Sunday, 19 July 2009

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.

Thursday, 9 July 2009

Chavs, Hogarth & Turbo-Capitalism: The Anglobitch Debate Considered


What are the broad findings of the preceding debate? How can it redefine the Anglobitch Thesis?

To sum up, Turbo capitalism and feminism have combined with certain traditional Anglo-Saxon values to produce an increasingly dysfunctional and unstable Anglosphere. The traditional Anglo features – repression, class distinction, subculturalism, chivalry, male exclusion – only became lethal when Anglo feminism and Turbo-capitalism arose (like the different chemicals comprising a lethal injection). The following list tries to unravel and expand these ramifications:

• Anglo cult of novelty and progress, eroding traditional wisdom and institutions for sociopathic ‘Me-Ism’ (see Coupland’s Generation X)
• Anglo cult of objectivity (pragmatism in the US, empiricism in the UK) leading to lack of self-awareness among the Anglo-American elites, an abridged sense of the ‘other’ and little will or capacity for remedial action
• The Internet – more damaging to Angloculture than most others due to limited social bonds, subcultural values and lack of common experience
• Imbalance of Anglo culture in favour of Reason (William Blake’s Urizen), to the neglect of emotional, spiritual and social factors
• Anglo puritanism and repression – creates sense of entitlement among Anglo-American women and adverserial gender-relations
• Being more recent than, say, Scandinavian feminism, Anglo feminism is still relatively undeveloped so Anglo women have acquired rights while retaining privileges
• Internationalist, internet-led ‘turbo-capitalism’ that weakens participative democracy, promotes unrealistic ‘celebrity standards’, creates a chav underclass, widens socio-economic divides and promotes mass immigration to do Gamma jobs indigents cannot afford to take
• The Anglo-Saxon class system, that values birth class more than secondary social factors, links class to gender relations and promotes social subcultures (Bourdieu’s ‘class fractions’)
• Anglo social inequality promotes alienation and self-exclusion among Beta and Gamma males, leading to higher crime rates, more risk-taking behaviour (the gangsta cult) and violence towards women.


One of the most interesting observations is that when men have no genetic stake in a given society (a mate and children, or reasonable hope of them) they simply have no reason to be pleasant (let alone chivalrous) towards women. I found a good example of this on my own YouTube channel; viewers had limited interest in my conceptual Anglobitch shows, great interest in a white girl being beaten to a pulp by a Hispanic (80% of the viewers prefer the beatdown). I doubt this would be the case even twenty years ago; now, there are far more single men viewing women through disinterested (or even hostile) eyes. Where this will end, I cannot guess.

Although the Anglosphere is beset by a wide variety of problems - social closure, economic 'Brazilification', political corruption and widespread alienation, it is obvious that most of these problems can be traced to worsening gender relations. For example, the burgeoning 'chav'/guido underclass is the product of single-mother led, Welfare-dependent post-feminist families. In addition, underclass males without prospects or resources will inevitably resort to crime and violence in order to attract a mate, since no other options are available to them. Male alienation, rising crime rates, dysgenic breeding habits and declining national IQs can all be traced to the rise of Anglobitch feminism and non-regulation of female sexual instincts. As Robert Wright of Harvard opines, a society with high percentages of single men will soon cease to be viable. Anglo-American feminists are single-handedly responsible for this far-reaching social crisis - no other culprit fits the bill so perfectly.

I, Rookh Kshatriya, have always assumed that the Anglosphere could be saved if Anglo-American feminism could be caged and its dysfunctional, atavistic impact reversed. I am now beginning to question that – perhaps the Anglosphere is doomed. Too many essential Anglo-American social mechanisms seem to be broken beyond repair.

Tuesday, 7 July 2009

The Anglobitch Debate IV


It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself.

1.on June 29, 2009 at 12:18 pm A-Bax

1) Emme – You’re out of your depth here. Whiskey was freakin *owning* you earlier. Your girlish “who cares about stupid math, I have a vaj!” response coupled with other mindless empty platitudes is turning you into Lady Rain The Younger. (And doug1 seems to have really gotten to you, eh? Amiright? /Hi-fives other commenters.)

2) Re MJ & the accusations: A number of people were earlier asserting that the Gloved one was tried twice, and acquitted twice (thus insinuating that he was likely innocent and the victim of gold-diggers). The assertion is false. MJ was accused twice, acquitted once, and *settled out of court for 23 MILLION DOLLARS* the other time. 23 million. T w e n t y T h r e e M i l l i o n. What we can conclude from that settlement, at minimum, is that MJ himself had 23 million reasons to think he’d be convicted. I wonder why?

3) Overconsumption of porn as unhealthy and counter-productive: Nice work Obsidian and Novaseeker. Spot on.

4) Great discussion everyone about Marxism, Bell-Curve, Anglo-Saxon culture, Putnam’s thesis..for reals. The comments section in this blog can be really great. Lotta legitimately intellectual stuff PLUS the t&a/game/dating debates.


Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Some good points but hey, the Anglobitch Thesis started HERE, Dude - not Roisy's Blog. Just because Americans love the Anglobitch Thesis doesn't mean they own it!

2.on June 29, 2009 at 1:46 pm gig
you are on crack is you think the American Big Bosses are willing to ’share the
I pointed that the current standard of living in the US could be maintained by a much smaller workforce, once the non-wealth generating jobs were eliminated. I also ask you how many Bill gates do you think exist in Russia or Brazil. Once America gets closer to Russia and Brazil, google Daniel Dantas or Mikhail Khodorkovsky to know how the big guys behave outside the anglo-saxon order.

In an order that favors agressive and well-connected men, the link between alpha among women and alpha among men becomes much stronger.

Many people here entertain the dream of a beta revolution. To those I ask: if they lose now, where America still gives unlimited economic opportunity (just compare it with the Rest of the world) to betas, how are they supposed to beat more agressive guys in a society where economic opportunity gets concentrated in the hands of alpha guys? How are more passive men supposed to win against more agressive guys in an even more agressive society?

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: This writer thinks status pertains to intrinsic qualities. It doesn’t – it pertains primarily to birth class. Put a genius in a housing project and he will die there. Put a dunce in the elite and he will die there. The contemporary Anglo-Saxon social order is too ossified to permit substantial social mobility. This is why the Anglosphere is presently in a state of political turmoil (especially Britain).

3.on June 29, 2009 at 1:48 pm mandy been here a while
Vladimir,
I get the impression I’ll never have a full understanding of Soviet life. But the daily details interest me very much. Were small, independent churches tolerated? For example could people meet in someone’s home and worship or was all religion forbidden?

The Soviet system does seem to produce more desirable qualities in women, if I am to believe a lot of what American men say about Eastern European women. Maybe it is just that the Anglospere has gotten so spoiled that anything is better?

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: No, they are removed from Anglo culture – that is the ONLY difference.

4.on June 29, 2009 at 2:26 pm Comment_Whatever
gig stepped up to the sucker punch with a smile on his face:
I also ask you how many Bill gates do you think exist in Russia or Brazil. Once America gets closer to Russia and Brazil, google Daniel Dantas or Mikhail Khodorkovsky to know how the big guys behave outside the anglo-saxon order.

In an order that favors agressive and well-connected men, the link between alpha among women and alpha among men becomes much stronger. Why, all the Oligarchs of Russia were EXACTLY like Bill Gates. Bill Gates IS how business is done in Russia.

Bill Gates started small. IBM has some Business that needed doing. They wanted Gary Kildall’s operating system, and they had the political power to take it.This wasn’t some trivial thing either, Kildall had already sold his software EXTENSIVELY:

Kindall had his Ph.D. in computers and had written the most successful operating system of the time, selling over 600,000 copies of CP/M, his OS set the standard at that time. Bill proved his Mad Theft Skills to IBM by hiring a cut-out for himself(he was IBM’s cut-out) in the person of Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products. Tim wrote QDOS in six weeks by cutting and pasting Gary Kildall’s operating system. Most of the copy-right notices in the code were removed. Not all though. But the Judges, who IBM has CONNECTIONS with, were unable to prosecute IBM for the theft.

Now, gig, you can debate endlessly how the METHOD OF THEFT was ‘legal’ in Bill Gate’s case and ‘illegal’ in the Russian cases, but really, I don’t care about the METHOD OF THEFT. It really isn’t that big a distinction to me.

Bill then went on to show more Mad Theft Skills with Quatro Pro, WordPerfect, dBase, and Netscape Navigator.

Again the courts were powerless against this well connected thief-savant. However, we all have benefited from Microsoft’s abusive use of it’s Monopoly power. I’ll give you that. So I won’t comment on the Courts inability to contain Microsoft’s obvious use of a monopoly. Because we, ah, benefit from it!

5.on July 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm doug1
anony–
I am reminded that you condone husbands physically beating wives into submission.
All the domestic violence laws, federal and state, of the last 4 decades should be repealed immediately.

A man should be able as back up in extreme situations, express physical dominance over his wife or live together gf. There should be some constraint to this and always has been in American law but not the ridiculous levels there is now.

Your ridiculous statement of Mandy’s views is all to in synch with the absurd and extremist propaganda of the feminist influenced media in the Anglosphere over the last few decades.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Male dominance should only be expressed sexually and intellectually. A truly actualized man has no need to chastise women with violence - his transcendent superiority should obviate that course.

6.on July 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm anony
@doug the thug,
roissy attracks lots of bullies. thankfully there will be women around to care for your wife after you beat her.

blah, blah, ………feminist,………blah, blah, ………..propoganda………….anglosphere,……………….
get some new material.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Why should he? The Anglobitch Thesis is all he needs to confound feminism in any form. Nor is the concept of the Anglosphere hackneyed and jaded - it is almost as fresh and dynamic as the Anglobitch Thesis itself.

Monday, 6 July 2009

The Anglobitch Debate III


It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm Joe T.
doug1
I completely agree with you, especially your last paragraph. But I see the phenomenon you describe as originating, at least in part, in Anglo-Saxon prudishness. In other words, you had to first have the Anglo-Saxon substrate of prudishness, before the feminist “dignity” argument could take hold.

I think this feminist “dignity” argument, and everything that flows from it — that the “personal is the political” — is the single most pernicious mindset that feminism has engendered, because it give feminists license to constrain what is a biological urge — the male libido — under the false banner of “gender equality”. Mind you, when I choose to be in a relationship, I tend to be very faithful. But I do not preach the moral fallacy that infidelity or cheating (whether in the context of marriage or a “committed” male-female relationship) is somehow a slap in the face to feminism, women’s rights, or women’s dignity.

The core travesty of US society is that we preach that male infidelity is a universal affront to women’s soical equality, rather than what it really is, which is a response to a natural urge which can be either forbidden or forgiven by the individual woman.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: But WHY is ‘dignity’ preached in the Angloculture, and why does it have such social currency?

2.on June 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm novaseeker
I think that the divorce rate here is high because the culture here both values marriage more than in other Western countries (meaning more people marry) *and* views marriage rather differently than in many Western countries as well — as being primarily about personal happiness and fulfillment, rather than being a partnership centered around children and financial stability and growth.

In northern and most of western Europe, many/most people have long term cohabitation relationships. The ones who marry are typically quite well suited for each other and have been cohabiting for a long time. But there are many cohabitation relationships that do not work, as well. In the US both the cohabiting and marital relationships, based on the stats I have seen, are less stable than in Europe. We could change that by tinkering with family law a bit (most continental european countries have a family law that is very different from the anglosphere).

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Very interesting, sir. But if true, that difference is merely an expression of cultural difference, which is the backbone of the Anglobitch Thesis.

3.on June 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm novaseeker

@ Joe T. — Yep, I have lived in Europe quite a bit over the years. I prefer America, but that’s me.

@doug1 — Child support payments are, on the continent, much lower than in the Anglosphere. They resemble what used to be “child support” in the US before the CS amounts were upped in the 1980s to replace the decline of alimony which happened as a result of women entering the work force. It varies by country, but in many European countries, alimony is also much rarer.

Another thing is that in much of continental western europe, pre-nuptial agreements are ubiquitous and completely enforceable. I was talking to a colleague of mine from Belgium (who lives in Germany) about this a few months ago when we were together for some meetings in Dubai. He smiled at me and said “I know American women get all crazy about these agreements, but they are perfectly common and normal in Europe, because we also know that marriage is a business and financial arrangement as well as a romantic involvement” (paraphrasing). He was describing to me how he needed to revise his “marriage contract” (what they are called) to reflect his recent promotion and so on.

So the approach to marriage, in general, is much less Disney.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Exactly. But Anglo Saxons have a 'Disney' approach to relationships because Disney is the supreme expression of Anglo Puritanism (Anglo-Saxon literary culture has a long standing obsession with children, because children are SEXLESS. Think of Peter Pan, the Water Babies or the Secret Garden – it isn’t just Disney, friend. Check out British MP George Waldon's book on the failings of Anglo-Saxon 'child-centered' education, 'We Should Know Better' - he lays the blame squarely on this Anglo-cult of 'child-veneration'). Perhaps the fragility of Anglo-American Marriage as an institution relates to this 'fairy tale' expectation of what is in truth a sexual/reproductive relationship - something rather 'gritty'.

4.on June 28, 2009 at 6:48 pm David Alexander
because we also know that marriage is a business and financial arrangement as well as a romantic involvement

The question one should ask is why do Europeans have such a jaundiced view of marriages compared to Americans? Child support payments are, on the continent, much lower than in the Anglosphere. I suspect that the generous social welfare state in Europe ensures that child support payments are lower in general.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: Not 'jaundiced'… realistic.


5.on June 29, 2009 at 2:02 am Vladimir
PA:
In my view, the Left, as slippery and hard it is do define, is something real, something most people instinctively know when they see. It could be that the Left (whatever it is) recalibrated its goals to suit its modern, prosperous, post-industrial context and kept on marching.

In my opinion, Marxism-Leninism and the Anglo-Saxon Left are best viewed as two historically distinct traditions that sprang from different sources, although of course there has been some mutual influence. When it comes to the Anglo-Left, I think the Unqualified Reservations view is broadly correct — it can be identified with the ever evolving and leftward-shifting ideology of the Anglo-Protestantism’s left wing. (The rest, of course, soon follows — the rightmost fringe that is still generally considered sane is typically falling behind by a few decades.) Some paleocon authors have referred to this phenomenon as the “Protestant Deformation,” although I think Mencius of UR is more perceptive when he sees it as a continuous natural evolution with relatively minor side-influences, rather than a “deformation” due to external factors that happened at some particular point in history.

Today’s multiculti/feminist/diversity battlecries are still the same international revolution, but by different and less crude means.

I believe that their advances outside the bounds of the Anglosphere have been so successful and seemingly unstoppable for two reasons. First, their ideology is almost perfectly tailored to appeal to the young and fashionable. Second and more important, it’s important to understand that it’s spreading into a vacuum. The cataclysms of the 20th century — and in some cases, even earlier events starting around the time of the French Revolution — have destroyed all other independent political and ideological traditions within the Western world.

Take Poland as an example. Today’s Poland may call itself Rzeczpospolita, but the real Rzeczpospolita with its authentic institutions and traditions — the Golden Liberty, and nihil novi, and magnates, and szlachta… — was obliterated in 1795, and will never come back. It is no more possible to revive it today than it would be possible to resurrect the Akkadian Empire. So, modern post-WW2 Poland could be rebuilt only according to the models of Soviet Marxism or the American New Deal liberalism, these being the only two surviving political traditions at the time. Because Poland was occupied by the USSR, it followed the former model, but now that the USSR has disappeared, the options have been reduced to only the latter — and pretty much all the open ideological issues boil down to whether and to what extent the country should keep up with the most recent postmodern developments in Anglo-liberalism relayed via Brussels. Like elsewhere, the conservative elements are merely trying to freeze the situation roughly at where the previous generation of Anglo-liberals stood, just before the multiculti/feminist/diversity innovations became the orders of the day. A similar story could be told about pretty much any other European country, of course.

In any case, this is the real problem with the ideology of the postmodern left — unlike Soviet Communism, it’s spreading all around the world, or at least all around the Western world, truly voluntarily and spontaneously. Rulers like Lukashenko or Putin have to resort to pretty harsh repression and censorship to prevent it from spreading into their domains, which makes it seem like it really has no civilized alternative. I am sounding horribly pessimistic now, but I think we need to honestly assess the situation before we can even imagine any real alternative, rather than just cheering for the loser team.

Rookh Kshatriya Writes: This writer makes some fine and interesting points. The Anglo-Saxon left (especially in Britain, where it remains a strong political force) tends to take its ideas from Victorian Protestant Christianity, and can rightly be called a secular Neo-Christian movement. This is why the British left is obsessively Puritanical, in that the repressive Christian meme survives in a new, ‘revolutionary’ guise (Harriet Harman, fanatical enemy of porn and prostitution, hater of sexual freedom, is after all a socialist). The non-Anglo left derived from Marxist-Leninist principles (and various distinct national traditions) is implicitly and militantly atheist (perhaps why it has been more dynamic and effective than the rather twee Anglo-Saxon left, which remains safely incorporated within bourgeois culture and is at best a toothless, compromised force).

As to ideological vacuums, any culture severed from Tradition (as the West now is) is a culture adrift in a fog of nihilism. What do you expect? All ideologies in the Kali Yuga are interchangeable delusions designed to stave off the Day of Doom.

Friday, 3 July 2009

The Anglobitch Debate II

It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm Joe T.

novaseeker -

The brand of feminism prevalent in Sweden is completely different than that which exists in the USA. It is a much less pernicious kind. What we have in America is an asexualizing society built on appying hypermasculine values to everyone — male and female. This results in hyperambitious females obsessed with competing with men. But what are they competing at? They are competing at selling themselves out — being perfect elements of the soulless, competitive capitalist machine.

In Sweden, you have a society built on essentially female values, which I actually think is far superior to the US model. Sweden may be very feminist in orientation, but it is very beta-friendly. While in the US, what you have is the tactical alliance of feminists and alpha males, which freezes out and marginalizes beta males.
Being essentially a beta (like about 80 of males), I don’t think I should have to tell you which society I would prefer.

Also, a point which is actually not much cited on this blog, but which is significant, is that the USA has *by far* the highest divorce rate in the world — about 4.95 per thousand. The second highest is the UK, still significantly less than America’s, at about 3.8 per 1000. Sweden ranks around 3rd, but only half of the US rate, at about 2.5/1000.You actually have to look at the statistical groupings of the list of countries, and their divorce rates, to appreciate how the US ranks in a classy by itself.

I am *not* equating a low divorce rate necessarily with policies and society that favors males, but it so happens that the countries with the *lowest* divorce rates are considered by social scientists to be the most patriarchal. I know Roissy rails against marriage, and he would probably say the men in countries with low divorce rates — Italy, Portugal, Brazil, etc. are “suckers” for staying married, or for being married in the first place. But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

So, America presents the absolute worst of all possible worlds for the beta male (80-85 percent of males, according to even Roissy’s numbers). American Turbo Capitalism endorses all of the following simultaneously:

1) Militant feminism and the “empowered”, male-suspicious female
2) Asexualism and the obliteration of traditional gender roles, passed off as “progress”
3) Promotion of broadly pro-Alpha Male values, as an overall societal value system (which includes libertarian capitalism as the preferred method of economic organization)
4) The marginalization, devaluation, and debasement of what are essentilly the broad masses of the male sex
5) Female sexual “empowerment” and the pressure to form “female-led” relationships, either out of economic necessity, by default, or because of pressure from the prevailing propaganda line promulgated by the corporate media

Rookh Kshatriya writes: Marriage in Anglo culture is overloaded with significance because of the puritan temper of Anglosphere societies. Anglo Marriage is a pycho-social lifestyle adjunct, not a realistic relationship-contract. Because it is so charged with insoluble psychic baggage (the usual Freudian issues and complexes), Anglo-American Marriage is an enormously stressful Institution for both partners - a psychic pressure cooker. However, Marriage originated merely as a functional institution to produce children in a patriarchal culture. In such cultures, the religious/spiritual/philosophical/sexual features of life were dealt with by relevant institutions, such as organized religions or Temple-prostitutes. Anglo marriages are those most likely to fail because the Anglosphere now has an unrealistic understanding of that institution, asking it to bear responsibilities it was never designed for.

As an aside, it is odd that the author considers feminism to be partly fostered by Alpha males, since Alpha Males are those most likely to be fleeced in misandrist divorce settlements. The sociobiological arguments of the British author Moxon often seem to be invoked in these debates, but many of his assumptions are riddled with errors. For example, criminal underclass males have the highest fertility rates in modern society, not upper-middle class alphas. It is much more likely that Anglo culture fosters feminism and misandry as a function of its puritanical obsessions than its sociobiological imperatives.



1.on June 28, 2009 at 4:43 pm doug1

Joe T.
But what Roissy misses there is that those patriarchal countries with low divorce rates also acknowledge the value of the “pressure valve” of extramarital sex, affairs, mistresses, etc. in creating social stability and family stability. And those pressure release mechanisms are things that our prudish Anglo-Saxon society stubbornly will not acknowledge.

Although you’re of course right about the sharply different attitudes towards extramarital sex particularly for men in Anglosphere versus other Euro societies, you’re wrong about the reasons. It is not primarily greater prudishness. For instance, in Victorian England it was widely assumed that many married men would need the release valve of extra marital relations, particularly with prostitutes where it was mostly winked about, but sometimes with others.

Early feminism was all about two things most of all. First was getting women the vote, which they felt (rightly) would end up being of key importance it getting a lot of other rights for women. Second was greater rights in divorce, and social acceptance of the idea that male infidelity was absolutely grounds enough for not only a divorce, and one in which the woman made out handsomely if the man had any bucks. Feminism was lead by women whose men did by and large. American women in particular have always been militantly against male extra marital affairs as a women’s rights and dignity issue. This united women of a wide variety of political persuasions.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: We cannot assume that the original feminists thought exactly as modern Anglo feminists do. In the late Victorian era, patrician women believed in religion literally and implicitly. Also, they harbored right-wing ideas that would broadly be seen as unacceptable today. Actually, most early Anglo feminists were upper-class Nazis. Most of them were avowed racists and eugenicists (Woolf, Stopes) and some of their preoccupations (contraception for instance) were motivated by eugenic concerns and a desire to eliminate troublesome sections of the working class. Early Anglo feminists were also Puritanical Christian Protestants with an obsessive desire to impose moral continence on the masses – partly intrinsic, partly motivated by eugenics and lastly by a yearning to ‘ration’ sex, thereby rendering men of their own class easier to control. While Victorian gents were having sex with whores (and each other) the puritan ‘standard’ was still there, even if no one held to it. In other countries, the ‘standard’ just wasn’t present. For example, the Germans made extensive use of official field brothels in WWI, something the Anglo combatants never adopted. So there clearly were differences between Anglo countries and their Continental counterparts at a deep, cultural level. Maintaining that Anglo-Saxon cultures are not puritanical and repressed is the height of folly; though, to be charitable, this viewpoint often characterises those who have not lived outside the Anglosphere.

The Anglobitch Debate I


It is interesting to see that several Blogs have been debating the Anglobitch Thesis. As well as being intellectually flattering, this demonstrates the importance of our values and concepts. I truly believe the Anglobitch Thesis explains most of the problems in Pan-Anglosphere gender relations as no other theoretical model – but then, I am somewhat biased. Someone called ‘Roissy in DC’ keeps a Blog ‘where pretty lies perish’ and a discussion about the recently deceased Michael Jackson somehow transformed into a fascinating debate on the problem of Anglo-American women, which incorporated much discussion of the Anglobitch Thesis. I include some of the best posts for your interest and edification, with commentary from myself. More of this material will be forthcoming.

1.on June 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm mandy been here a while
Joe
In light of that article, you might enjoy this theory

http://anglobitch.com/ That Anglo Saxon culture has long had antipathy towards men that makes Anglosphere feminists particularly virulent.

2.on June 28, 2009 at 2:23 pm doug1
Emme-
I don’t need a caveman who’s pissed women are smart, have good jobs, and live longer; someone who hates that we have the sexual power AND that we are breaking out of our gender roles and controling the world…

Women only have sexual power to the extent men allow them to have it. Men have the real power. Of physical coercion. Of military force. And even of inventiveness.
Through most of history women haven’t chosen their sexual partners, society, ruled most of all by men, have. Most marriages were arranged to at least a considerable extent. Women might have some choice but within a narrow range, or no choice at all. What choice they did have could often be vetoed by their families, lead by their father, or sometimes by others. Older women were fully allied with men in this social choosing. This is true not just of agricultural societies and after but of most tribes as well. Female choice was considerably constrained. It’s really back in primate times that mates were not chosen heavily according to social and family/tribal forces, by rather by pure female attraction and lust.

As well the reason women have been free from rape to the extent they have is because men have severely punished rape in most circumstances. In circumstances where they haven’t much, such as often when armies or mongol hordes or viking raiders have overrun a village or a city, rape has often been widespread and women have been utterly powerless to stop it.

As for your notions of learning how to shoot a gun as well as any man. Haaaa. Steel nerves is what it really takes to shoot a gun well in a combat situation, and women are piss poor at having them. (So are a lot of men it’s true, but those bell curves ain’t anywhere near close.) Ask anyone who’s not an officer on the record worried about political reaction in our armed forces, or the Israeli armed forces or any armed forces and they’ll tell you that the average woman soldier is terrible at actual combat pointed spear roles (as opposed to some support roles) compared to the average male soldier.

Hey all of recorded history is the way it’s recorded for a reason. It’s not some fluke. Morally disapproving of prior “neanderthals” is no answer. In it, all of recorded history and the anthropological record as well, men rule, and women follow. It’s only when men with Marxist equalist notions allow legislation to be passed often requiring and certainly always allowing (with the media and action groups cheer leading) affirmative action for women in a host of ways all over the place, and allowing women to clean up on divorce theft from men in no fault divorces, and which criminalized a man exerting physical dominance in a straightforward simple way (as rare backup) by striking his wife or girlfriend, or making sexual remarks in the workplace, and so on, that women emerge from a clearly following, important but following, status as compared to men.

It doesn’t naturally occur. It requires a heavy ideological hand on the scales to make happen. It’s highly artificial and an artifact of Marxist derived equalist in outcome moral imperatives. I reject those moral imperatives. Men and women are not naturally equal. Women are naturally followers of men. Close followers, and followers of a man well matched for her, not just any or every man, but there you have it nonetheless. Followers of men rather than being fully naturally equal in leadership, force or power. Equal in overall value though, and in human dignity, for sure. As well many women have huge abilities which it would be a shame to waste by not allowing them to become wonderful doctors and so on.

Such female followership, rather than complete and full equality with men, was and is the case with tribal man. Such was the case with agricultural states and the normadic horsemen and norsemen that often conquered them. Such was the case with industrial age man, and information age man. It’s an indulgence of modern men in the modern west, especially the Anglosphere, to have allowed feminism so much scope and through it’s influence in the media, to have gotten so much feminism favorable legislation passed.

It’s time to start reversing this unnatural feminist aberration, that has zero to do with the prosperity and inventiveness of American society, or European society or Japanese society, but rather rides on that back, and was made possible because of it, while sapping the male inventiveness that was the true cause of that technology and prosperity.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: While the author describes Anglo feminism and its fallout perfectly, in what way is this ‘Marxist’? Might it not just be Anglo-Saxon? That is, might preferential treatment for women and widespread legal/political/cultural misandry just relate to the puritanical undercurrents of Anglo culture? Also, I assume that this author is an American citizen. To my knowledge, Marxism is not a powerful influence in American culture and subsists as a somewhat marginalized, shadowy entity with no real influence on foreign or domestic policy. How, then, can Marxists have imposed this ideology on American society? Another error the author makes is leaping into chauvinism, a dangerous approach for counter-feminist males while feminism retains such a prominent position (see my June 2009 Blog post on the perils of chauvinism).

1.on June 28, 2009 at 2:52 pm Joe T.
doug1 -
“It’s only when men with Marxist equalist notions allow legislation to be passed often requiring and certainly always allowing (with the media and action groups cheer leading) affirmative action for women in a host of ways all over the place”

You are a very confused person, a typical product of this generation’s crop of deluded “libertarian capitalist” white males. Marxists, socialists, social democrats and allied groups are first and foremost *economic* egalitarians, not supporters of revolutionary gender politics. Marxists and socialists support gender equality in theory, but do not contemplate the total erasure of natural gender roles — that’s something that’s just not in their purview.

It was only after Anglo-Saxon capitalism and conservative “libertarianism” fused in the 20th century, resulting in “Turbo Capitalism” which became the driving force in much of American politics, that we have seen the rise of the politics of gender-role obliteration. This is no coincidence, because it is actually in the interests of the economic libertarian ruling class, for there to be no differential between the sexes. When women are considered simply “guys” with boobs, they can be exploited and paid less for jobs which the formerly male family breadwinners held. Women are paid less than men, but it’s by the design of the anarcho-capitalists, not Marxists, who almost don’t exist as any real force in the USA.

Under the anarcho-capitalist libertarians’ economic blueprint, more and more of the educated workforce will be female, with fewer and fewer young females consequently seeing the human value of being mothers. The social fabric will fray further, as women abandon this role more and more for careers.

On the other hand, Turbo Capitalism wants men to self-obsessed consumers, just like the “working women” they have created and brainwashed, hence the metrosexual. So while not actually promoting a female-dominated society, Anglo-Saxon Turbo Capitalism is pushing us inexorably in that direction. The result of what they are doing is a “modern” society in which women and men are regarded as essentially the same, and biological, psychological, and sexual differences are papered over. In such a milieu, if they keep pressing those trends for economic profit, what you will essentially have is a society in which men are constantly being disempowered, and women are constantly being empowered, contrary to biological realities.

The single biggest failure of the moronic “angry white male” movement which has sprung up in America, and which thrives on this blog, is to attribute these changes to unseen “Marxists” and other evil “leftists”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is right under your noses. The truth is that it is your own self-satisfied “libertarian capitalist” movement which is the driving force upending gender roles, destroying the biological male-female dichotomy, and creating the social turmoil that will inevitably do us in as a society within the next 10-15 years, in which I predict we will fall first economically, and then politically, to the oldest continuous civilization in the world, China.

And that, my friends, will probably be a *good* thing for the world.

Rookh Kshatriya writes: Too lenient... Certainly, turbo-capitalism will of course favor gender equality, since it serves to maximize profits at the expense of all else. Releasing women into the workplace reduces wages (for several reasons) and, more importantly, doubles the number of consumers. All psychological evidence suggests that women are broadly more pliant and susceptible to suggestion that men, which allows turbo-capitalism to push products they probably couldn’t in a true patriarchy. As the author shrewdly points out, this emergent gender equalism has papered over biological distinctions between the sexes, partly leading to the well-attested pan-Anglosphere ‘male crisis’ and suppression of the Anglo-American birthrate (certainly among the higher social classes, who are most integrated into this turbo-capitalist ethos).

The author is also correct in locating the Anglobitch problem in Anglo-Saxon culture, not leftist interventionism. The United States has no strong leftist tradition and the leftists that do exist enjoy no real power-base to effect such far reaching social changes - so, the source of the problem must be intrinsic by default. The English visionary William Blake argued that Anglo-Saxon culture is imbalanced in favor of Reason to the exclusion of all else, which is why Anglo-culture is prey to ‘inhuman’ fads likes turbo-capitalism. However, Turbo-capitalism isn't the sole answer. After all, Capitalism is indifferent to anything but the profit motive, yet contemporary Anglo culture harbors an overt antipathy to men irreducible to economic factors. For example, why is the media so misandrist? Other factors - cultural factors - simply have to be at work.