Author Archives: Rookh Kshatriya

Your Savage Pilgrimage: How British Folk-Ways Shaped American Dissidence

Men have long sought an exit from an oppressive culture – it drove them across oceans into the unknown in the past

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


The overriding ethos of this blog is not merely escape from Anglo-American misandry; but rather, active pilgrimage towards a better, more exciting and adventurous mode of life. But Relampago Furioso is not alone in this quest for a more fulfilling, man-friendly existence. There are many precedents in America’s illustrious cultural history, and their inspiration has a surprising origin.

Jon Krakauer’s fascinating book Into the Wild was inspired by an affluent youth named Christopher McCandless who dropped out of conventional society before dying of starvation (or food poisoning) in the Alaskan wilderness. Although his short but adventurous life ended in 1992, the bus where he died is still a place of pilgrimage.  Sean Penn’s poignant film subsequently cemented McCandless’ place in modern American culture as an icon of dissidence and restless alienation from the established order.

However, McCandless is not such an idiomatic figure. A distinctive strand of transcendental alienation has always defined the American male. It is present in the Hudson Valley School of painting, in leather-stocking Romances, in Westerns, in the novels of Henry Miller and Jack Kerouac, in the memoirs of Jack London and Henry Theroux, not just the lives of Christopher McCandless and RF. While there is a disturbing strand in Anglo-American culture leading inexorably to feminism, machine values and secular Puritanism, there are alternative ideals or memes within the culture from which awakened men can also take inspiration.

The Masculine Quest is undoubtedly the most potent of these; and the one most at odds with secular Puritanism. But where did this distinctive American meme originate? If Anglo-Saxon commercial Puritanism were the sole ingredient in American culture, such dissidence would simply not exist. Fortunately, Anglo-American matriarchy, secular Puritanism and crabbed legalism are not the sole ingredients of American culture, as we shall see.

In his tremendous book, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, David Hackett Fischer identifies four different strands in American culture: Scots-Irish ‘backwoods’ culture, southern Cavalier culture, Yankee industrial-commercial culture and Puritan New England culture. These all have distinct origins in Britain: the Scottish Borders, Southern England, the English East Midlands and East-Anglia, respectively. And they all persist in modern America, however distorted by time and circumstance. Backwoods culture still defines rural American life, and its participants are Hillary’s ‘deplorables’; Cavalier culture still dominates Southern middle-class life; Industrial-Commercial culture rules Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the Pacific North West; while Puritan culture dominates law, academia and government.

Obviously, the Puritan-Industrial strains stand together, as do the Backwoods-Cavalier strains; and these pairs are mutually antagonistic. While the Backwoods-Cavalier strands are transcendental, hedonistic and masculine, the Puritan-Industrial strands embody all the crabbed, mechanistic, matriarchal, legalistic, repressive drivel we loathe in this quadrant of the Manosphere.

Sadly, the Puritan-Industrial strand has now achieved almost complete dominance in the United States. Southern defeat in the Civil War was the beginning of this Yankee stranglehold, which their political dominion has only strengthened (Check out Clyde Wilson’s The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (2016) for a scathing study of this ongoing programme). In fact, misandrist Anglo feminism is really just one part of a transplanted Yankee Puritanism with distinct origins in Eastern England (East Anglia). The puritanical tyrants Oliver Cromwell and Margaret Thatcher both came from this region of England, interestingly enough; which was already a distinct kingdom defined by religious fanaticism 1500 years ago.

In cultural terms, the awakened American male’s ‘Masculine Quest’ expresses a desire to escape the dominant Anglo-Saxon Puritan-Industrial culture. Indeed, the pan-Anglosphere men’s movement as a whole can be viewed in these terms. The Quest is really just part of an ancient but ongoing struggle for male freedom from the oppressive binds of ancient cultural memes originating in the British Isles. The Matrix and the Quest, the Blue Pill and the Red; in most respects, these conflicts fit neatly into the Backwoods-Cavalier / Puritan-Industrial dichotomy described above. Obviously, the virgin beauty of the vast American landscape has lent the American dissident’s Masculine Quest a lyrical quality that British masculine resistance to Puritan-Industrial oppression lacks completely. While the British staged the Mutiny on the Bounty simply to escape repression and the lash, the American male retreats into the wilderness, travels to Europe or pens On the Road – in short, does lyrical things.

American men still have an optimism that other men lack. Aldous Huxley suggested this was partly a product of social selection: the most spirited, hopeful and adventurous left Europe to find freedom in America. Exploration of the wilderness by fearless pioneers only heightened this daring spirit: And for all its faults, American liberty still inspires the world. However, the pioneering spirit now only exists among America’s dissidents fleeing the Puritan-Industrial Matrix in pursuit of personal fulfilment.

The current debate over gun ownership is always couched in political, legal or criminal terms. From my perspective, the issue is a spiritual or cultural one: for the gun is simultaneously an American symbol of wilderness, freedom and virility. Abolishing the American’s right to bear arms would instantly abolish Backwoods-Cavalier America and its unique, questing transcendentalism… which is, of course, why America’s secular puritans and their feminist allies are so obsessed by restricting access to firearms.

The New Modern Man’s conceptual toolkit is only enriched by knowing the true origins of the cultural memes he confronts on a daily basis. When the Awakened man knows where he stands in the wider scheme of history and culture, it gives his life epic gravitas and decisive purpose.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Advertisements

The Common Law ‘Schwerpunkt’: How Misandrist Feminism Acquires Institutional Backing

Common law is much harsher on men than civil law when it comes to mediating broken relationships

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


All the major institutions of the Anglosphere are encoded with puritanical repression, which in turn nurtures misandrist Anglo-American feminism. Yet many other countries and cultural blocs share a repressive heritage, yet do not suffer equivalent levels of institutional misandry. Similarly, feminists have infiltrated the legal systems of many other countries; but nowhere else are divorced fathers (and men in general) persecuted to the same degree as they are in the Anglosphere.

Is there some deep structural distinction between the Anglosphere and the rest of the world which makes it especially pliant to misandrist feminism?

In a word, yes. One of the key institutional differences is the prevalence of Common Law in the Anglosphere countries. The countries of continental Europe and many other regions have only Civil law, with no Common Law component to their legal system. But what is Common Law and how does it strengthen the arm of misandrist Anglo feminism?

In brief, Civil Law is a scientific instrument designed to deal with any situation the legal profession might encounter. It is therefore not amenable to casual manipulation or reinterpretation; it is fixed and inviolable, almost a sacred entity. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon Common Law is an ongoing corpus of precedents, judgements and cases which grows and adapts in a fluid, ad hoc manner. Because of its imprecise nature, Anglo-American judges have far more personal leeway when judging a case than their non-Anglosphere counterparts. And this leeway means a Common Law legal system is far more open to manipulation by pressure groups, trial lawyers and other arbitrary forces in the wider culture. Since misandrist feminism now rules the Anglosphere, we can see how Anglo-American law – the cultural genotype – has been exploited to alter the cultural phenotype, resulting in ever more oppression for Anglo-American men.

In short, Common Law is the primary channel through which Anglo feminists have shaped society to their will. Anglo feminism is in itself more vehement and misandrist than other varieties; but without its Common Law leverage it would probably remain relatively toothless and marginalized. Armed with Common Law, however, its force is almost limitless. This partly explains why the best feminist minds (as such) are inexorably drawn to law as an occupation; they rightly see Anglo Common Law as the societal ‘schwerpunkt’ (pivot point, centre of gravity) through which they can realize their dreams and visions.

All the major universities in the Anglophone world contain prestigious law schools which in turn house militant feminist pressure groups. These groups often take existing cases and redefine them in feminist terms: in short, they specialize in manipulating Anglo-Saxon Common Law to advance their anti-male agendas. Since law affects all societal institutions – indeed, institutions are largely composed of laws – controlling Common Law gives these feminist academics the necessary leverage to shape society without reference to normal democratic processes. This is why Anglo-American society has transformed so dramatically in the past thirty years, without the populace explicitly voting for any such changes.

For example, Yale University possesses one of the world’s most prestigious law schools and is an ancient stronghold of the American WASP establishment. The Yale University link to its Journal of Law and Feminism demonstrates the close association between Anglo feminism and the law:

The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism is committed to publishing scholarship on gender, sexuality, and the law, especially insofar as the law structures, affects, or ignores the experiences of women and other marginalized peoples. We encourage the submission of articles, essays, and reviews concerning these intersections of law and feminism. As we promote feminist principles to our readers, we also practice those principles ourselves.

The logo, created by Jacqueline Coy Charlesworth in three variations depicting women of different ethnicities, was chosen to illustrate the front cover of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism.

My more cynical interpretation considers the multi-ethnic logo to be an ideological smoke screen designed to hide WASP women’s complicity in historical crimes like the slave trade; and to foster a fake association between women with radically different interests. However, the gushing spiel continues:

Justicia–our icon of justice. She sits or stands above courthouses or in courtrooms, supposedly overseeing and inspiring choices between right and wrong…

It may be true, as many have observed, that the blindfold ensures Justice’s impartiality towards those with more power and influence than she. But at the same time, the blindfold ensures Justice’s impartiality towards those with less power than she, those who are, in some sense, disadvantaged. Unable to see whatever systemic disadvantages this latter group faces, unable to see her own membership in such a group and thereby possibly understand the nature of their plight, Justice can make her decisions based only on a limited set of facts before her. . . .

Yes, the facts of the case; facts denuded of any other factor – in other words, impartial Civil Law. But feminist jurisprudence wants other dynamics (such as gender or race) to cloud the facts of the case. In sum, it wants non-legal factors such as gender taken into account, factors which an ideologically impartial system of Civil Law would automatically dismiss. And the Anglo-American Common Law legal system is especially vulnerable to feminist agendas for this very reason.

The foregoing discussion explains why Anglo-American feminism enjoys unstinting support from major societal institutions in the Anglosphere. Of course, the Anglo-Saxon puritanical heritage plays a major part in this; for Anglo feminism is not a ‘revolutionary’ movement at all, as conservative MRAs often claim. To the contrary, it shares most of the same goals as the WASP establishment (for example, the legal suppression of male heterosexual choice and freedom). And let us not forget that the vast majority of Anglo feminists are themselves upper middle-class WASPs, their ‘oppression’ being largely imagined and rhetorical. However, the boundless institutional support they enjoy is greatly abetted by their unique control of Common Law, blind spot of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Since law defines all societal institutions, whoever controls the law ultimately controls society.

The most baffling thing about feminist legalists is why they still pretend that women are legally oppressed, when every impartial study proves that women enjoy enormous privilege in the Anglo-American legal system. In reality, feminism has already won the battle for the Anglosphere: its indirect but total control of Anglo-American Common Law has allowed it to redefine the social order with the full backing of the state and its various institutions. One has to have a certain admiration for the whole design; after all, they have won and we have lost. All that now remains for Anglo-American men is alienation and social exclusion, with expatriation the sole avenue of escape from divorce courts, penury and imprisonment.

Go figure.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

New Oppression, Old Values: The True Origins of Modern North American Misandry, Repression and Usury

Witch Trial

Puritan sexual and cultural repression has 400 year old roots in Anglo America

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

The dysfunctional state of modern North America seemingly embodies all the worst qualities of sterile Anglo-Saxon culture: usury, legalism, hypocrisy, misandry, socialism, repression and rampant gynocentricism. While Canadian and American men consider their downtrodden situation unique and unprecedented, their benighted region is extremely reminiscent of the English Commonwealth (1649-60), which was in many respects a template for the future United States. This period in English history saw puritans under Oliver Cromwell take full charge of government and impose savage repression on the British people for over a decade.

All objects of beauty were systematically smashed, free speech punished, taverns and innocent pastimes outlawed while dour cruelty came to dominate law and punishment.  In sum, the Commonwealth embodied all the cold, frigid inhumanity of the Anglo-Saxon soul. As I have written elsewhere, this period left a permanent mark on the English national character – and by extension, the whole Anglo-American world.

Although the terrible state of modern North America is unendurable for men, it does serve a positive instructional purpose. Because it is so close to the English Commonwealth in values and outcomes, it allows us to trace the true origins of modern Anglo feminism, misandry and usury to their true source.

To begin with, modern North America’s ongoing sexual witch hunt is really a puritanical war against physical pleasure itself: it is not ‘revolutionary’ at all, just a feminized restatement of traditional Anglo values. The real motivation behind such ‘abuse’ claims is reflexive hatred of male virility and indeed, sex itself; in short, the erotophobia of Cromwell’s Commonwealth. As Matt Damon opined, the accusations lack any notion of moral proportion; a slap on the ass or an unwanted verbal proposition is arbitrarily conflated with full-on rape, as though they were legally or morally commensurate misdemeanours. All sexual manifestations are equally heinous to the modern Anglo-feminist mind, just as they were to the Commonwealth puritans.

Closely allied to this systematic war on pleasure is a deep Anglo tendency to hysterical herd conformity. This moral socialism tries to drag everyone down to the lowest common psycho-sexual denominator: a hypocritical, repressed, embittered Anglo shit-heel. In sum, North America’s cultural Marxism is really the same old ‘Commonwealth’ moral equalism in modern guise.

Because of it, the Anglo masses will follow whatever they believe to be the ‘dominant ideology’ like a horse with blinders – even if that ideology works against them and their own interests. For example, some of the most fanatical modern sexual witch hunters are men who work in the entertainment industries. On course, this lemming-like hysteria is linked to and fed by sexual repression: hystericus means ‘womb’ in Latin, and the repressive Anglosphere is uniquely renowned for its frequent ‘moral crusades’.

The Puritan witch trials in 17th century England and North America are eerily similar in tone to their modern sexual counterparts: teenage girls making wild accusations are lionized by the authorities; the accused are duly removed and punished without a shred of evidence; and in a few years people will be scratching their heads and wondering what it was all about. But forever fixated on reflexive repression, the Anglo nations never, ever learn… Go figure.

As Lord Protector of England, Cromwell restored usury for the first time in centuries; he was the true architect of modern North American debt slavery. In truth, the definitive Anglo-Saxon obsession with material wealth while neglecting all else begins at this time in English history. And now, trans-generational social dysfunction is so rampant across the Anglosphere that its criminally-acquired wealth is largely wasted on costly public crime and welfare programmes. Moreover, trillions of dollars in unsecured debt generated by women pursuing useless college degrees have permanently wrecked the North American economies. Again, go figure.

As the English Commonwealth had no real ruler, just a Lord Protector (the tyrant Cromwell), so America lacks any coherent leadership. Despite his dynamic rhetoric and intentions, Trump is a toothless force who has been completely nullified by the Marxist Deep State. Whatever the expressed wishes of the American people, they might as well have Killary for President. A rudderless nation with no confident pilot is a ship adrift on stormy seas, at risk from every peril. Without a properly-defined psycho-social template emanating from a tried and trusted leader, no nation can hope to thrive.

Both the English Commonwealth and modern Anglo-America are defined by a futile hatred of reality itself. The Commonwealth was obsessed by banning pleasure in all its forms, whether visual, physical or sexual. Unfortunately for them, pleasure has too deep a root in the human genotype to ever be arbitrarily abolished in this manner. Meanwhile, the ‘progressive’ wing in modern Anglo America tries to deny the brute fact of human gender differences while promoting the LBGTXYZ fiction that anyone can self-identify as anything – even inanimate objects.

Aside from being obviously insane, these attitudes repudiate the classical Greek roots of western civilization. Just imagine applying such absolute semiotic relativism to activities beyond politics and society. What if scientists or engineers decided tin was iron, and iron was mercury? In a few days, half the population would be buried under rubble. Yet the Anglo ‘progressive’ brigade demand that such arbitrary values prevail in social and sexual affairs.

Although pleasure-repression and gender denial seem very different, their underlying motivation remains identical: deluded puritanical rage against reality itself. In sum, Anglo-American ‘progressives’ embody the same puritanical values they claim to challenge; and the same can be said for Anglo feminists.

Of course, there is one important difference between the Cromwell’s English Commonwealth and modern North America. The Commonwealth was a true patriarchy, not a gynocracy like modern Anglo-America. But if we replace Cromwell’s dusty Old Testament God with Anglo women – America’s new deities – the two regimes are essentially identical in their goals, aims and methods.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Why Young Men are Lucky to have the Manosphere

The manosphere helps educate young men on the dangers of dealing with The Predatory Female

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


When Gen X males were growing up, we had only Baby Boomer myths from the post-War era to guide us in our relations with women. These myths invariably presented women as semi-divine creatures endowed with boundless intellects, progressive attitudes and warm, giving hearts in slim, comely bodies. Oh, and let’s not forget they also wanted sex with everyone.

The reality of course bore no relation whatsoever to this ideal. The women we actually met were intolerant, moronic landwhales with loud mouths, basilisk eyes and the social graces of a warthog. The very few not comically obese and ugly were invariably toxic, entitled harridans spayed with the female Dark Triad: malignant narcissism, plus the borderline and histrionic personality disorders. The most sexually attractive were often psychopathic as well.

This led us into a haze of cognitive dissonance and internal doubt. At first, we were certain something was wrong with us. Were we crazy? Were we emotional cripples? Why couldn’t we find one of these flawless angels to redeem us? Because the Anglo-American media routinely represents women as goddesses on pedestals, this response was entirely natural. We might have harboured a few doubts about these false representations, but usually wrote them off as lame self-justification exercises.

In sum, awakened Anglo-American males growing up prior to the Internet had to struggle with their relationship disappointments alone and unaided. Although fulfilled in other ways, their romantic lives were a yawning void. As each loveless decade came and went, nothing changed. Many toyed with thoughts of self-harm or even suicide.

And then the Internet came. The old media narratives that once ruled our lives were blasted apart. We were crouching in darkened rooms: then someone yanked open the shuttered windows, kicked in the doors and let the sunshine in. Everything changed. No, I mean really changed – it wasn’t like the 60’s white suburban pseudo-revolution: this was the real deal. And nowhere was our conceptual revolution greater than in the sphere of gender relations. Anti-feminists appeared, pointing out that feminists only want equality on their own terms, not true gender equality. PUAs appeared, revealing that the whole ‘beta provider’ persona extolled by the traditional media was fit only for stooges.

Neo-Masculinists like Roosh arose, striving to reclaim the manhood that had been stolen from them. And of course cultural dissidents like myself arose, who linked the worst excesses of post-feminist Anglo-American society to pre-existing Anglo values like Puritanism and sexual repression. The next manosphere wave is already in formation, re-forging the best ‘first wave’ ideas into weapons of conceptual war for use in the ongoing Kulturkampf.

When the Internet came, Generation X men who had been ‘put through the wringer’ of militant Anglo-American feminism began to lay our insight and experience on the table. It wasn’t always pretty. Truth seldom is. And we did not always agree: hence the emergence of different ‘schools’ of manosphere thought. But the point was, our views matched the real-world experiences of millennial males in the Anglosphere far more accurately than the stale Baby Boomer narratives they received from the legacy media, schools, parents and other authorities. And so they flocked to us in droves.

Online demographic studies reveal the bulk of manosphere readers are males under thirty, not embittered divorcees in trailer parks. This makes a lot of sense: as well as being severely oppressed by modern feminism, millennial males have grown up relatively free of the pro-feminist bullshit laid on Generation X by the post-War authorities.

But the manosphere gives men far more than knowledge and insight. It may also provide men with better long term physical and mental health. Robert Sapolsky, who studies the physical effects of stress in baboons and humans, suggests that the negative effects of social stress – premature ageing, depression and physical illness – can be greatly reduced by strong communal associations.

That is, if we are experiencing a problem it is better to face it as part of a community rather than alone. Sapolsky has shown that poor countries with a strong sense of community such as Greece have better health demographics than wealthier Anglo-American countries where people are more isolated. This set me thinking. Could the explosive rise of the manosphere in Anglo-American countries have been partly driven by an untapped need for honest male communalism?

My guess is yes. When Generation X was growing up, all we had were unsecured myths about Anglo women being perfect saints and sex goddesses to guide us. Pop music, TV shows and films rammed these fictions down our throats with Stalinist zeal, permitting no dissident perspective. Indeed, anyone who did not pay lip service to these absurd narratives was ridiculed and denied a voice. Now, an online community of truth exists where any man can share his experiences of women, however negative these might be.

And such freedom is healthy, not just liberating. For it is obvious that manosphere involvement has an addictive quality. This is not the lame, dutiful communalism extolled by Marxism or organized religion but rather a sense of finding long-lost brothers and long concealed truths. If Sapolsky is right, men sharing the problem of toxic Anglo-American women in this way can only enhance their lives both mentally and physically. And millennial males will reap these benefits much earlier, in their prime years.

What’s not to like?

Perhaps if mainstream Anglo-American institutions had been more honest about women this eruption of online male communalism might never have occurred. But then, if the socio-cultural mainstream had been more honest, men would never have needed a vibrant manosphere in the first place.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Cultural Static: The Anglo-Feminist Cult of Foreign Interference

The Anglo-American goddess cult regularly interjects itself into the affairs of other cultures

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


Anglosphere countries have a persistent habit of interfering in the affairs of foreign lands. This is not just in the military sphere, but also in the fields of culture, economics and even law. Not a day goes by without the Anglosphere threatening sanctions or military action against some sovereign state and its people. Where does this cultural arrogance originate?

The assumption that corrupt, repressive, divided, racist countries like the US, UK and Australia occupy some lofty plane of moral perfection goes largely unchallenged in the world.  The elitist Anglosphere media are primarily responsible for maintaining these delusions; by focusing on the rosy lives of unrepresentative economic elites, they hide inequality, injustice and repression behind a cloak of dreams. This is why visitors to Anglo-American nations are invariably astonished by the vast gulf dividing real life from the media’s carefully-crafted illusions: divided lands, with the Blue Pill simulation completely at odds with the Red Pill reality.

While the Anglosphere nations continually excoriate foreign cultures, it never occurs to them that Anglo culture is in itself riddled with dysfunction. Aside from a few private schools and elite universities, most Anglo-Americans remain resolutely anti-intellectual, lost in narcissistic fantasies of self-aggrandisement and largely unfit to make any socio-economic contribution. As is also well known, the Anglosphere contains a large, uneducable underclass prone to crime, Welfare dependency and drug addiction; a costly burden in social, legal and economic terms.

However, it is in the area of gender-relations where Anglo-American self-delusion reigns almost totally supreme. We could immediately point out the massive rates of singleness, childlessness and divorce that define the Anglo world (certainly the white majority within that world). Instead of blonde, lissom cheerleaders giving free sex to everybody, foreigners find the frosty Anglobitch in all her borderline, entitled glory; a misandrist legal system; high levels of male school failure, homelessness and suicide; and an endless torrent of false abuse allegations directed at men for the ‘crime’ of having a sex drive. In some ways, seeing the real Anglosphere is like Neo awakening from the Matrix to find his real body immersed in a vat of chemicals.

Despite this grim reality, the Anglosphere countries unthinkingly assume they have a right to ‘correct’ other nations and show them the way on every issue. Quite how the Anglo-American elite feel they have a right to impose their toxic values around the world only becomes clear when we examine the underlying pillars of Anglo-Saxon civilization. The most important of these is the extreme class distinction that characterizes the Anglo-American world, which has comparatively limited social mobility despite endlessly bleating about ‘equality’, ‘rights’ and ‘justice’. Simply put, Anglo social elites never encounter the uneducable underclass, falsely-imprisoned men and fatherless children their repressive culture creates, and consequently believe that culture must be perfect. The British sociologist Anthony Giddens calls this Anglo tendency ‘structuration’, a kind of social apartheid that cuts across every area of social life. Briefly put, if the Anglosphere elite had even the most rudimentary knowledge of their own societies, they would never assume an attitude of cultural superiority.

Another factor in play is the dominance of the empirical tradition in Anglo-Saxon intellectual life. While the concise rationality of philosophical movements such as American pragmatism or British logical positivism is intellectually admirable, the dominance of such empirical movements indicates a certain lack of self-awareness among the Anglo-American intelligentsia – and by extension, Anglo-American civilization in general. When analysis is one’s sole intellectual and cultural recourse, it inevitably leads a culture away from healthy self-awareness. For example, contrast the deep German shame over the Holocaust with the glib glossing of Britain’s pivotal role in the slave trade – whole cities like Liverpool and Bristol grew fat on this vile trade, yet Britain’s guilt about its complicity remains disturbingly negligible. In modern times, the same lack of Anglo self-awareness characterizes not only politicians and thought-leaders but Angloskanks themselves – how can men not be attracted to their borderline personalities, overbearing sense of entitlement and landwhale dimensions? No, guys that flee (or want to flee) the Plantation must be mad, blind or gay.

As a former newsman, RF talks a lot about the mainstream media’s abuse of Hegelian dialectic in the cultural war that engulfs us. Create a false flag threat of some kind – then concoct repressive measures to ‘counter’ and ‘protect’ the masses from it. By this means, the masses gleefully accept the terms of their own coercion; a good example being the recent ‘sex abuse’ hysteria. However, the same method can be deployed strategically: for example, the Anglosphere has used the Holocaust to deflect criticism of its own historical misdeeds for many decades now.  Yes, the Holocaust happened and it was wrong; but the Anglosphere nations have gleefully seized on it as the ‘greatest evil’ in history to hide their own crimes against blacks, Indians, Scots, Native Americans and other indigenous peoples. A whole conceptual climate has been cleverly built on Anglo-Saxon opposition to Nazi Germany, which gives underhand legitimacy to modern Anglo-American imperialism and its warped mission to impose repressive Anglo-feminism across the globe.

Like this article? Has the blog helped change your life in a positive way? Buy one of my books from The New Modern Man Originals section of the Recommended Reading and Viewing page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also sponsor The New Modern Man or make a donation for as little as $1.

Paper Chase: Exploring the Links Between Feminism and Law

Sexuality is being warped and other assorted cultural insanity is now being unleashed by endless legalism

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.

Despite the State’s unstinting legal support for false sexual abuse claims and misandrist divorce settlements, very few manosphere writers discuss the strong links between law and Anglo-American feminism. This is a startling omission, when one considers how many prominent feminists are lawyers, legal academics or politicians with legal backgrounds.

In fact, it must be said that law contains the intellectual ‘cream’ of the Anglo-feminist movement. Of course, the subaltern wing of academic feminism resides in the social ‘sciences’, with its non-patriarchal mathematics and other nonsense. The manosphere expends much (digital) ink discussing these poltroons, largely ignoring the legal wing of academic feminism. This is a pity, because the legal profession contains the best feminist minds; it is also the strongest feminist link to official institutions, the conduit through which feminism is imposed on the wider society.

Men always enquire, ‘How did this come about?’ whenever some misandrist agenda is arbitrarily applied to schools, public washrooms or sentencing procedures. More often than not, the answer is feminist legalism acting directly on ‘official’ institutions without reference to electoral processes.

Manosphere scholars seldom address feminist legalism for several reasons. First and most important, law is an obscure field full of specialist jargon. Second, manopshere scholars prefer easy conceptual victories against the (much weaker) arts-humanities wing of academic feminism. Third, the anti-Marxist fixation of the traditionalist manosphere blinds it to the intimate links between Anglo-American feminism and ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon culture. In this case the link is obvious, since ‘rule of law’ defines Anglo civilization. Indeed, law ‘rules’ Anglo-American society in a very literal way: think how many prominent Anglosphere politicians have a legal education or worked in the legal profession. In Continental Europe, a far higher proportion of politicians are scientists and economists (Angela Merkel is a scientist, for example).

Feminist legalism should therefore not surprise us, since the Anglosphere is defined by its legalism. The US is legalistic above all other nations; it has countless branches of law, all ever-growing like a vast tree. To pursue a biological analogy, if Anglo-American societies are the phenotype, law is their genotype; that is, they are regulated by pharisaic legalism above any other structural principle. Indeed, it might be said that the Anglosphere is law, in essence. Not only does Anglo-American feminism derive its legalistic character from this fact, it also derives much of its power from it. Curious, then, that the manosphere remains blind to feminist legalism and its power to engineer dramatic social change.

Some admiration is called for: dissident males in the Anglosphere raise a lot of rhetorical dust, while their feminist counterparts infiltrate the cultural genotype – namely, the legal system – and proceed to systematically fashion society in their own image. Equally important is their domination of legal education, since it will shape the next generation of lawyers, judges and judgements. Unlike the social ‘sciences’, law is one of the oldest and most prestigious of the university subjects: all elite universities have law departments and these attract high-status students who will become active members of the future ruling elite.

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and a host of other political feminists all trained at elite law schools. In sum, feminism has been wise to infiltrate Anglo-American jurisprudence, for whoever controls law has the true keys to power. Feminist sociology might be the yeast, but feminist jurisprudence is the finished loaf.

Law is the “teeth” of social engineering schemes, making entrenched feminists puppeteers

Legalism Begets Social Engineering

My research for this article unveiled a veritable hornet’s nest of feminist jurisprudence. Nearly every major law school in the Anglosphere has powerful feminist representatives, as we can see from the following website:

http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/

It is no surprise that the site unambiguously links law to social engineering. Since no one really understands law except for specialist experts, it is perfect for the underhand manipulation of society in this way. Even more disturbing is the close link between law and politics, a seamless association in the Anglosphere. RF and other American dissidents talk a lot about America’s lapse into a police state: Feminist Law Professors is where that process really begins. The following passage gives some idea of the kind of articles posted there:

The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of judicial opinions rewritten to reflect a feminist perspective, and commentaries on the cases and rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Torts Opinions.  This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States.  The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press.  Subsequent volumes in the series will focus on different areas of law and will be under review by Cambridge.

It is easy to see what these legal activists are doing: rewriting legal precedents in order to create a corpus of pseudo-precedent for future judgements. In so doing, the future will be theirs (for as long as this dysfunctional civilization lasts).

The Anglo-feminist domination of the legal profession is of seismic significance, when one considers the vast power of jurisprudence in the Anglosphere (not to mention its deep historical links to politics and social administration). Conversely, masculinist activism in the English-speaking world lacks any legal wing, let alone an organized one. Instead, it assumes being ‘right’ will automatically confer ‘victory’ over feminist lawyers and politicians; sublimely missing the point that law, not truth, is the key to the Anglosphere.

Perhaps the fact that most male rights activists are engineers and tradesmen explains their political impotence; after all, engineers and tradesmen do not create/interpret laws or become politicians. To be blunt, Anglo-feminists are winning all the battles because they fight on the right battlefield, namely the legal one. Unless the Anglo men’s movement adjust to this reality, they will always be marginalised and powerless.

Unless they leave the Anglo-American Matrix, of course.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

The Riddle of Female Sexual False Consciousness

Anglo women think they’re sexually liberated, when in fact they’re as frigid and repressed as their grandmothers

Rookh Kshatriya is the creator of the Anglobitch blog, The Anglobitch Thesis and the author of Havok: How Anglo-American Feminism Ruined Society.


Male Sexual False Consciousness is a well-described phenomenon in our branch of the manosphere. Blue collar males in the midst of decade-long sexless ‘dry-spells’ talk and act as if they were bedding models every night. Nor is this mere bluster and persiflage; many celibate males really believe they are having sex with teenage pop singers and actresses, women who would not spit on them if they were burning. Male SFC is a product of Anglo-American reality avoidance, lamestream media manipulation, simple self-delusion and (concealed) shame. In any case, most males in the Anglosphere are so psychologically damaged by institutionalised misandry that they cannot think rationally about their sexual situation.

What about female SFC?

Women’s magazines, TV shows and books are full of sexual tips and spine-tingling accounts of multiple orgasms with alpha paragons. However, this priapic narrative contrasts hugely with serious research into female sexuality, most of which finds that a huge minority (around 40%) of Anglo-American women have little or no libido. At a practical level, the average Anglo-American woman presents as a classic ‘Anglobitch’ – frigid, arrogant, misandrist, entitled, snotty and generally a cunt. This holds as true for the ugly, obese and post-Wall variety as it does for young and attractive ones.

So much for the boundless ‘liberation’ endlessly extolled by the lamestream Anglo-American media.

Most Anglo women dress like ten-dollar whores, read and talk about sex all day, even consider themselves intensely sexualized – yet are, in truth, as frigid and repressed as their grandmothers. Young males are rightly baffled when young girls dress provocatively yet resent all expressions of sexual interest: they seem to inhabit a state of ‘sexualized frigidity’, flaunting sex yet hating it too. What are the best explanations for this glaring contradiction? Why do so many Anglo women strive to talk, dress and look ‘sexy’ while being volcel or even actively hostile to sex?

The answer is complex. Unlike male SFC, the female form of this condition derives from the specific vagaries of female psychology – namely solipsism, the herd instinct and greater psycho-sexual plasticity. However, the fact that priapic gay men design female ‘culture’ in their own image is also highly significant.

Anglo culture is rife with latent homosexuality

Latent Homosexuality in Anglo Culture

Many gay men adopt homosexual lifestyles in the repressive Anglosphere to gain easy access to sex – as a group, they are disproportionately self-selected for hyper-sexuality. In short, gays are the kind of males who will project sex onto everything they see. Since such men are largely responsible for female fashion, television, music and ‘culture’ in general, they inject these things with their own sexual obsessions. Lacking the merest shred of creative originality, women have yielded control of all these activities to infinitely more creative and intelligent gay men. And gay culture is suffused with – indeed, defined by – sex. Assuming women to be female versions of themselves, these men have plastered the bare wall of female sexuality with their own erotic obsessions – obsessions Anglo women almost completely lack. In this view, frigid women do not dress provocatively to attract elusive ‘alphas’ – they dress that way because hyper-sexualized gay men told them to. After all, the average Anglo woman derives no more pleasure from the concept of ‘man’ than she does from a dose of hives.

In many ways, this gay domination of female culture is at the root of female SFC. It surely explains the massive gulf between sexualized female rhetoric and the frigid, uptight and misandrist reality. Female sexuality seems to be a provocative simulation of gay male sexuality, a frigid caricature. However, there are deeper issues in play. The female herd instinct is also implicated, as is female solipsism. If some trendy magazine or television show tells its female audience that the moon is made of cream cheese, their default compliance to authority makes them automatically believe it. Moreover, their infantile solipsism impedes women’s ability to check such claims against reality; to a solipsist, reality is what one feels on any given day.

Solipsism distorts women’s views in another way. Because most women can get sex relatively easily, they assume the same must be true of most men. This is utterly bizarre when one considers the contempt Anglo-American women typically harbour towards most males; but being entirely self-absorbed, they never link their own sexual elitism to the reality of male experience. Hence, women quite readily assume both genders have equal access to sex, even as they mentally excise the vast majority of males as potential sexual partners.

So, while male SFC is largely a product of shame and insecurity, low self-awareness plays a much greater role in female SFC. As for the minority of sexualized Anglo-American women (yes, they do exist) – typically damaged, addicted, working class and Dark Triad (narcissistic, borderline and histrionic) – they are just as confused as their frigid sisters. Their SFC typically involves confusing abuse for love – something pimps, thugs and other male sociopaths are adept at exploiting. Essentially, sexualized Anglo women are so fucked in the head that true sexual false consciousness eludes them; they have no ‘real’ sexual identity to compromise. Their SFC concerns not sex itself, but a deluded interpretation of human relationships.

Female sexuality is a juggernaut that carries all before it, and even disabled women can still attract male attention. This is especially true in the repressive Anglosphere, where sex is a culturally restricted commodity. Consequently, while male SFC conceals sexual ‘inadequacy’ or inceldom, female SFC takes a more complex form. Unlike male SFC, it originates in female solipsism coupled with mental malleability, hyper-hypergamy and sheer hypocritical stupidity. Yet it has immense impact on men, since women regulate all sexual access in the post-feminist Anglosphere.

The only effective and rational responsive is planned departure to liberated, man-friendly shores.

Help us grow by making a purchase from our Recommended Reading and Viewing page or our Politically Incorrect Apparel and Merchandise page or buy anything from Amazon using this link. You can also Sponsor The New Modern Man for as little as $1 a month.

« Older Entries