In the Genes:

     The Anglo 'Goddess Cult'

"We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality"'

- Lord Macauley (British Politician)

Anglo culture not only loathes and despises men, it sets women atop pedestals and deifies them. While men are the perpetual target of the trash media, vilified as animals, rapists and morons, women’s travails are the subject of a near continual violin concerto from all Anglo media outlets. When the Anglo media pretends to traditional conservatism (a position an intrinsically homosexual culture can never attain) it singularly assails the masculine imago, chipping the patriarchal edifice in favour of ‘touchy-feely’ feminist sentiment. Anglo Saxons are simply incapable of true conservatism: their conservative simulacra consist of latent homosexual overtures to round-faced, unmanly scions of unearned privilege.

Above all, the latent homosexual Anglo culture deifies women in a cloud of candy-floss. In recent years, this deranged tendency has reached psychotic proportions, culminating in the neo pagan cult of Lady Diana Spencer. After her death, British politician Gordon Brown seriously wondered whether the anniversary of her death should be declared a national holiday. Prime Minister Tony Blair dubbed her ‘The People’s Princess’. Some responses surpassed even this. One man told the BBC that he cried more at Diana’s funeral than at his own father’s (Wheen, 2004: 205). (Of course, any man, even one’s own father, is less worthy than a woman to the Anglo Saxon hive mind).

The press switched instantly into beatification mode:

Icons do not die. Diana’s afterlife is only just starting. Forever frozen at the height of her beauty, Diana, like Marilyn, that other troubled goddess, will not age. She will continue to glow, forever young, forever vital, in the hearts of those she touched (Moore, 1997).

When philosopher Anthony O’Hear dared to suggest the extravagant public and media grief lacked any sense of proportion, he was labelled ‘a rat-faced little loser’ for his pains.

In every respect, Diana Spencer was unremarkable. Francis Wheen writes:

At the time of her engagement to Prince Charles in 1981 she was just another dim, round-faced Sloaney girl of the kind you could see on almost every street in Pimlico, Kensington or Earl’s Court, clad in the unprepossessing uniform that prompted some observers to liken her, cruelly but accurately, to a stewardess from Air Bulgaria (Wheen, 2004: 200).

Her looks were unremarkable, for one thing: she was a typical pudgy, simpering girl of the British patrician class. As she aged, her proboscis lengthened to equine proportions although her eyes continued to lack any spark of sentience. If she worked in a supermarket she would pass unnoticed. Yet the Anglo media (both British and American) routinely described her as ‘the world’s most beautiful woman’.

Diana was also intellectually and morally undistinguished. Considering the enormous advantages she grew up with, to leave school without qualifications is almost an achievement - yet she managed it. Clearly a dullard of sauropod proportions, had she hailed from a working class background she would no doubt have emerged from state education to spend the rest of her life as a jobless single mother on a housing project. Days before her death she was lolling around on the yacht of her pudgy ‘playboy’ boyfriend, Dodi Al Fayed (a perfect clone of Fantasy Island’s Tattoo: Ricardo Montalban was the only missing ingredient in this tropic idyll). She conducted other affairs before this, of course, but we will refrain from boring the reader with them. Whatever, she was certainly no St Theresa of Avila in the morality stakes.

Yet despite these mediocre attainments, Diana was consistently hailed as a paragon of intellect, virtue and physical perfection, a Gloriana for the modern age. This demented claptrap has often been described as part of a burgeoning culture of sentiment. However, from the standpoint of the Anglobitch thesis, the Diana cult is part of a long-standing Anglo American tendency to put women on pedestals by simple dint of their gender.

Of course, as we have seen all along this tendency arose in response to the latent homosexuality and puritanical repression that characterises Anglo Saxon culture. It is certainly not new: the English have a long-standing obsession with sentiment stretching back centuries, a close corollary of their cultural effeminacy. Sentiment is unmanly, matriarchal, hysterical: this is why Anglo Saxons are so drawn to it. Reason, intellect, and the spirit of the Enlightenment have never taken popular root in the Anglo enclave. Today, they are persona non grata: reasoned analysis is the preserve of ‘rat-faced losers’. Of course, this is why Anglo Saxon feminists can talk so freely about imaginary female losses in wars, imaginary female inventors and explorers: when Reason has been driven from its rightful throne, no rational critique of any claim is possible.

The funeral of Lady Diana was a ludicrous affair. The dubiously talented Elton John belted out a tuneless paean to the iced Princess. The British tabloid press once viciously targeted this performing dwarf for his dubious sexuality. But, as Hitler averred, ‘the memory of the masses is very feeble’: so now he led the lamentations in that hall of Kings, his hair weave as wobbly as his notes. An orgy of snivelling: seldom did contemporary Anglo culture look so sickly and debased. The invert warbled in the darkness and the dead-eyed masses sang along.

The fanfare over Diana revealed certain core aspects of Anglo-American culture that contribute markedly to the Anglobitch phenomenon. First among these is the culture of insincere sentiment, a phenomenon arising from schizotypal Anglo-American separation of thought and emotion. Second is the broadly ‘feminine’ cast of the Anglo Saxon mass mind, strongly inflected by self-abnegating collectivism. Finally, the sordid episode highlighted the disturbing streak of homosexuality that undercuts Anglo-American culture.

If we consider the history of Anglo-Saxon culture, we can see that these are perennial traits, not recent innovations. In the late Eighteenth Century, this culture of Anglo-Saxon sentiment first began to blossom. In turn, this rapidly burgeoned into the characteristic Anglo-Saxon Romanticism associated with lax parenting, sentimentality, drooling collectivism and effeminate deference to unearned privilege. This Victorian porage remains the dominant influence on contemporary English culture but its essential characteristics can readily be discerned in earlier epochs.

In some respects, the Anglo-Saxons resemble an oriental people, with a characteristic ‘feminine’ mindset. They are prone to hysterical outbursts, to unthinking deference to tradition and unearned privilege, to the deification of ephemeral material effigies (cars, property and most of all women), unmanly modes of life like homosexuality and an infantile tendency to deny any reality that contravenes these ingrained values. Though this is especially true of the lower class, it characterises all social classes to some extent. The bovine character of the English was amply demonstrated by their compliance with ridiculous orders during the First World War. Officers would defer to official idiocy, condemning thousands of men to death for no gain. English soldiers lost all motivation when their officers were killed, cowering aimlessly in the nearest shell-hole:

Lord Northcliffe once fatuously boasted that the British soldier had a greater sense of initiative than the German, thanks to the British traditions of individualism and team sports. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, it was the largely amateur British army which was characterized by excessive rigidity in its command structure and a culture of unthinking obedience below the NCO level – and when NCOs were incapacitated, of unthinking inertia (‘If you knows of a better ‘ole…’) (Ferguson, 1999: 310).

Above all, Anglo Saxons (especially the English) have a feminine, self-subordinating attitude to received opinion. This is partly why they have offered so little resistance to the rise of the Anglobitch.

Though culture exerts an influence uniquely its own on a society’s membership, could these characteristic traits derive from non-cultural sources? Could they be inscribed on the genes of Anglo Saxons?

One particularly interesting line of discussion in Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate concerns an experiment conducted on American Southerners and American Northerners. The Southerners experienced abrupt physical change when ruffled and insulted by a stooge:

Students from Northern states laughed him off, but students from Southern states were visibly upset. The Southerners had elevated levels of testosterone and cortisol (a stress hormone) and reported lower levels of self-esteem (Pinker, 2002: 328).

 Pinker argues that such a marked difference in physical response cannot be traced to culture. He notes that Northerners are descended from English farmers while Southerners descend from Scots-Irish immigrants. British Scots-Irish life has always been dominated by blood feuds, ethnic sectarianism and other violent behaviours, traits also characteristic of the American South:

The American South has long had higher rates of violence than the North, including a tradition of duelling among “men of honor” such as Andrew Jackson. Nisbett and Cohen note that much of the South was originally settled by Scottish and Irish herdsmen, whereas the North was settled by English farmers. Also, for much of its history the mountainous frontier of the South was beyond the reach of the law. The resulting Southern culture of honor is, remarkably, alive at the turn of the twenty-first century in laws and social attitudes. Southern states place fewer restrictions on gun ownership, allow people to shoot an assailant or burglar without having to retreat first, are tolerant of spanking by parents and corporal punishments by schools, are more hawkish on issues of national defense, and execute more of their criminals (Pinker, 2002: 328).

Perhaps Anglo-Saxon males are so relaxed about the Anglobitch phenomenon because they are innately more placid, accommodating and collectivist.

Anglo Saxon culture certainly seems to embody this 'feminine' collectivism. Common English sentiments like ‘whistle while you work,’ ‘keep your chin up’ or ‘don’t make a scene’ embody this deferential mentality. The cult of Lady Diana is another manifestation of this femininity, along with a general tendency to set women on pedestals and accept degraded status.

The countless military conflicts between the Celts and Anglo Saxons also embody this schism between Celtic individualism and Anglo collectivism. In the sixth century wars between Romanised Britons and the Anglo Saxon invaders the Celts were better soldiers: better led, with more advanced equipment and tactics (Barber, 2004). At first they triumphed against the stolid Anglo-Saxon and Jutish federation: but having won, they turned on each other to settle blood feuds (in true Celtic fashion) and the campaign ultimately went against them (Morris, 1973). Again, the better individual motivation of his troops enabled Robert de Bruce to gradually reduce English presence in Scotland by capturing their castles until even the lethargic Edward II had to intervene (Scott, 1999). Due to a lack of competent leadership, this characteristically homosexual English King was then trounced at Bannockburn. During the British Jacobite rebellions of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, internal dissent and a lack of clear purpose invariably caused the militarily more skilled Celtic cause to founder.

Nor is this entirely a matter of ancient military history. Even today the highly individualised Scots exploit the cowed nature of the feminised English masses to monopolise the top British positions in politics and the media without popular demur. This is no less true in the United States, where Celtic Scots-Irish names dominate political life.

The innate tendency of Anglo males to mildness of response has not only contributed to their marginalisation but also to the Anglobitch phenomenon itself. Had they mustered determined resistance when Anglo feminists first squared rights with privileges the current degraded condition of Anglo-American society could have been averted.  This is the perennial problem for ‘nice guys’:  the essential baseness of human nature brushes them aside.

Feminism presents no problem to patriarchal peoples like the Celts, Arabs or Japanese because their innate ‘warrior outlook’ stifled its claims from the outset. In Japan females enjoy few rights and little status. This may be unduly harsh, but these patriarchal peoples have maintained their cultural integrity far more effectively than Anglo-Americans.

Anglo feminism has, like Hitler’s Germany, expanded by marching across undefended borders. Where determined resistance should have been organised from the first, Anglo-American males have been feeble ‘nice-guys’, retreating to their next entrenched position without firing a shot. Indeed, they have eagerly colluded with the enemy, hastening their own destruction (Koch and Smith, 2005).

The whole sordid tale of Anglo feminists’ breathless advance from ‘rights’ to wholesale dominion of the media, education and politics has been well told by Farrell, Amneus and Hoff-Sommers. Cultural context has seldom been raised as an excuse for this effortless conquest. Yet, given the unusual pliancy of Anglo males, such domination was always likely. Like the affable Northerners in Pinker’s experiment, Anglo-Saxon males just “laugh off” women taking 80% of their wealth in unjust Divorce settlements; “laugh off” being vilified in the media; “laugh off” being denied access to their children; “laugh off” anti-male discrimination in public spaces, education and before the law. This easy-going attitude is complicit in the rise of the Anglobitch and her venomous agenda. It also explains why Anglo males have meekly surrendered to the sickly cult of sentiment recently fostered by homosexuals and feminists.

That the Anglobitch phenomenon might have arisen due to the quiescence of Anglo-American males is difficult enough for conservative Masculinists to accept. If this quiescence is genetically ingrained it is truly disturbing, as it implies that no resistance to the Anglobitch phenomenon can emerge in Anglo-Americana. This is a distinct possibility: and it shifts the onus of resistance onto non-Anglo males with more vigorous self-defensive instincts. In the future we may see an open Kulturkampf over the Anglobitch issue between Anglo-Americans and more traditional societies. Indeed, this theme may already be discernable in the ongoing conflict between militant Islam (the emerging ‘Eurabia’) and the Anglo-American bloc.

The Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington claims that future world conflicts will revolve around cultural differences (Huntington, 1998). Western economies have everything to gain by transforming Eurabian women into consumers: Muslim men have everything to lose. Thus the stage is set for a titanic cultural struggle that will take decades to unfold, and whose outcome is uncertain. Eurabian women are the key to victory: if the West can subvert them before the superior Islamic birth-rate swamps all resistance, the Anglo-American bloc can achieve world hegemony. Otherwise the Anglosphere will founder, its economic growth stalled and social viability torn by internal contradictions.

Citations