at all. In their view, it is ‘misogynistic’ for a man to say he finds fertile young girls attractive; frankly, a warped and degenerate perspective. And how curious that the liberal establishment – so notable for promoting gay ‘rights’ – nurture such antagonism towards Trump’s spirit of sexual experiment. After all, what is the attraction of male homosexuality, if not ‘experiment’? Men sucking other men’s cocks is just fine and dandy – but when Mr Trump describes his priapic desire for young nubiles, a storm of liberal-feminist invective descends on his head.

Double standards, much?

Being heterosexual - a Federal Offence?

For over five years now I have preached that the Anglosphere retains a potent strand of secular Puritanism upon which Anglo-American feminism draws for inspiration and sustenance. It not only explains the repressive misandry specific to Anglo feminism, it also explains feminism’s dominion over the pan-Anglosphere establishment.

Well, this presidential contest offers ample proof of the latter point.

Bizarrely, Hillary’s media/political/academic fan club seems to view recreational, heterosexual sex as inherently wrong – a matter of scandal, almost of shame. Moreover, they have successfully normalized their warped view of human relations, making Mr Trump appear as some lust-crazed monster for simply being a heterosexual male. Frankly, what has he said that every normal man doesn’t think every day of his life? What has he done that every normal man wouldn’t do if he had Trump’s money and fame?

America’s academic/media/political establishment will only be happy when all males are castrated, gay or extinct. Hopefully, enough American people will see through this puritanical nonsense to appreciate the Republican candidate’s varied merits. Not least of these would be his actually having engaged with the real-world economy, something most feminist lawyers and career politicians have never even attempted. Plus, he can stay on his feet for an hour without fear of seizure or collapse: surely a decided advantage for the world’s most powerful person?

America, the choice is yours.

            

Sex isn't wrong!