ARTICLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

Homosexuality can 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.

 

Biological 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.

 

What Anglo-American 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 themselves ‘happy’.

 

On honest consideration, homosexuals in Anglo cultures have everything to gain by their lifestyle, very little to lose.

 

To gain:

 

  • Unlimited sex
  • Financial security
  • Ready made status – gays are lionized by the media
  • Upward mobility (high status gays often form relationships with working class men. High status females never do)

 

To Lose:

 

  • 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.

 

 

Sexual 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 rampant sexuality.

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.

 

Financial Rewards

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 straight men.

 

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.

 

Public Status

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.

 

Adopting the 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.

 

Adopting homosexual 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 common rank.

 

Social Mobility

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 different!

 

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:

 

For 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:

 

Homosexuality – 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 Old England:

 

In 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 p.33).

 

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:

 

William II (c.1056-1100)

Richard I (1157-1199)

Edward II (1284-1327)

Richard II (1367-1400)

James I (1566-1625)

Charles I (1600-1649) (probable)

William III (1650-1702)

 

(Graham, 1968)

 

Homosexuality has 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:

 

Manliness is out. Androgyny is in. Men have been turned into ‘metro-sexuals’, preening, moisturiser addicts.

 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 profusion.

 

Robert Baden-Powell, 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 outrageous individual.

 

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:

 

His 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).

 

Such casual 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, 1972).

 

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 follies.

 

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 excoriate.

 

 

Citations


Wilson, Glenn (1992): The Great Sex Divide: A Study of Male-Female Differences, Soctt-Townsend Publishers.

Buerk, 1995, Ibid

Dworkin, 1983, Ibid

Jeal, Tim (2001): Baden-Powell. Yale University Press.

Pollock, John (1993): Gordon, the Man behind the Legend. Lion, Oxford.

Hamilton, Nigel (2001): The Full Monty: Montgomery of Alamein, 1887-1942 Vol 1

 

Graham, James (1968): The Homosexual Kings of England. Universal-Tandem, 1968, UK

 

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, Roger  England: 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): The Collapse of British Power. Eyre Methuen.