Uncategorized

The Anglobitch Hypothesis (Revisited)

In a recent video I alluded to the role of the Anglobitch (AB) hypothesis in explaining the behavior of modern women, particularly those of the Western variety. Obviously the West-based designation is fraught with limitations, yet I would assume most readers have a rough idea of who it collectively refers to. They may not however be familiar with where the AB concept originates, or what specifics prop up its claims about the world.

My own exposure to the idea is actually quite fresh, with fault going to a random comment-giver on some non-YouTube site. Their casual dropping of the AB term led me to a blog bearing the same title, with digital roots stretching back to the days long before Andrew Tate and FitFresh prematurely climaxed on the internet.

Put shortly, the AB thesis holds that trouble surrounding women in the West (especially but not exclusively Caucasian females), stems from a host of historical factors going back to the New World’s foundation. Crucially in the case of Burgerland, there is the influence of Puritanical politics on the romantic realm. Puritans, true to their collective description, tended to uplift the sanctity (purity) of women throughout society, resulting in some measure of deification for the gentle sex, and condemnation of philanderers. Crimes surrounding illegitimacy were also roundly punished, shoring up the centrality of marriage in the social sphere, and creating a tradition which would live on well into the 1800s. This meant that women were awarded the ability to select mates in a discerning manner whilst remaining generally cold and entitled by virtue of their public status.

Scarcity merely added to the cursed foundational structure. As settlers moved to conquer the American West, women were often left behind in safer realms, and would make the traverse in smaller numbers even once ranches and towns had been established. Thus the few females lucky enough to attain secure passage had an outsized degree of importance in male-dominated regions. Men could of course try for a squaw or the occasional Latina who drifted far enough north to service the gringo, but racial preferences would at times be an obstacle. Note that a similar problem originated in Latin America among the early Spanish colonists, who demanded wives of their own stock rather than compromising with the abundant Indio population.

The influence of this “frontier privilege” has prevailed throughout history to modern America. Males are trained from an early age to orient their entire lives around behavior and lifestyles which will tickle the fancy of women, who comparatively must bring little to the table. Songs feature attractive men worshiping mediocre women for simply existing, politics revolves around the Second Sex in one form or the other, and consumerism is almost entirely driven by the feminine imperative.

These elements result in a scenario wherein any man of integrity cannot trust what another fellow says because the latter is almost certainly acting with an ear to the ground regarding judgment from a potential future “life partner”. Spectators doubting the aforementioned behavior should examine internet comment sections; even if no women necessarily follow the content at stake, gallant simps will do battle with “misogyny” proudly, because society has trained them for no higher purpose.

Perhaps the answer lies in being a “Pa$$port Bro”, or learning about transactional interactions from legends like Darth Hideous. Such answers may work for souls with a raw, Blackpilled mentality about the world, but in the case of others they remain inadequate. Chaps concerned about their lineage and the prospects of offspring with a 5 ft. Filipino woman may need to face the music. Either retake control of the nation, or try the age-old mating dance with a frigid Anglo creature.

Uncategorized

Trying To Pray

A few moons past I heard the song, “NEED A FAVOR” over a strikingly still-operational FM radio. Its lyrical theme is pretty straightforward: how can one expect God’s salvation when they only go to prayer based on some current or future need?

Seems like an obvious dilemma, but it honestly got me thinking about the nature of prayer itself. Growing up, I heard plenty of times how important this practice must be throughout life. “Don’t forget to pray, and pray hard”, was the typical advice. “Ask God and he will show the way”, might be another popular form. Invariably however such approaches devolved into, “Please give me this”, with perhaps a slight dollop of thanks on top.

Is that the extent of what prayer is meant to be? An awkward trade-off between gratitude and requests, where the former almost feels sidled into existence merely such that the petitioner avoids any sense of guilt? Nervous absolution, in one variety or the other.

The easily-tempted side of me imagines there must be something deeper to it all. What would be the purpose of such an action if God presumably has a plan in place, and knows each outcome before it materializes? Trying to prevent a particular result (or ensuring the same), doesn’t appear to sit well with the concept of submission. One could be venturing far enough towards conceited defiance and thus separation by insisting on that very route.

Thankfulness on the other hand causes less concern about motives, although its pairing with asks can generate different conundrums. God’s rejection of a possible request obviously cannot not be scorned from a traditional perspective, but rather welcomed under the “count your blessings” mantra. So presumably it is better to simply say thanks rather than attempting to move Him absent any guarantee that a specific outcome will occur. Less presumptuous I suppose.

Alternatively, the choice could be for some form of communion with God. Praying so as to communicate with the Creator, to the extent that an interaction can be attained. To be frank however, I am not certain how this works.

More questions than answers, the fate I tackle each writhing day on future’s road.

Uncategorized

Waltz With The Sub-90s

One of the harsher conclusions I reached over the last several years concerns the futility of trying to, “Raise the conditions of the masses.” Many figures with clout far more pronounced than my own have attempted to rise past the battlements and perhaps felt they were near, only to cascade mercilessly back to the oblivion that is treading water under the soaring, derisory screams of the intellectually limited. I believed for a time the world held better promise for my cause, yet those fell as the tragic dreams they were always meant to be. Defeat was never in doubt, so a fanciful alternative narrative had to be cast in its temporary stead.

My first milestone in recognizing the inevitable came several years back when I had a digital exchange with members of the Yang Gang. These denizens were at once highly motivated for their cause and completely oblivious to political realities. Any attempt to reason with them was met with sarcasm, mockery, or the marvelous practice known as, “Chant Warfare”. Here the mob simply shouts incessantly, or create spam comments with multiple accounts, hoping the strength of the clamor implies victory. To some extent, they may be correct. People rely on numbers as the foundation for merit across the internet, regardless if they are being fed lies. Emotionally-tuned talking points, feel-good stories, and general delusion are all excused based on the following or fanaticism of a base. Speaking out against it risks receiving the labels of “bitter” or “jealous”, and subsequent ignoring by those coalitions.

In other spaces it was the manospherians, angry that the popular claims circulating in their realm for ages might not be entirely true. No matter the extent of the hand-holding and historical analysis proffered, certain souls simply refused to be moved, returning to their talking points almost as if by robotic command. Others merely would respond to a video or article title, unwilling (or unable) to deal with the heart of the matter within.

More recently I have discovered the disaster of interaction with the “wignat” category of right-wingers. While there is understandable criticism to be made of traditional conservatives, wignats never cease to amaze the discoursing eye based on their unrepentant commitment to the ides of imbecile nationalism. Like hounds clutching rawhides, they exist only to salivate over the same subject, often in corners of the internet that would seem pointless for those with presumably superior interests. All matters come back to the sinister tribe, whether the utter failure residing in their own lives, or manifestations of political interest. Yet the scope is hardly limited to real impacts on white well-being, as it stands. To such creatures, the entire fabric of this Manichean universe relies on a crude and chameleon-like enemy.

Case in point: the question of war and European destruction. When I created a segment some years back on the wastefulness entailed by lusting after the empires of the First World War period, which caused the deaths of millions, the wignats erupted. Apparently they preferred to die in the Somme than attend another HR meeting. Fair enough, though what does this say about how much they value the lives of fellow whites? Belay that question, because as a “blue” I automatically must desire the eradication of Europeans, even though European monarchies could have prevented the disaster, actually maybe not because my group controls them like puppets.

Getting on board yet? Well, the problem flies no better if you express degrees of sympathy with them, because wignats are in the sub-90 IQ range and hence struggle with any measure of nuance. For instance, I can point out how the Europa: The Last Battle documentary has some occasional tidbits of insight about communism’s origins and the Second World War. A slightly mollified wignat might respond and say, “He’s on our side,” or, “You’re the only blue I like.” However, once I move on to explain the numerous historical errors and flagrant distortions the piece contains, even from a revisionist perspective, all bets are off. Expect something attune to, “Clearly you would say that! After all, you’re a blue!”

As you can see, at best a Kafkaesque circulation can be attained when talking to these gremlins. They will seize upon whatever validates the opinions set in stone by that limited cell activity upstairs, and then resort to indictment at any other angle. All which follows is bound to contain bad faith, sneering, and feces-devouring grins.

Engagement was my brutal error, but it need not be yours.

Uncategorized

Waging Words

I seldom respond to internet criticism, both because it can smack of pettiness and ultimately feel ineffectual. The chances of turning some other soul’s mind in a congenial direction remain low, while overall investment into that discourse mode is unforgiving. Better to just canter along with dutiful consideration of another project.

At times however the need rises beyond levels of reasonable counter-protest. When a message is misconstrued by a perhaps well-meaning but clearly struggling spectator, their disorientation must be addressed lest it bring down the clarity of other prospective enjoyers. This process is condemned to playing out on the blog because Amazon has long-since deprived authors of the “reply” ability on reviews, leaving us with no venue to directly interact with negative sentiments in a healthy fashion.

Our subject today is a review of Why Conservatism Failed by the Amazon customer known as “U.M.D.” He begins his recriminations with the following paragraph:

“There’s a lot of good information in this book given its short length, and some good suggestions at the end, but seems to really hate Abe Lincoln and goes off on 3 or 4 tangents about how he was the worst president ever for running roughshod over the Constitution and launching a totally unprovoked, illegal invasion of the Confederacy, who were really good, freedom-loving people who were in the process of abolishing slavery already, so there was no reason to start the Civil War, better known as the ‘War of Northern Aggression’.”

This characterization is mostly false, yet it does signal association with the likely Reagan conservative character types who I warned against reading the text precisely because its contents would fall against their entrenched views on American history. The section (presumably he) refers to is designed to pare back assumptions on the Plural Right that Lincoln was some sort of limited government practitioner, which by any fair standard he was not. If anything, my target for derision here is Dinesh D’Souza, a known liar and historical revisionist who serves up prepackaged nonsense to older white conservatives in hopes of assuaging their dislike of being labeled racist by the Left.

Continuing on, there is no question that the CSA was in the process of reducing slavery, as demonstrated by provisions of the South’s constitution which barred the importation of further African slaves. Nevertheless, the text specifically notes that existing slaves were not freed under its auspices. Such shoddy reporting of the book’s content is lamentable, but certainly not surprising.

Our reviewer also appears to be frustrated by the reality of the CSA’s legal system being far more supportive of limited government than the federal behemoth empowered by Lincoln’s political legacy. He glazes over the actual components of the south’s government in order to gaslight folks with sarcasm and resentment. One can recognize the merits of the model without being a staunch advocate of slavery, which I wager would have been dissolved eventually by newer technology and the growing market economy.

After a measure of poorly-constructed weeping over the start of the Civil War, our joyous lad drops his conclusion.

“Distracting as this is, spending 5-10 percent of a 80 page book on hating Lincoln wouldn’t be so bad if the author’s point was consistent, but when we get to the suggestions on how to fix America at the end he suggests the next Republican President act in a unitary fashion, running roughshod over the Constitution in a manner just like Abe Lincoln in order to defeat leftism. He even suggests the next Republican President can suspend habeas corpus in order to deal with rioters, something at the beginning of the book he singled out as one of the acts that define Lincoln as an evil tyrant. I guess it’s okay when it’s our guy abusing executive power, but it’s totally evil when the other guy does it.”

Again, this outraged fellow chose to misinterpret the book as an attack on Lincoln simply because I neglect to tow the established conservative line on the CSA. What we require is nuance, an element lacking in the vast majority of emotions-driven political consumers. Just as Lincoln helped destroy the limited government system by claiming to defend it, modern actors are able to pursue similar methods in reverse, to protect crucial values and freedoms. The entire purpose of “energy in the Executive” as championed by multiple Founders is to safeguard the Republic against hostile attacks, and not exclusively those with foreign origin.

Of course a future conservative president can and should be deft about dispensing with the Plural Left, using whatever constitutional means are available to him. In contrast, quavering souls who screech, “You can’t do THAT” will merely drink their Bourbon and smoke cigars as D.C. burns, happily passing away the last moments of life, climaxing to the thought of Leftists receiving blame for the flames.

Thank you for reading. 🙂

Uncategorized

Voids To Fill

There’s much fashion for the word “cope” lately. At one time it likely emerged outside the manosphere, though by this point use has become second nature to the fierce and reactionary male promoters. More and more lifestyle choices are labeled with such approbation, to where I suspect there is at least a horde of souls who have been trained to think along its guarded lines. They cannot escape the sensitivity, no matter how much stealthy avoidance is attempted. Destiny has clasped all moments for repressive study.

The fallout from this dynamic is brutal in descriptive shades. Everything that one does, especially as a man, must swiftly be called into question for not meeting the professed fantasy lived by Chadish specimens. Interested in art? Well, if it’s not leading to a six-plate harem and endless expansion of the sexual zone, then coping has come to roost. Not specifically focusing on workout regimens or diets that will make you large, and presumably more sexually desirable? Waste of time and an obvious coping mechanism. Better throw in some real estate investing and career-maxxing as well, because a basic life is not acceptable for anyone save the malingered souls of soyciety.

Absent careful consideration, we can easily fall prey to such twisted perceptions of truth. For example, when I moved to a larger city and had less of a robust social circle, I would at times feel pressured to seek out new avenues, hardly because I was full of energy after 40-plus hours of manual labor in wretched conditions; instead, it was the unceasing dictums of the internet pushing along. Best stay active and constantly move on to the next lay or night out, lest you slouch into the blasé inactivity of a NEET wannabe. You can’t yourself to just relax and enjoy the downtime, for losers sleep while winners go hard and fast on 4 hours a night.

Lately the influence has passed across my research efforts as well. Since 2019 I have issued at least 9 books, on a variety of subjects and demanding varied degrees of study to write. The present topic of Conservatism has proved especially frustrating, and at times I question the value. Pointedly, I wonder if I’m “coping” by dedicating time to a useful endeavor, albeit at the expense of more hours spent going out to interact with the opposite sex and merrily build the never-ending harem of gold. One of my next projects is a book that will likely require a year’s worth of reading and writing, with some sources not even available in an ideal translation. Am I frittering away time that could otherwise be spent “in the GAME” by following a dutiful passion on the digital page?

Them that follow the popular assumptions would no doubt concur readily. I’m not so ready to take that position. It seems like provision of energies to a cause, a personal myth perhaps, may not be so far from valid if one can stay halfway rational about the whole thing, while still dedicating some time to other offerings.

But then again, that could just be another cope.

Culturalism · Uncategorized

Looking In

In the course of my routine stroll through literary fields, I typically stay within the bounds of a few genres, mainly history or political theory. On occasion however, I may allow myself the vague impulse snag and pick a subject far outside the traditional realm. This presents something of a danger for me, as books can range from short and tolerable to long and brutal, or even those curt varieties which seem to endure past the life of a thousand generations. Still, there are times when I stumble across a perplexing title that, in its bizarre fashion, turns out to be wildly endearing,

The latest iteration on this front is Punch Me Up To The Gods, a memoir by the author Brian Broome. Even compared to others, the text is an odd choice, in that the author is gay, black, and a recovering cocaine user. Not exactly my go-to content creator profile, but strangely enough, beyond all its lurid degeneracy, the story was relatable on a level completely unexpected. As it turns out, Broome’s perspective during his childhood reminded me of my own, particularly in regards to the way he viewed the idealized American family structure on television.

Whereas Broome’s own home was a warzone of violence, alcoholism, and hatred, the flickering box offered a different angle. He watched shows where husbands loved their wives, and wives adored their husbands. Children were the light and joy of their parents, who never seemed to lack an ability to express love towards their offspring. Grandma was there to make cookies and be sweet at all times, while money seemed to never be a matter of concern. In short, Broome associated goodness and love with white people, similar to the author of I Love Yous Are For White People.

If only they were right. Though I can’t lay claim to the same degree of instability and abuse experienced by Brian (apart from much shouting), the visage of television provided a suggestive model that I looked at with some curious longing at the same age. In my family, “I love you” was a rare, almost endangered, utterance. It was more often replaced by positive actions, themselves welcome, but still distant from the speech dropped so readily on screen. Those other families. The ones who seemed to get it, for whom fitting in was a matter of natural course.

And then there was the grandma persona. Kind, open, ready to bake up batches of gingerbread and provide a reassuring voice. Never harsh, always gentle. A stark contrast with what I knew. My grandmother, for the time she was around, maintained a stalwart crabbiness and judging personality that would cause you to walk on eggshells around her. What you ate or said (or the manner of speaking), or even the way you smiled. Everything was grounds for scrutiny and condemnation.

In fairness, such behavior came from her own difficult childhood, imbued with poverty and struggle. So it felt wrong to wholly judge her back, though I admit to at many times deliberately avoiding her presence out of a desire to not call down the wrath of the “good old rage days” upon my head. This defensive strategy worked for the most part, but of course you never saw it on T.V. Again, normal people didn’t do that, because they had normal grandmothers.

I suppose my experiences growing up have prevailed to some degree and influenced the present day. My usual inclination is to be relaxed about what others think or do with their own lives, yet I cannot deny that at times I look back to the serialized family or current Instagram-styled behavior and just wonder. Are they not living the right way, like a better version of the Truman Show, whilst my own reality is a pale substitution, just “looking in” on harmonious perfection?

Perspective, always perspective. 

Uncategorized

If You’re Stuck

Been a bit languid as far as producing content here is concerned. That may or may not change depending on how things proceed in the next couple months. In any case, I want to drop the following information for those of you who are hesitant but have no realistic option of turning down the insertion. Whether they actually work is still up for debate, but at least some of the people advancing such possibilities appear to know their stuff.

Other things that have been thrown around are Pine Needle tea, Dandelion Extract, and Nettle Leaf Extract. Make sure to look into each one in detail and consult with nutritionist or doctor before going ahead with them.