Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - RookhKshatriya

1
The sordid adventures of Texas cowboy Joe Buck in New York City deflate the popular Anglo myth of the Sixties as an era of sexual liberation. In doing so, the film achieves a counter-mythic status. Midnight Cowboy intimates that any kind of sexual revolution in the Sixties was exclusively an affair of the urban liberal elite, not a mass movement. Because the attitudes of that class are absurdly inflated in the media, young Anglo-American men develop a ridiculously distorted picture of female sexual profligacy: that all women will 'put out' for nothing. Midnight Cowboy dissects this myth via the experiences of Joe Buck, gradually stripping away these illusions until only the sterile, selfish reality of the Anglobitch remains. This process might be expressed in the following soliloquy: 'When I was fourteen, I used to think there was a whole world of women waiting out there. When I was eighteen I was wondering where the orgies were. Now I'm twenty-five I just don't want to die a virgin.'

Joe Buck arrives in New York from rural Texas fired by stories that the newly liberated women of the metropolis will pay him for his sexual services. He thinks an aged prostitute with a pink poodle is a likely candidate for his affections. However, he is upbraided as a 'Texas Longhorn' and instead made to pay this 'helluva gorgeous chick' for his pains (Schlesinger, 1969).

In another luckless encounter, a conventional middle-aged woman tells Buck he should 'be ashamed' of himself for soliciting her. Only when he permeates the urban liberal class and its idiomatic subculture does he actually manage to fulfil any of his 'career ambitions'.

It is hard to describe fully what Midnight Cowboy means to us. It serves as a cinematic parable for how Anglo-American men have been betrayed by the liberal subculture. Their hopes of a libertine lifestyle are excited, like those of Joe Buck, by a bombardment of liberal propaganda extolling the 'liberated' qualities of the 'New Woman'.

However, when men seek out these paragons they find instead the same old grasping Anglobitches. They might not be armed with pink poodles, but the old pedestals are still there - and higher than ever. On this sterile reality, their hopes are dashed. Nowhere at the level of mass experience can one find the liberated women feted in the pages of Cosmo: such women only exist in the liberal enclave, as poor Joe Buck found to his cost. Indeed, it is questionable that they exist even there, in that their 'liberation' rarely extends beyond the realm of idle rhetoric. 'Midnight Cowboy' ultimately questions whether the counterculture really happened at all. When Joe, who embodies querulous Anglo-Saxon manhood, goes seeking this wonder-world of mainstream American women who 'put out' for nothing, he finds precisely that - nothing.

This naturally brings us to a burning question that many have asked about the Anglobitch thesis. Are we simple conservatives who reflexively frown on libertine pleasure in the name of some outmoded value system? No, not at all: rather, we question whether the so-called sexual revolution really occurred in Anglo-Americana. Our objection is not moral, but ontological. We do not object to liberalism, we rather question the veracity of liberal claims about post-'liberation' Anglo females. Anglobitches still seem to barter sexual favours for personal advantage: nothing has really changed.

Joe Buck is a representative archetype. He started life with the notion that Anglo women are living cornucopias of love, sex and understanding. In Billy Joel's chipper words:

Tell her about it,
Tell her everything you feel;
Tell her all your crazy dreams
Let her know that you're for real!

('Tell Her About It')

But Anglo-American males learn very quickly that the Anglobitch is not at all interested in 'crazy dreams'. Most are interested only in stooges who will furnish them with material wealth. The uneducated and unintelligent are interested only in moronic sadists.

Poor Joe is eventually reduced to selling himself to homosexual men for paltry fees. The media-fed notion that Anglo women are liberated has backfired on him absolutely.

Thus Midnight Cowboy is a perfect explanatory narrative for Anglo-American men. The searing expectation, the crushing disappointment and ultimate humiliation of Joe Buck are universal Stations of the Cross for Anglo manhood.

:engel2:
2
By any reasonable assessment criteria, Anglo-American feminism is an abject failure. While enormous damage has been done to the family, to Marriage and other traditional institutions (or their pan-Anglosphere shadows that yet survive), most Anglo women are not feminists, at least not as originally conceived in the heady days of the Sixties. To the contrary, Anglo-American women are today never more immersed in 'bourgeois' lifestyles, values and assumptions: consumerism, vanity and sexual barter for material gain.

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

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

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

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

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

:engel2:
3
'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.

:engel2:
4
Main / The Anglobitch Thesis
Sep 19, 2009, 05:02 AM
What is the Anglobitch Thesis?

Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical undercurrent gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege as 'owners' of sex in a cultural context where sex is a scarce commodity (we call this sense of entitlement 'The Pedestal Syndrome'). Because of this, the advance of women's 'rights' across the Anglosphere has not been accompanied by a corresponding reduction of their traditional privileges - indeed, those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact, leaving men only with obligations and women aglow with rights plus privileges. This has been accompanied by an obsessive vilification of men in the Anglo-American media, and across the Anglosphere generally.

The Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men's studies, in that it considers the present debased condition of Anglo-American men not to be the product of recent agendas in politics and culture, but the ultimate expression of a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day Anglosphere is in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However, in the modern context the fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy has precipitated serious social crises that threaten not just the Anglosphere, but the whole of the West. Anglo-American feminism is in a transitory state where women retain the best of all conditions, men the worst of all conditions, and which women will not change without external compunction as the whole thing favors them too much, right now.

From the late Sixties, Anglo-American women were given the right to study, work and improve themselves. The problems began when they were allowed to retain the privileges they enjoyed before emancipation. This has led to absurd double standards like women wanting access to male organizations/occupations like military academies or the fire service, while continuing to exclude men from their own at every opportunity. Consider also divorce, which retains an archaic view of the male as an evil ogre, while assuming the female to be a penniless damsel. Sooner or later women are going to have to choose either rights or privileges before male alienation from contemporary arrangements renders western societies irredeemably dysfunctional (a process already well-advanced).

What is to be done? I suppose it relates to how we want to take practical action against the issues that oppress us. There are two core approaches to attacking any problem - the velvet glove or the iron fist. The glove may be good for manipulating our opponents as we wish, but ultimately it cannot really bite deep into the problem with sufficient force. The iron fist can seem ridiculous if one has a meagre power base (as we do), and the titanic energies it engages can soon dissipate if not released with decisive intent. The best strategy is a combination of glove and fist, using both as appropriate until an opportunity arises for a decisive strike.

That said, withdrawing consent from the existing order is a potent technique of passive resistance. Men should withdraw their consent from whatever Western society they live in, refusing to marry, have children, pay tax or even reside there until the issue of female privileges is forcefully addressed. This is especially potent when functioning members of the middle class adopt it en masse. Cut the supply of tacit goodwill, guys. But then, considering the Marriage Strike, this is already happening.

:engel2:
5
Main / Anglo Feminism: The Class Connection
Sep 19, 2009, 04:59 AM
The greatest absurdity in Anglo-Saxon feminism is its arrant class blindness. In lectures, books and articles, contemporary Anglo feminists continually conflate international bridge-playing females with underclass women and five-dollar call-girls as if they all shared common interests. Clearly,Anglo-feminism is rather like nationalism or racism, an attempt to inveigle disenfranchised women into subordinating their claims as an oppressed class in favour of an arbitrary gender link with their oppressors. It is faux revolt.

In the same tired vein, contemporary feminists claim that disenfranchised males are just as much 'oppressors' as men from Phillips Academy, Eton College or their equivalents elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Can the patrician origins of Anglo feminism explain this absurd position? We think they can...

Because early Anglo feminists were all upper class (indeed, most still seem to attend elite universities and generally enjoy privileged lives) they knew nothing about mainstream social experience. 'Ordinary' women never entered their thoughts, except as objects of domestic labour. 'Ordinary' men were mere beasts of burden. Consequently, their ideas were absurdly skewed: while claiming to be 'revolutionaries' they unthinkingly retained their traditional prejudices.

These characteristic contradictions can be seen in all subsequent Anglo feminists: Greer (a 'revolutionary' who hates working class women); Dworkin (a 'revolutionary' who favours censorship); Hite (a 'revolutionary' who ardently supports monogamy); Paglia (a 'revolutionary' who accepts men are biologically superior); Julie Burchill (a racist, nationalist 'revolutionary'). Of course, all 'liberal' Anglo feminists remain committed to such bourgeois anachronisms as marriage to wealthy men and the protective platitudes of organised religion. These absurd inconsistencies have a long pedigree, dating back to the earliest origins of Anglo feminism, exemplified by the deplorably classist and racist Virginia Woolf.

Whatever they say, Anglo feminists are natural allies of the authoritarian right. The key lines of Anglo feminist thought were set when Anglo-Saxon society was still pre-democratic and the broad masses little better than serfs. Hence arrogant elitism pervades this brand of feminism, something quite absent from the 'partnership' feminism of Continental Europe. Since Anglo men have begun to reject the Anglobitch for women with traditional virtues, this intolerance has reached feverish levels ('Oh, those China Dolls!').

:engel2:
6
Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's 'Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman' (2003):

'A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.'

This 'man shortage' has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no 'man shortage' at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead's figures, there is obviously a 'woman shortage', confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focussing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.

The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a 'man shortage'. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of 'marrying up' in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.

Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women's interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of 'liberation' they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When 'a shortage of men' is translated correctly as 'a shortage of men with more wealth than most women' the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.

Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of 'patriarchy'. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant 'Pedestal Syndrome' neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.

:engel2:
7
Main / The Anglo-American Marriage Strike
Sep 19, 2009, 04:51 AM
The Marriage Strike is becoming a key concept in the Pan-Anglosphere Men's Movement. A few factors at work in Marriage avoidance include:

1. Lots of Western people have now grown up in broken families. Consequently, they have no positive mental model of Marriage. Many of the males will have learned to distrust women at their father's knee.
2. Some of this is an Anglo-Saxon problem. Because Anglo-Saxon culture is in essence Puritanical, Anglo-American women grow up with a sense of entitlement second to none, because they 'own' sex in a culture where it is an elusive commodity.
3. Because of point 2, Anglo-American women are typically rude, abusive and endowed with an offhand sense of entitlement. Men will avoid this if possible - hence the Marriage strike.
4. The Internet revolution has opened up lots of alternatives to marriage with Anglo-American women - swinging, prostitution, foreign brides, you name it. Men do not need to marry any more.
5. Women have squared rights with privileges, because Anglo-American feminism is still an emerging movement. This is at the core of the Divorce problem for men - the Law is stuck in 1958, picturing women as penniless damsels and men as ogres. Yet women have gained many rights since then.
6. Rival lifestyles - being gay is now acceptable. Guys that might have denied their sexuality in earlier generations now 'go for it' - being Gay is now super-hip in the media.
7. Women, while they have rights still retain archaic expectations that male partners should earn more than themselves. This is biological and unlikely to be erased, ever. This explains why they erroneously 'see' such a shortage of single men.

Yes, the game is up: Anglo-American women have squared rights with privileges, opportunities with entitlements, all sans responsibilities - but now, everyone knows it. Only deadbeat Anglo males with low incomes and IQs (i.e. with nothing to lose) get married or breed any more. In the near future, the Anglo-American middle class will be replaced by a sino-caucasian elite; the Anglo-Saxons will just become a moronic underclass across the Western Anglosphere. Anglo-American gynophilia has destroyed the Anglo-American cultural compact: the Anglo world hegemony is finished.

Indeed, the Anglosphere is already too feminine to compete with the masculine Orient. From a biological perspective, the surplus of males in China and India must lead to highly competitive and innovative cultures: men in male-heavy societies must triumph in order to reproduce. And as we know, men can move mountains given the motivation.

By contrast, the West in general and the Anglosphere in particular are hobbled by feminist, feminine values that devalue male dynamism and originality - just look at the education system, degraded into spoon-feeding the masses politically-correct cant; where women's studies are accorded more status than engineering. This also explains why the West is increasingly 'porous' - why, for example, indigestible Jihadists enter Europe, refuse to assimilate, exploit the Welfare state and finally respond with terrorism. It is hard to picture any of that happening with a more 'masculine' socio-political ethos abroad in the West: after all, the primary male instinct is to maintain a territory. For example, Victorian England accepted mass immigration without any cultural concessions to the incomers - none whatsoever. The same was true of the United States until relatively recently.

We are entering 'interesting times'; with environmental degradation soon to destabilise large parts of the globe and probably unsettle populations as well as the global techno-industrial infrastructure, it will strain the West's hegemony to the absolute limit. Given the Anglosphere's gynocracratic values, its ability to 'ride' these catastrophes and emerge with any degree of cultural coherence will be massively ameliorated. The gynocratic porousness, lack of vitality and reliance on sentiment that now characterises the West is the worst prevailing philosophy if it is to survive the storms ahead.

:engel2:
8
Main / Anglobitch: a Tale of Generations
Sep 19, 2009, 04:46 AM
People ask me continually, why do you retain such optimism in the face of the irascible monster than is Anglo-American feminism? How can you keep so cool in the storm of impending social collapse?

My answer is this: Anglo-American feminism is intimately linked to the left-liberal, neo-Christian collectivism of the Sixties. And that is a dying agenda, because its adherents are literally 'dying off'. Someone who was 15 in 1960 is 63 today; and time waits for no man. Before too long, the whole Flower Power generation will 'pushing up daisies'; and then we can erase their sickly legacy for all time. With this in mind, it is vitally important to groom young, intelligent men for the pan-Anglosphere Men's Movement; for they will carry the future. Fortunately, intelligent young men are those most attracted to our movement, because young women eschew them for thugs - happily creating a sense of sense of sexual grievance they will carry into adulthood (and ultimately power, influence and responsibility). It sounds harsh, but defeating feminists (and Anglo-Saxon women in general) is our primary concern. This is, after all, a war: and as such must be waged with unrelenting harshness: if hatred and anger are our best weapons, so be it.

Liberal assumptions are at the heart of Anglo-American feminism. As President Reagan once said, 'problems are obstinate': yet to liberals, the most obstinate problems can be wished away like dreams. For example, the weighty research demonstrating that children reared by lone females are far more prone to crime, failure and dysfunction never engages the liberal-feminist mind; such facts are swept under the liberal carpet, there to geminate in darkness and grow into vast, insoluble issues. Make no mistake: since Anglo feminism achieved hegemonic dominion over the Anglosphere in the late Sixties, there has been an irrevocable decline in public standards. Anglo feminism is at the kernel of all that has failed; and this pernicious influence can be broken down into five core modules:

1.Disruption of the Family - single mother led families produce more dysfunctional children than intact families.

2.Dysgenic Effects - female preference for low IQ thugs and narcissists has lowered population standards to atavistic levels.

3.Male Alienation & Exclusion - Men are increasingly marginalised, their claims ignored, their contributions derided; viewed as walking ATM machines by both women and the State, many are withdrawing their consent from the Anglosphere.

4.Feminization - western societies in general (and the Anglosphere in particular) are increasingly anti-rational and pro-collectivist, anti-scientific and pro-sentiment. This is the direct result of society's feminization.

5.Population Decline - there are too few children being born in the west - hence the need for immigration to fill the demographic gaps. In itself, this is no bad thing ('better Poles than Proles'); however, it will make for less stable societies. And the immigrants of today will probably rule the future: since, due to the rise of 'female partner-choice' in the west, only the stupidest male indigents get to breed.

Despite all this iniquity, take heart: as the poltroons of the Sixties grey out and die off, their influence will wither. Indeed, liberal hypocrisy has been under attack since the Eighties, when its follies first began to be challenged.

Most of the delusional Sixties 'outlook' derives from a specific generational experience. The parents of Baby-Boomers grew up in the poverty of the Thirties, or during the War; consequently, they provided an indulgent environment for their children, to compensate for their own negative experiences. This indulgence gave rise to most of the follies of the Sixties; especially the tendency to deny reality in favour of some pre-conceived, collectivist dream-world. This same tendency lies at the root of Anglo-Saxon matriarchal feminism, mired in double-think and hypocrisy. And when the Sixties die, Anglo feminism will perish also.

:engel2:
9
Main / The Anglo Mangina
Sep 19, 2009, 04:44 AM
What is a Mangina? Across the Anglosphere, everyone is acquainted with these limp excuses for men; in their eyes, women can do no wrong - they consider all women paragons of unassailable virtue, liberation and intellect. Indeed, these spineless pussies are usually more vociferous in their misandry and gynophilia than Anglo feminists.

Given their prominence in Anglo-American feminism, and their implacable resistance to our pan-Anglosphere resistance movement, the Anglo Mangina merits some analysis.

Far from being some kind of some enlightened, sympathetic modern figure, the Mangina is in fact a deeply conservative representative of traditional Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Unfortunately, this tradition is puritanical; consequently, the Anglo Mangina presents his absurd feminist opinions as some kind of 'revolutionary' agenda, when they are in fact the apotheosis of Anglo Tradition (as such). For his whole 'women on pedestals' agenda is Anglo to its backbone; and hearkens back centuries, to the puritan revolution of the late Seventeenth Century. Now, since Puritanism is at core an aversion to sensual pleasure, it gives women the tacit belief that, as 'owners' of sex in a repressive social context, they are entitled to 'privileged' treatment. This, of course, is why Anglo women are so singularly aloof, arrogant, and entitled; and why they seek to augment their new-found rights with traditional Anglo privileges (typically with great success).

Hence, by setting women atop Pedestals of Entitlement, the Anglo Mangina is in fact merely reinforcing the existing social order and its hegemonic assumptions, not coherently challenging them. Of course, masculinity is in short supply across the Anglosphere; the distinctive matriarchal nature of the Anglo-American hegemonic infrastructure ensures this, since males must defer to women in order to gain reproductive access. The Anglo Mangina closely conforms to this desultory archetype, debasing his male identity for the stilted promise of sexual favours. Again, the arrant hypocrisy of his position is paramount; for women have retained their pre-feminist sexual conservatism to manoeuvre our Mangina thus, confounding his principle assumption that feminism 'changed' them in some way.

In all respects, then, our Anglo Mangina is an absurd anachronism; he is a faux revolutionary wholly entrapped in what he claims to oppose.
10
In our Post-modern social reality, there is no coherent unity of outlook. There is no single, monolithic culture. The old demographic distinctions of age and social class are becoming existentially blurred: age, especially, means little in the post-Internet era. The West (especially the Anglosphere) has known an anti-authority, Rock 'n' Roll ethos since the late Fifties - half a century. The whole 'Baby-Boomer' conflict between staid, Church-going adults and 'revolutionary' young people is now effectively meaningless: in many respects, the young are now far more conservative than the old or the middle-aged.

This blurring of traditional distinctions has been greatly enhanced by the Internet. Online, anyone can be anyone, and talk to anyone. People who might never engage in real life can commune at the click of a mouse. This has engendered the rapid growth of interest-led communities that transcend the older demographic distinctions. Of course, the Pan-Anglosphere, anti-feminist community is one of the most potent of these. And its presiding concepts are filtering into mainstream life.

Feminists are increasingly astonished to find their assumptions coherently challenged by young men schooled in the new 'masculinist' thinking by their male elders. Even feminist 'scholars' can no longer ignore the fact that men experience sexual abuse and extensive discrimination before the law. In short, the Internet in its primary role as Post-modern communications vehicle has instantly solved a problem that has long bedevilled the Pan-Anglosphere Men's Movement - getting men of different generations to talk to one another. Undoubtedly, this new and fluid discourse is feeding the Marriage Strike and fostering a new, critical attitude to feminist claims. Even today, the offhand notion that women are everywhere and always 'oppressed' cannot be expressed in intelligent company - and how much will this anti-feminist animus expand with the decline of traditional, misandrist media like television and the press?

We are in the midst of what political philosopher Antonio Gramsci called a Hegemonic Crisis - a period of cultural change and restructuring. The Hegemony is the totality of names, artefacts and assumptions - the cultural 'cement', if you will - that makes things 'what they are'. For the past thirty years, gender feminism and misandry have been intrinsic features of the Pan-Anglosphere hegemony; assumptions that none durst challenge. But - due to the Post-Modern Internet - those assumptions are crumbling fast, at least among men. According to Gramsci, this process of dissolution presents rare opportunities for cultural reformulation. We live in interesting times - times that will shape gender relations for decades to come. If men across the Anglosphere act decisively now, we can permanently weaken the false claims of the gender feminists and build a new, healthier patriarchy; if we fail to so act, gender feminists will proceed to annihilate the family, marginalise men and ultimately destroy western civilization.

The future is in our hands, for good or ill. Fortunately, my faith in the Anglosphere male's warrior spirit is undimmed and absolute.

:engel2:
11
Marie Stopes, renowned Anglo-Feminist and pioneer of birth-control, was in fact a Nazi. A Nazi is anyone with Nazi beliefs, whether they were card-carrying German Nazis or not. The French FN or British BNP are rightly considered Nazis, even today, long after Hitler's death. Stopes shared key Nazi beliefs - she was thus a Nazi... simple, really.

Stopes may not have been a member of the Nazi party, but her eugenic views were identical: birth control, abortion and so on, to eliminate people she deemed 'unfit'. Had she not lived in the Anglo-Saxon world, but in Nazi Germany, she would undoubtedly have been an active and committed Nazi. There is a difference between a chemical engineer attending an engineering conference in Nazi Germany, and a eugenicist attending a population control conference in Nazi Germany: the former remains politically neutral, the latter is inevitably politically engaged. In fact, many early feminists were racists and eugenicists, a fact long swept under the carpet by the liberal establishment. Virginia Woolf was also a Nazi, not just Stopes! Elite women are natural allies of Nazis and other authoritarian creeps, a fact well born out by history. We need a Nuremburg trial for such subhuman filth.

Interestingly, Gandhi was also a racist who detested black people and thought that only the higher social castes deserved human rights. We think the point is with Stopes that her 'contributions' to birth control were, as a whole, motivated by entirely different aims than is popularly considered. In the case of Plato, Karl Marx and so on, their contributions were not tarnished by their appalling racist/fascist beliefs (Marx was also a racist and anti-Semite), as their real contributions were in unrelated fields such as logic, philosophy or economics (Virginia Woolf admittedly falls into this category); while Stopes' entire contribution was an attempt to legitimate and realize her eugenic, Nazi beliefs.

The whole thrust of puritanical Anglo-American Gentile culture is to set women on pedestals as Saints; when we scratch the surface, however, feminist luminaries are often appalling Nazi bigots, at least as bad as the males that feminism excoriates. Virginia Woolf was also a deranged racist, anti-Semite and eugenicist. It is great fun pointing this out to Anglo-feminist pinheads... as it utterly refutes their claim that a female-run world would be morally superior. Just study the social insects to see clear confirmation of that!

Something we have often considered is that Anglo-American women should be made to attend special classes where their racism, homophobia, sexism and entitlement issues would be discussed as a problematic socio-biological legacy, things they would be made to address rationally as innate problems they suffer from, rather like hereditary mental illnesses. Part of the rights/privileges agenda is that Anglo-American women are insufficiently challenged, as the pedestal they have wrangled for themselves sets them somehow above reproach. That pedestal needs to be removed with the utmost urgency.

Yes, men can be racist too - but the point is that female racism is entirely UNTOUCHED in the media or elsewhere (unlike white working class male racism, for instance). Our quarrel with Anglo-American women hinges on the blind eye turned to their racism, homophobia, socio-political privileges and double standards across the Anglosphere - attitudes that informally constrict the rights of others.
:engel2:
12
Introductions / Rookh Kshatriya
Sep 07, 2009, 04:52 PM
What is the Anglobitch Thesis?

:pigs:

Simple: the Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as 'liberator' of women. This derives from a distinct component in Anglo-Saxon culture, namely Puritanism. This puritanical undercurrent gives women an intrinsic sense of entitlement and privilege as 'owners' of sex in a cultural context where sex is a scarce commodity (we call this sense of entitlement 'The Pedestal Syndrome'). Because of this, the advance of women's 'rights' across the Anglosphere has not been accompanied by a corresponding reduction of their traditional privileges - indeed, those privileges have only broadened in scope and impact, leaving men only with obligations and women aglow with rights plus privileges. This has been accompanied by an obsessive vilification of men in the Anglo-American media, and across the Anglosphere generally.

The Anglobitch Thesis differs from conventional men's studies, in that it considers the present debased condition of Anglo-American men not to be the product of recent agendas in politics and culture, but the ultimate expression of a centuries-old anti-male animus hardwired in traditional Anglo-Saxon culture. Our contention is that the present-day Anglosphere is in fact a matriarchy, in all but name. However, in the modern context the fall-out from Anglo-American matriarchy has precipitated serious social crises that threaten not just the Anglosphere, but the whole of the West. Anglo-American feminism is in a transitory state where women retain the best of all conditions, men the worst of all conditions, and which women will not change without external compunction as the whole thing favors them too much, right now.

Western women from the late Sixties on were given rights to study, improve themselves and so on - not a bad thing, in itself. The problems began when they were allowed to retain the privileges they enjoyed before emancipation after acquiring these rights. This has led to absurd double standards like women wanting access to male organizations/occupations like military academies or the fire service, while continuing to exclude men from their own bastions at every opportunity. Consider also divorce, which retains an archaic view of the male as an evil ogre, while assuming the female to be a penniless damsel. Sooner or later women are going to have to choose either rights or privileges before male alienation from contemporary arrangements renders western societies irredeemably dysfunctional (a process already well-advanced).

What is to be done? I suppose it relates to how we want to take practical action against the issues that oppress us. There are two core approaches to attacking any problem - the velvet glove or the iron fist. The glove may be good for manipulating our opponents as we wish, but ultimately cannot strike the problem with sufficient force. Exclusive reliance on the iron fist can seem ridiculous if one has a meager power base (as we do). The best strategy is clearly a combination of glove and fist, until an opportunity arises for a decisive strike. That said, withdrawing consent from the existing order is a potent technique of passive resistance. Men should withdraw their consent from whatever Western society they live in, refusing to form relationships, raise children, pay tax or even reside there until the issue of female privileges is forcefully addressed.

:engel2: