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

If we consider the contemporary manosphere, it must be said that the United States is the Anglo-American nation most receptive to the ‘male dissidence’ message. This is not merely due to its size or ethnic diversity, but rather because America’s distinctive puritanical history coupled with sex-negative feminism have created a society uniquely hostile to men.

America was founded by religious fanatics – people who fled England in the Seventeenth Century because it wasn’t repressed enough. It was said that English puritans wanted to ban bear baiting not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave too much pleasure to the spectators. Even today, the United States is the only Anglosphere nation with mass religious belief, high levels of church attendance, and so on. Although new cultural currents have arisen, these are still defined by sexual repression and institutionalized misandry (liberalism and feminism being good examples).

Because of its secular puritanism and a ‘mythical’ media which sets women on pedestals, the gap between male expectations and reality is greater in the United States than any equivalent nation. American men are conditioned by movies, rock music and TV shows to believe all women are slim, beautiful, articulate goddesses offering free sex to everybody. As children, they are led to think they will be sleeping with models and actresses the minute they hit sixteen. This makes the reality – obese, ugly, selfish, man-hating harridans exclusively obsessed by billionaires and mass murderers – all the harder to take. Instead of enjoying free sex with models every night, American men find themselves paying their hard-earned bucks to watch the few slim, attractive American women cavort in sordid strip clubs: so much for the ‘sexual revolution’.

Society works because its members are prepared to ‘take hits for the team’. For the past 50 years, men have been expected to take all the hits while women take none. Men do all the most dangerous jobs, get shafted in no-fault divorce settlements, are arbitrarily imprisoned in pseudo-correctional rape factories, have little control over their reproductive labour, live shorter and less healthy lives, are far more prone to suicide and homelessness – yet Anglo-American society still expects them to ‘man up’ and take all the hits while giving nothing back in return.

Well fuck that, Mr Han Man…

Relampago Furioso deftly describes the situation in words fit for the ages: Traditionally, for our peaceful participation in society and going along with its schemes, men have been awarded control and decision-making status over women, family and society. This has been loosely defined as a social contract in civilized societies from Greece and Rome to present day Western society. The crucial part of this “social contract” that statists are so fond of referring to, was that for participating in society, being subjected to its legal demands, and supporting it, men received certain incentives. These incentives include: Culturally and legally enforced female monogamy

Guaranteed paternity

Decision making authority as the head of the household

Exclusive sexual access to a wife, i.e. a virgin bride

As house-band (husband) culturally and legally enforced obligation for wives to remain in the relationship (i.e. no flightiness or “finding herself”)

Culturally and legally enforced responsibility for women to be good mothers

As defined in the Christian bible, the responsibility of a woman to respect and obey her husband In exchange for these accommodations, men were expected to give their lives and their labor for the protection and benefit of their wives, families, and communities. However, since feminism the incentives for men to go along with the deal have been removed, while the demands for men to sacrifice their lives and their labor for the benefit of society have increased.

There it is, in a nutsack. And the key difference between the old social contract and the new is the presence/absence of religious belief. While the old religious Puritanism granted men a certain intrinsic status for being fashioned in God’s image, they have no standing at all in the new secular Puritanism. Anglo feminists expect men to accept their traditional obligations, even while they practice witchcraft, lust over criminal thugs and murder their own babies. Disney is the darkest embodiment of this new ideology – an endless celebration of asexual, pedestalized princesses in a homosocial, lesbian world of boundless ‘empowerment’. Similarly, the Roe-Wade case granted women omnipotent reproductive power while reducing men to ephemeral sperm doners and disposable ATM machines. Then there is America’s ongoing war against prostitution – transsexuals can ‘transition’ on the public purse but consenting adults exchanging sex for money are hunted like sick pariahs. But aside from secular Puritanism and its manifold evils, can any other factors explain America’s emerging ‘gender crisis’?

Over the past forty years, it seems that America has fallen into line with other industrial countries in terms of social inequality, intergenerational mobility and so on. Somehow, the American Dream has come undone and America now resembles ‘old’ countries like France or Britain, not the energetic America of the twenties, fifties or eighties. A socialist like Bernie Sanders would have been arrested for Un-American Activities a few generations ago; now he is hailed as a serious presidential candidate. Similarly, the plight of ‘the White Working Class’ is now a topic of mainstream political discussion – unthinkable in the Reagan era. Films like ‘Manchester by the Sea’ could have been shot in class-bound Britain – indeed, the film’s very title invokes the British working class and their lives of cheerless toil. In sum, American Exceptionalism has ground to a halt and Americans are behaving more like other peoples as a result.

This ‘Brazilification’ of American society during the 1980s granted a cartel of narcissistic oligarchs ever more wealth, status and power, while systematically shrinking the middle class. The halcyon post-War days when a factory worker could buy a house, run a car and send two kids to college are long gone. It is no surprise that feminism has waxed since Brazilification began, while male fortunes have waned. In simple terms, any elite has to keep women ‘onside’ in order for society to reproduce itself; but no such tender mercies are afforded low-status men, whom the elite see as dangerous fodder. And since Anglo-American Brazilification began in earnest, ordinary American males predictably find themselves enslaved by the divorce courts and the prison-industrial complex in unprecedented numbers. Of course, MGTOW and other forms of male dissidence represent the inevitable ‘fight-back’ against this gendercidal programme.

Another anti-male factor specific to the Anglosphere nations in general (and America in particular) is a dysfunctional, non-selective state education system. Most European countries have selective secondary education, which reduces the psychological and emotional damage done to clever children by jail-bound morons. In America, intelligent males typically emerge deeply alienated from the social order because of their school experiences – just consider Klebold and Harris, not to mention a host of other school shooters.

The foregoing discussion explains why the United States is ready for male revolt above all equivalent nations. Puritanical repression and male alienation are like nitric acid and glycerol – a lethal mix of discordant elements ready to explode.

Amidst all this woe, can we extract anything positive from America’s burgeoning male dissidence? Of course: America’s unique tradition of liberty gives American men greater psychological autonomy than men in other nations. Together with its rich entrepreneurial heritage, this thirst for freedom has already created an online resistance movement which the authorities hate and fear. In sum, the American male will never be wholly subdued by the Anglo-Feminist Matrix – many of the Founding Fathers were genuine radicals, and the ‘freedom memes’ they planted in their young nation will never perish. Similarly, American cultural pluralism presents an insurmountable problem for the Matrix: although the original Anglo-Puritan elite tried to define America in its own joyless, workaholic image, the alternative cultural traditions introduced by later migrants remain strong and resilient.

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.