The Anglo Vice: Why Male Homosexuality is so Prevalent in Anglo-Saxon Countries
'You cannot imagine it in the history
of France… Frenchmen are much more interested in women; Anglo-Saxon men are
not, and this is a problem that needs analysis.’
- Edith Cresson (French Politician)
rightly be called an Anglo-American vice. Homosexuality is particularly
prevalent in Anglo-Americana; many male entertainers, actors, writers, artists
and intellectuals make no secret of their attraction to their own sex.
explanations of homosexuality are currently in vogue. While they hold some
truth, they do not really explain why homosexuality is more prevalent in
Anglo-American countries than, for example, the Hispanic world (where it is
viewed with horror). After all, if homosexuality were entirely biological in
origin, it should not be culturally specific. The fact that it is implies that
culture plays a decisive role in shaping homosexuality in men.
cultural features dispose men to homosexuality? The answer is very simple: poor
relations between the sexes. Interaction between the sexes is so unpleasant and
mercenary in the Anglo-American bloc that many men derive more from relations
with their own sex rather than women. This leads to exceptionally high
incidences of homosexuality among Anglo-Americans.
In a crude sense,
homosexuality is the best way to experience plenty of sex in a repressed
society where women are taught to commodify themselves from infancy. For men of
low socio-economic status, whom Anglo women automatically strike off as
potential mates, homosexuality is simply the only way to get bountiful supplies
of free sex.
The term ‘gay’ has
unique significance in Anglo culture. ‘Gay’ shouts fun, happiness and
liberation in societies largely bereft of all three. Why no one has ever noted
that only Anglo-Saxon cultures associate homosexuality with happiness shows how
blind commentators are to the failings of Anglo culture. Why aren’t straight
men ‘gay’? In a society where women view sex as a form of material barter
straight men are inevitably unhappy and unfulfilled. Additionally, heterosexual
relationships are fraught with peril: divorce, penury, contrived pregnancies.
These facts go some way to explaining why only homosexual Anglo males consider
consideration, homosexuals in Anglo cultures have everything to gain by their
lifestyle, very little to lose.
Ready made status – gays are lionized by
Upward mobility (high status gays often
form relationships with working class men. High status females never
Sexual disappointment and frustration
Financial chaos, insecurity and penury
associated with divorce
Negative status – straight men are
vilified in the media
Downward mobility (Straight men nearly
always marry down)
Let us now examine
each of these points in turn.
Opportunities and Rewards
The Anglo-American Sixties
‘Sexual Revolution’ was, as we all know, a complete fiction.
Because the upper middle class
urban elites in London, New York, San Francisco and Sidney have a
disproportionate influence on the media, they contrive to pretend that their
wildly unrepresentative experiences are the norm for most people. In fact, they
are not. All studies by serious researchers concur in finding that Anglo
societies remain deeply repressed, with Anglo women largely viewing men as
interchangeable meal tickets and deriving little personal pleasure from sex.
Professor Glenn Wilson found statements like: ‘My husband is very good: he
doesn’t come near me’ to be widespread among English women. Michael Medved alludes
to research proving that most people aspire to a heterosexual, monogamous
relationship sanctified by marriage (Medved, 1993). There is no evidence
whatsoever to substantiate the claims of the liberal media that women have a
If we accept that heterosexuality
proceeds in a climate very different from media portrayals, a climate rather
characterised by repression and sexual barter, it can readily be seen that many
men have little to gain by a hetero lifestyle.
Women shun men of low status.
Since female emancipation, such males increasingly find themselves single and
sexually disenfranchised. This is because Anglo women are programmed only to
value men of superior socio-economic status. This pool of males has of course
been diminishing since women starting earning comparable wages to men. The
result is a huge rump of single males at the foot of society with nothing to
lose by adopting homosexuality. This is why so many are doing so! After all,
the only alternative is complete sexual exclusion.
The financial dangers of
heterosexuality have been well-described by the men’s movement. However, the
rewards of homosexuality have seldom been touched upon. In Britain the Pink
Pound is big news. Simply put, gay men have far more disposable income than
Why? They do not suffer
divorce and its attendant loss of savings and property, principally. In
addition, gay men can gain social status via their sexuality in a way straight
men never can, as we shall see.
Straight men are the monstrum
horrendum of the Anglo mass media. One cannot read a newspaper or watch a
news bulletin within seeing men being vilified as rapists, paedophiles,
cannibals and mass murderers. No word at all about the millions of responsible
fathers, husbands and employees out there – the puritanical Anglo media hates
sexualised beings, and so it hates men, period.
homosexual lifestyle instantly exonerates men from the sexual guilt Anglo
culture obsesses over – from rape camps in Bosnia to the imagined ‘evils’ of
pornography. As feminised beings gay men have a kind of surrogate female status
in Anglo culture – something highly prized in a puritanical social context.
status has been often cited as ‘liberating’ for men as it frees them from the
burden of competing for women (Wilson, 1992). However, homosexuality also
liberates men from the burden of bile, censure and outright hatred that
Anglo-American culture reserves for males. Freedom from this burden explains
the real psychological source of the boundless, uplifting liberty often
described by gay men. It also explains the accomplishments of gay men in the
arts and sciences (and increasingly business), achievements far beyond the
It is a rule of thumb
that men invariably marry down in Anglo Saxon countries. This is because
Anglo women are programmed by puritanical Anglo-Saxon culture to consider men
only as disposable meal tickets and success objects. Hence an Anglo woman of
high economic status will find it impossible to consider a mid or low income
male a viable partner. This is why middle class Anglo women continually bleat
about the ‘shortage of available men’. In fact, all demographic studies show
such a shortage to be a complete fiction. What these women really mean is
‘there is a shortage of men who earn more than them’ – something very
Hence, a straight man
is most unlikely to gain social status by marriage to a woman. However, for
gays, the situation is completely different – and always has been. For example,
in Seventeenth Century England King James I ‘noticed’ a comely young man called
George Villiers, when he fell off his horse outside the Royal Palace. In no
time Villiers was made Duke of Buckingham and was lavished with gifts, wealth
and further titles. By James’ death in 1621 Buckingham was one of the
wealthiest men in England. For him, adopting the homosexual lifestyle made
obvious material sense!
Buckingham is no isolated
example. The Emperor Hadrian ‘adopted’ a beautiful slave called Antinous, whom
he had deified after his early, mysterious death. Antinous was accorded great
reverence during his short life, yet was born in relative obscurity.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was
known to promote officers in his Army on the basis of how handsome they looked
in their splendid uniforms, rather than mere military considerations. Wilhelm,
with his Gilbert and Sullivan-type obsession with men in uniform, shows how
latent homosexuality in a ruler can be advantageous to male subordinates.
Indeed, after losing the War, the Kaiser retired to an estate in Holland where
he again surrounded himself with well-groomed, handsome young men. One wonders
how the German public missed this problematic trait in their ruler. But then,
Wilhelm was never openly homosexual in his lifestyle. This gives pause for
thought: since latent homosexuality is far commoner that its ‘outed’ cousin,
could it not be that male advancement typically takes place under its aegis? It
is known that handsome, ‘facially dominant’ males are more likely to experience
advancement in the US Army, for example:
a cohort of military officers, graduates of the class of 1950 of the United
States Military Academy at West Point, dominant facial appearance was a
consistent and important predictor of rank attainment at the academy and - for
those who graduated from staff college - for high final rank (Mueller
and Mazur, 1997).
It is fanciful to
imagine any low status male rising similarly in the social order via
heterosexual means. Women of high status simply do not marry down, especially
Anglobitches. That is a proven fact. By contrast, the greater largesse afforded
men by their more intrinsic status and powerful sexual urges means homosexual
men of great wealth and power have no inhibitions about raising their lovers to
the highest social positions. This is why, for men of low social status (the
vast majority) homosexuality has so much to offer compared with
heterosexuality! That no one has ever admitted these unpalatable truths owes much
to our culture’s crass inability to admit the personal failings of Anglo women.
As an aside, it will
be noted that many Anglo women harbour a deep loathing of gay men, especially
men like Buckingham who adopt homosexually to gain social prestige. This is
richly amusing. After all, is not the whole lifestyle of the Anglobitch
entirely geared around using sex to acquire wealth and status? Clearly, their
main worry is that some men are actually better at such sexual
manipulation than they are. Among feminists, only Andrea Dworkin has addressed
the issue of female homophobia. Predictably, she invokes women’s pivotal role
as child-bearers in oppressive patriarchy: homosexuals by definition threaten
this status. However, Right Wing Women locates female homophobia entirely in
the elite class. Proletarian women’s endemic homophobia is never mentioned.
This crass oversight highlights the parochial elitism of Anglo feminism.
Even Andrea Dworkin
is aware of this paradox:
– its rise in public visibility, attempts to socially legitimize or protect it,
a sense that it is attractive and on the move and winning not only acceptance
but practitioners – makes women expendable: the one thing women can do and be
valued for will no longer be valued, cannot be counted on to be that bedrock of
women’s worth (Dworkin, 1983: 144).
Dworkin is here
referring to childbirth, not sex: but sex is the real dynamic that gives women
status in Anglo-American culture. Any increase in the availability of sex
diminishes their manipulative power. Since gay men are sexually profligate,
they automatically devalue the primary Anglobitch currency. This is the real
reason why women as a rule detest male homosexuality.
To conclude, the
foregoing discussion makes it plain why Anglo culture harbours high levels of
homosexuality. To put it simply, the presence of the Anglobitch and her
grasping, narcissism in Anglo-American culture makes homosexuality a desirable
option. Any society that actively encourages women to dislike men or objectify
them as disposable meal tickets can hardly blame males for opting out and
rejecting women altogether.
Of course, there are
deeper factors at work in the Anglo-Saxon cultural machinery that informally
promote homosexuality, misandry and cultural decline. Anglo Saxon culture is intrinsically
‘feminine’ at a pre-conscious level. Gay celebrities like Elton John or
Liberace are beloved of Anglo women and lionised by the media for public
edification. This would be incomprehensible in a masculine culture, like the
Hispanic or Slavonic.
The homosexual taint
is vital to any understanding of the Anglorama. Consider the comments of
English philosopher Roger Scruton, waxing lyrical about the supposed wonders of
the England that I am trying to evoke, the platonic love of boys was not merely
frequent; it was part of the idealisation of schooldays which fed the illusions
and disillusions of the upper class (Scruton, 2001
A simpler explanation
would be that England was and remains a sexually aberrant nation.
For those who argue
that patronisation of homosexuality is purely a post-liberal Anglo innovation,
consider the following list of homosexual English Monarchs:
I (1600-1649) (probable)
clearly been intimately associated with the socio-political elite from the very
beginning of Anglo culture. This association stretches back into Medieval
antiquity. It is not a new or novel phenomenon, as Anglo pseudo-conservatives
try to claim:
is out. Androgyny is in. Men have been turned into ‘metro-sexuals’, preening,
Male heroes, once lions of empire, explorers
or Battle of Britain pilots, are now camp TV presenters or wet footballers.
Oddly, the only place where men are permitted to display caricature macho
maleness is the kitchen (Buerk, 2005).
But English males
have always been ‘camp’ – it is not some recent innovation. For example, two of
those ‘lions of empire’ – General Gordon and Kitchener of Khartoum – were
homosexuals.The whole myth of empire
was sustained by Public Schools, in which homosexuality bloomed in clandestine
the founder of the Boy Scouts, is now widely felt to have been a latent
homosexual. Tim Jeal’s monumental biography describes a plethora of odd
behaviours that would undoubtedly demonstrate repressed homosexuality in the
modern era. Baden-Powell gushingly extolled the beauty of naked boys and
delighted in the nude photographs of boys that circulated among English Public
School pederasts at the time. He eventually married at the age of 55: but,
after fathering three children, spent the rest of his life sleeping on his
balcony rather than the marriage bed (Jeal, 2001). It is indicative of the
English moral climate that, at the time, no one passed critical comment on this
Only a few years
after the founding of the Boy Scouts, they were synonymous with disturbing
sexual practices. In Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead
Revisted (1923), Lord Sebastian Flyte turns the page of a British newspaper
to sigh, ‘Another naughty Scoutmaster’. Such a bizarre, frankly homosexual
organisation could only ever have arisen in the Anglosphere without official
censure.The Scouts remain a magnet for
paedophile homosexuals both in Britain and North America.
Baden-Powell was not
the only homosexual prominent in the Victorian era. General Gordon and Lord
Kitchener were both distinctly ‘odd’ men.
Gordon never married,
feeling ill-at-ease around women. He loved the company of young boys, however,
personally bathing them and nursing them when they were sick (Pollock, 1993).
Gordon loved to start the day with a cold bath which, some allege, was a
deliberate ploy to cool his (clearly aberrant) passions. If a working class man
displayed these traits in the modern era he would undoubtedly by incarcerated
as a paedophile homosexual. After his untimely death in the Sudan in 1885,
Gordon was elevated to the status of saintly folk hero in Britain: the RAF’s
Fairey Gordon bomber was (with unintentional humour) named after him. A
romantic painting by George William Joy (‘General Gordon’s Last Stand’) milked
the sentimental English response to his futile self-sacrifice.This crude work can still be seen in Leeds
City Art Gallery, UK. Remarkably, no one commented on Gordon’s disturbing
predilection for young boys, his gynophobia, his alcoholism or his eccentric
behaviour, largely because these were completely ‘normal’ for males of his
background in the Victorian era.
Proof of Kitchener’s
homosexuality is more elusive. Because of his historical significance,
apologetic biographers have claimed Kitchener was more ‘asexual’ than
homosexual. Alternatively, apologists claim that puritanical abstinence and
sublimating one’s sexual urges towards Empire-building was relatively normal
among the Victorian patricians. Likewise, an aversion to women and a fondness
for the company of young adjutants are dismissed as ‘normal’ for upper class
Englishmen at the time. A major problem with this explanation is that, while
such behaviour might have been acceptable for a certain class of Victorian
English males, was it truly ‘normal’? The whole point of our thesis is that
Anglo-Saxon values are not ‘normal’ – at least in sexual terms – but
characterised by repression, perversion and homosexuality. In an alternative
cultural context Kitchener would undoubtedly have been considered a deviant, albeit
of the concealed or latent variety.
Another, more recent
English ‘worthy’, Field Marshall Montgomery (affectionately known as ‘Monty’)
is now thought to have been a latent homosexual (Hamilton: 2001). Like
Kitchener, his military successes were hollow triumphs over under-resourced and
exhausted opponents. Like General Gordon, he had a bizarre predilection for the
intimate company of young boys. A boy named Lucien Treub (Monty’s ‘Little Swiss
Friend’) recounts how the General would personally bathe and dry him: Treub was
twelve at the time. As in the case of Kitchener, many have stridently denied
these claims of aberrant sexuality, arguing that Monty was ‘normal’ for someone
of his social background. These arguments founder, however, when we consider that
English patrician standards of ‘normality’ seem to include homosexual yearnings
for male children. In another culture, Gordon, Kitchener and Montgomery would
be instantly recognised as paedophile homosexuals and punished accordingly.
Because English culture is the crabbed, perverse product of centuries of
puritan repression, they have been elevated into national heroes: sacred icons
of valorous chivalry.
The number of writers
and other creative Englishmen with pronounced homosexual tendencies is too numerous
to list. Renowned philosopher and critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge even took
pains to apologise for this unfortunate tendency in one of his critical essays.
Corelli Barnett, pre-eminent historian of Britain’s decline, relates how the
authors of Victorian novels routinely described young males in a fashion more
usually applied to girls (Barnett, 1972). Jingoistic works such as ‘England
Ho!’ abound with florid references to boys’ ‘perfect features,’ ‘silken
hair’ and ‘wine-wet lips’. Here, for example, is the patrician Victorian E F
Benson describing another male:
head was small, his face of an exquisite beauty of modelling, while the
smoothness of its contour would have led you to believe that he was a beardless
lad still in his teens (Benson, 1974: 135).
homoeroticism pervades Victorian and Edwardian literature. Nor was it purely a
literary phenomenon: Barnett shows that homosexual experiences were almost the
norm in elite English Boarding Schools throughout the Nineteenth Century (Barnett,
America has often
been called a matriarchal society, and with good reason: as a puritanical haven
of repressive obsession, its gynocratic character is scarcely possible to
doubt. This ‘femininity’ is definitively characteristically of all Anglo-Saxon
culture, as evinced by the disqualified status of Anglo-American men and
masculine traits like realism, originality and virility. Anglo culture has such
problems integrating males because it essentially dislikes them.
Anglo culture is like
a woman’s dress draped absurdly on a dynamic, diamond-hard male physique. This
is specifically true of English culture, with its gay celebrities, contemptible
obsession with interior decoration and mincing ‘celebrity’ chefs. No one goes
‘against the grain’ in Anglo culture: unmanly conformity prevails everywhere.
As has been said elsewhere, this explains the increasingly anti-rational,
sentimental tone of Anglo societies, demonstrated via their declining dominance
in science and engineering, not to mention Goddess worship and other atavistic
In Britain, the
domination of the media, politics and law by elite males who attended private
schools and who harbour latent homosexual tendencies has contributed strongly
to the Anglobitch phenomenon. Because they are raised in an environment without
women, they have a pronounced tendency to place women on pedestals and view
them as Little Princesses who can do no wrong. Hence the British media,
political parties and law have enshrined the Pedestal Syndrome as normative in
society. The reflexive vilification of males in Britain also owes much to this
social peculiarity. In other countries or cultural blocs, this specific social
arrangement is absent. Private, single sex schools command no particular status
in France or Germany, and attendance at them does not automatically confer a
place in the Establishment. Hence most of the foreign elites attend
co-educational schools and consequently do not internalise the latent
homosexual tendency to glamorise females distinctive of the Anglo Saxon elites.
This is also why the so-called
Anglo ‘counter-culture’ of hippies and the like is so typically vociferous in
defence of females and the Pedestal Syndrome. Many of its leaders and spokesmen
attended single sex private schools and imbibed a ludicrous tendency to view
women as goddesses and angels in exactly the same manner as elite
conservatives. Hence no coherent political resistance to the Anglobitch
phenomenon exists in Anglo countries – liberals and conservatives are both reading
from the same hymn sheet.
Indeed, this latent
homosexual, unthinking liberal defence of Anglo women has recently reached
absurd proportions, with women being portrayed in Anglo-American popular
culture as superhuman beings endowed with awesome strength and superhuman
intelligence. Frank Miller’s Sin City would be a perfect example: women are not
only set on pedestals as semi-divine, they are also endowed with matchless
martial prowess out of all kilter with biological reality. This absurd Anglo
liberal tendency to claim women are simultaneously angelic and fearful can best
be explained by the elite Anglo male’s latent homosexuality and dysfunctional
educational experience. Other manifestations of this flawed outlook can be seen
in middle class Men’s magazines like Men’s Health and GQ, where absurdly
unrealistic sexual expectations are routinely trotted out (‘365 Girls a Year’
is a near-permanent banner). Of course, these magazines originated in the gay
subculture, which largely explains their hyperbolic and ironic editorial tone.
Much has been written in recent years about the ‘crisis of men’ in Anglo
countries. As always, this is set in terms of men retreating before women’s
prowess in all fields rather than recently noticed problems that have in
fact deep roots in Anglo culture.
Anglo Saxons blame
everyone else for social errors. However, nearly all the problems they
excoriate can be traced to Anglo Saxon culture itself. Anglo-Americans hate the
class system, sexual repression, misandry, the media’s casual hatred of men,
the stilted existential gulf between the sexes, the biased divorce laws – and,
in their fury, fail to recognise all of these factors can be directly traced
back to their own culture, or aberrant caricatures of it. Lacking
self-perception, their fury is outwardly directed towards immigrants, Jews and
other groups, whose entire mode of existence (family, patriarchy) makes it
impossible for them to have generated the maladies Anglo Saxons routinely
Glenn (1992): The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female Differences,
Tim (2001): Baden-Powell. Yale
John (1993): Gordon, the Man behind the
Legend. Lion, Oxford.
Nigel (2001): The Full Monty: Montgomery of Alamein,
1887-1942 Vol 1
Graham, James (1968): The Homosexual Kings of England. Universal-Tandem,
Barnett, Corelli, The Collapse
of British Power (Eyre Methuen, 1972)
Barnett, Corelli The Audit of
War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation (Macmillan, 1986)
Barnett, Corelli The Lost
Victory: British Dreams and British Realities, 1945-50 (Macmillan, 1995).
Scruton, RogerEngland: An Elegy (2000) Pimlico
Mueller U. & Mazur A. 1997 Facial dominance in Homo sapiens as honest signaling of male quality. Behavioural Ecology 8, 569–579.
Barnett, Corelli (1972): TheCollapse of British Power. Eyre Methuen.