Friday, 26 October 2012

Does Rape Confound Game? (Part III): Jimmy Savile, King of Soft Rape




The two posts I made at the start of last year arguing that rape confounds Game have become iconic. In fact, they attract more hits that the rest of my posts put together. In simple terms, these two articles claimed that intra-male sexual competition has obviated the need for women to evolve a complex sex drive. Unequal male reproductive success has not occurred because women made mating choices; it occurred because women had no mating choices. Powerful men mated with many women because they killed off or enslaved male rivals; female ‘choice’ simply had no place in reproductive outcomes. And so the whole ‘Game’ argument – that female choice has sculpted human evolution – is discredited. In sum, what little female sex drive that evolved is both weak and dysfunctional. Unlike the male sex drive with its voracious hunger for youth, health and beauty, the female sex drive lacks any functional focus. And this explains why women prefer bums, retards and losers to successful, intelligent men: their 'unevolved' sex-drive lacks ‘evolutionary logic’.

One valid objection to this theory is that mass rapes of women by military conquerors are actually quite rare in history. They have happened, though; and the recent Balkans conflict shows they still happen. However, in this article I hope to introduce a new concept to the debate: soft rape. If we were to label direct sexual coercion ‘hard rape’, soft rape is its indirect counterpart; the use of socio-economic power to engineer situations where coercive sexual activity can occur without legal redress.

Soft Rape confounds the underlying assumptions of Game just as readily as its hard counterpart. And it explains why female reproductive urges remain weak and illogical in exactly the same way: intra-male sexual competition obviated the need for a complex, discriminatory female sexuality to have ever evolved. And so it never did: which is why females seldom use pornography, or why male prostitutes cater exclusively for a male clientele, or why many women confuse incontinence with orgasm.


The recent stellar exponent of soft rape has to be Sir Jimmy Savile. A brief look at Savile’s life suggests how males can use soft rape techniques to secure sexual access to many young women, even those of illegal age – and get away with it.

Savile was born in Leeds – an industrial city in the north of England – in 1928. Soon tiring of a coal-miner’s short, hard life, he began to manage night clubs in the late 1950s. American youth culture was spreading to Britain, post-War austerity was in decline and the way lay open for intelligent, driven men like Savile to make their mark. Savile became a famous ‘disc jockey’ in Manchester; in fact, he is credited with inventing the use of two turntables. Success followed success. By the 60s, he was a national celebrity, presenting TV shows like the execrable Top of the Pops. By the 70s he had become a national treasure - a working class hero who juggled charity work with his many media commitments. Royalty, politicians and celebrities alike sought his sage advice. Despite his lack of formal education, Savile had great native intelligence: he was a member of Mensa. Until his death last year, the man was lionized as a kind of living saint.

And then the revelations began.


'King Jimmy' had been using soft rape techniques to engineer sexual encounters with young girls for over fifty years. His charity work created a shield of sainthood around him, inhibiting media speculation about his sexuality. His connections ensured that young women would submit to him in order to advance their careers. And his wealth meant that he could even abuse his own female relatives with impunity – they and their families were financially dependent on him. His great-niece says:
'If we blabbed on Jimmy or told tales, the fame that surrounded him would've gone. And I loved to say that Jimmy Savile is my Uncle - I loved to say it, it made me proud. But for him to suddenly be destroyed over something like this, the family would have had nothing.'
In sum, Savile’s status meant he could get copious quantities of sex without being 'attractive' to women. Charm or looks never entered the equation. Rather, his social and economic power made women - even his own relatives - defenceless before him. Not only that, he could enjoy their bodies without legal redress or media intrusion.


And so we see how soft rape must have operated throughout history.  Together with the more forceful hard rape, soft rape could well have obviated female sexual evolution altogether. Powerful males used their position to gain mating access and their wealth ensured more of their offspring survived. Religious authority creates many opportunities for soft rape, too – a license for it, in many respects. The female predilection for magic crystals and unctuous sentiment has always given religious leaders huge scope for tangential coercion.



So the charge that hard rape has not occurred with sufficient frequency to obviate the evolution of female sexuality falls apart. Soft rape has surely been an omnipresent dynamic in human evolution, becoming ever more powerful with the rise of complex societies. Indeed, the life of Jimmy Savile suggests its ongoing influence today, in a post-feminist matriarchy. In a way, just being born with property or money is a kind of soft rape in economically-polarized societies like the United States. Again, if a male is born into a certain class or ethnic group he has certain reproductive advantages (or disadvantages) in relation to other males. For example, upper class males are far more likely to reproduce than their underclass counterparts. Together, soft and hard rape explain why men nurture a sharp, logical desire for youth and beauty; while women court thugs and misfits - and western societies spiral ever further towards chaos. 


PS: Hello to the guys at Canal Bufalo. Long may Brazil remain the most liberated country on earth!



Thursday, 11 October 2012

Book Published!

As some of you may know, I have been working on a definitive statement of my ideas about feminism for some years. At last, this has come to fruition in Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


Many commentators view the 'male crisis' that besets the English-speaking world - men's educational failure, social apathy and political alienation - as a by-product of modern feminism. However, 'Havok' argues that the English-speaking countries harbor a deep hostility to men that is centuries old. The puritanical religious culture that emerged in England during the Seventeenth Century stigmatized men as sexual beings. This anti-male agenda persists today in education, law and the 'mainstream' media. Far from being a 'revolutionary' movement, Anglo-American feminism reprises the oldest themes of English-speaking civilization - sexual repression, a distrust of visual beauty and misandry, the hatred of men.

If you have ever wondered why Anglo-American feminists and their conservative 'opponents' sound exactly the same, or why the American media vilifies men as 'morons' and 'losers', this book is for you.


The book can be bought here. All proceeds will go to expanding the Anglo-American men's movement.


Wednesday, 10 October 2012

The Limits of the Anglosphere



Proposed Angloshere Flag

The Anglosphere concept is now widely discussed on the Spearhead and other MRA fora, but few MRAs and PUAs have studied the subject in depth. In short, the Anglosphere concept argues that the English-speaking countries are defined by similar values, laws and institutions, not just language. While that is for the most part true, differences within the Anglosphere often go unstated. It has become fashionable to extol the Anglosphere concept in online discourse because it allows the formation of quick friendships and alliances. Additionally, the Internet reduces experience to the written word, in itself a great and abstract leveller.

We should be wary of the Anglosphere concept, however. While useful, there are important differences between the Anglosphere countries. At one extreme, Britain represents a 'Europeanised' expression of Anglo culture, with its massive Welfare State, strong collectivist ethos, secular values and distrust of liberty. At the opposite end of the Anglo spectrum we have the United States, with its minimal welfare provision, libertarian outlook and philo-semitic Protestantism. The remaining Anglo nations fall broadly between these two extremes.

So, while between Anglo countries have important features in common, there are many differences. This means that the 'Male Crisis' has taken distinct forms in the different Anglo nations. For example, in Britain the major problem is undoubtedly the Welfare dependent single mother and her parasitic, criminal brood. In the United States, with its more litigious, libertarian culture, the main problem seems to be Divorce, or the threat of it. As American readers know well enough, around 70% of Divorces are initiated by women and the Divorced male stands to lose 80% of his assets. Of course, this has led to a 'Marriage Strike' among American men. Since these expressions of feminist dysfunction are specific to individual countries, one must expect different 'Anglobitch Futures' in those countries.

Let's take a look at those probable outcomes...

The United States




It has been said that Anglo-American culture is distinct from the more 'organic', Romanized culture of western Europe. This finds expression in such diverse matters as politics, linguistics and aesthetics. For example, the Anglo-American left-wing tradition has quite distinct intellectual roots from Marxism, which is a movement rooted in the rarefied world of German academia. By contrast, Anglo-American radicalism emerged from a praxis of resistance periodically defined by intellectuals such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or John Milton. This tradition has a distinct lineage of its own, linking modern radicals like Keynes or Mill to the American Revolution, the English Civil war, the Peasant's Revolt, the Baron’s Wars and Magna Carta. At a more populist level, we can detect a nascent radicalism in the medieval guilds (the first Trades Unions) of medieval England. Ultimately, the ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition of social equality, small government and the right to private property that prevailed in Britain until the Norman Conquest are the eternal seed-bed of this rich and laudable tradition. Thus, when American republicans decry Marxism as ‘un-American’ they are quite correct; they are quite wrong, however, to dismiss all progressive discourse as ‘un-American’. After all, the United States only exists because of that tradition – statements such as ‘all men are equal under God’ plainly derive from it, and would never have been formulated without its existence.

That radical spirit still drives the United States. The US is still the Anglosphere's - indeed, the world's - dominant nation. Most of the world's top universities are located in the US. It is beyond doubt the world's richest, most advanced and powerful country. However, a nation's standing is only maintained by a committed, integrated citizenry sustaining its institutions, generation after generation. With large numbers of the best American males – those with most to lose by Divorce – eschewing Marriage, and consequently removing their productive, industrious and high IQ genes from the population, the proportion of Anglo-Americans capable of making a meaningful cultural, social or economic contribution will drop disastrously in coming decades. In addition, the post-feminist explosion of unfettered female mate-choice has led to thuggish, shiftless males fathering an unhealthy proportion of all American children, with predictable results: declining standards of morality, aspiration and decency, a degraded education system and general cultural abasement.

While derided in European nations for its lack of history and Kultur, the American Civil war lent the young nation an epic gravitas that inspired the fabled Gilded Age, the blueprint for Western consumerism. Aside from that, America remains the guardian of the West's distinctive 'Faustian' spirit of exploration and discovery. In coming decades, these glories will wither as shiftless, retarded Morlocks - the products of unfettered female mate-selection - swarm across the land, spreading mayhem.

Australia: Odd Man Out?




Australia is an odd one. Ask most Brits and Americans and they will probably list Australia as the least feminist of all Anglo nations. However, this appraisal is specious. Such misandrist luminaries as Rupert Murdoch hail from Australia, not to mention uber-feminists like Germaine Greer.

That said, Australia is the most classless country in the Anglosphere - and one of the most classless nations in  the world. While the United States prides itself on being free of hereditary distinctions, Australia's social mobility rates are far, far higher. And the quality of life in Australia is generally felt to be one of the highest in the world, if not the highest.

However, this idyll is marred by appalling male suicide rates, especially among boys and young men. These are among the highest in the world. Something distinctly unpleasant is happening to the male sex in Australia, of that there can be no doubt. In my view, Australian culture remains fixated on a kinetic, 'armoured' masculine archetype that dates from the Nineteenth Century, when the vast wilderness (and its aboriginal inhabitants) were tamed by hyper-masculine white men. In the Nineteenth Century, all that was well and good. In the modern world, however, such an archetype is hopelessly unrealistic as a guide to masculine behaviour. For one thing, there are very few jobs left that require kinetic prowess. For another, the rise of feminism has marginalised men in general - and hyper-masculine men in particular. Indeed, immersion in a hyper-masculine code of social behaviour is no longer lauded - it just leaves men ever more isolated and at risk. In my view, this 'gendered anomie' is the root cause of Australian men's many adjustment problems.

The worst danger is for Australian men to retreat ever further into the 'armoured' mindset that has damaged their mental and emotional health. It will only cause them more problems. Unless a more constructive, contemporary masculine archetype emerges Down Under, Australian men run the risk of complete marginalization. As ever, Anglosphere 'conservatism' is no friend to men; in misandrist cultures like ours, 'conservatism' only worsens our position. Without rejecting their 'armoured' archetype of maleness, Australian men will only  destroy themselves in ever-greater numbers.

Great Britain




Britain is rendered distinct from the rest of the Anglosphere by its mind-boggling antiquity, above any other factor. This inflects all aspects of British life. In Britain, the past is omnipresent. Within ten minutes of here is an Eleventh Century chapel, for example. No other other Anglosphere nation contains such relics. Further, Britain is essentially undemocratic, being the only Anglosphere nation with hereditarian aspects to its political structure (the Monarchy, the House of Lords, the 'upper class' and so on). It is also characteristically European, with big government, big taxes and little freedom for the individual (British citizens are the most heavily monitored in the world).

In post-feminist Britain, every woman has a right to a child, whether she is in a position to support it or not. This is all part of the rights-without-responsibilities agenda feminists have engineered across the Anglosphere, of course - but Britain's elaborate welfare state ensures its most total expression. Perhaps this explains Angry Harry's offbeat obsession with 'Marxism' - Britain's Welfare programmes do have a Marxist flavour.

Consequently, Britain is the Anglosphere nation most likely to implode as a result of feminism. The present Welfare bill in Britain runs at £200 billion a year - £200 billion - and the bulk of this maintains idle, criminal morons from underclass families spawned by lone mothers. As is the case with America, unfettered female mate-choice cuts deep indeed. Unlike the American elite, the British liberal Establishment makes no attempt to break down this culture of dependence. As ever, patrician White Knightism panders to female idiocy at every turn.

Without severe intervention in the lives of the matriarchal underclass, expect Britain's economic collapse in the near future.





Wednesday, 3 October 2012

The Ineffable Mystery of Anglo Hypergamy



Because of the puritanical fictions  that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become impossible to please by rational means. As with Christian morality (a behavioural system intimately associated with Anglo feminism), the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or, more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the male sex.  Oddly, this bizarre paradox makes sense. If no male is good enough for the Anglobitch, then rational scales of differentiation no longer apply.

This is the problem with Game and its ‘Greek’ system of male classification. The specific nature of Anglo-American hypergamy derives from a puritanical archetype, removing it from all rational rules of hierarchical classification. Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated, priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.

And this explains why exponents of Game report no special mating success in the Anglo-American world. All their 'Alpha' striving is meaningless in a misandrist culture where male status has been downgraded to untermensch levels.  While men believe in such classification systems, they have no meaning to Anglo women whatsoever. Similarly, if all women were facially mutilated at birth and forced to wear sackcloth and ashes, we would have no way to differentiate them: and with no woman higher than a four, no female hierarchy of sexual appeal could exist. Or course, most feminists would rather like that, too.


And this is what makes Game – so appealing to the logical male mind  so ineffective in the Anglosphere. Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes.  And so all the Gamers’ striving for 'Alpha' status is pointless – they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and slouch the streets scratching their butts.  Indeed, as many North American commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have a man, only the worst knave will do.


Gamers are wrong about Anglo women. Socons are, too. Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. That might make sense in less repressive cultural settings. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.

Go figure.