Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Let's Set Some People Straight. . . Shall We?
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The Accumulated Wisdom: Posted to MR-E
"We of the pro-male community have spent years discussing feminism from many angles, sketching theories to explain its operation, debating the merits of those theories, refining the conclusions of those debates and stockpiling evidence. Over the years we have developed a rough consensus. The process is ongoing, and we are far from knowing everything, but thanks to so much hard work by so many dedicated thinkers our fund of understanding has a solid core that we can rely on."That is the first paragraph of a much longer article which I have posted over at Men's Rights Edmonton, where I am a contributing editor. I will not post the article here.You see, I want MR-E to get a bigger and bigger audience. So, if you want to read my long article, you'll just have to truck on over there, my friend! Fortunately, I have made it easy for you, by means of the handy-dandy conveniently placed hyperlink, below:
Tell everybody you know, to surf over to the most excellent Men's Rights Edmonton web log!
Oh, and they've got a really cool picture of the Edmonton, Alberta, skyline - with a rolling prairie hillside, and some green pyramids.. . . .! Yeah man, check it out!
Coalition JS38 Blog
If you wish to disavow all currently existing brands and labels in the non-feminist sector - e.g. MRA, MHRA, MGTOW, Masculinist, etc... then feel free to "name drop" JS38 any time somebody calls you by any of the said names. For example:
"MRA? MGTOW? Who, me?? Nope...I'm a JS38 affiliate, and don't you forget it!"
Furthermore, if for no patently evident reason somebody calls you a "racist" or a "homophobe" or a "misogynist" or anything equally unflattering, send that horse's ass to JS38 and demand to know the exact manifesto point where such a doctrine is mandated. The shithead won't be able to do this, of course. You may then demand an immediate retraction and apology, and if he or she fails in this you may deem that schmuck a persona nullis, or "null person", whose feelings, opinions, and ultimate fate count for nothing at all.
What's that, JS38 is not your cuppa tea? Fine, then write your own manifesto, give it a catchy name, and declare yourself a "movement". If somebody won't accord due gravity to this, declare the son-of-a-bitch persona nullis and instruct him, her or "hir" to pound salt. It's just that simple.
Informational Resource for Newly-Activated Non-Feminists
Feminism Poisons Women
I have also posted a supplement to this. It is a list of informational resources for those newly arrived to the community and still on their initial learning curve. The list is a work in progress, and I will add new items as time goes on. Here it is:
Check back occasionally, and share all of this with whoever needs it.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Monday, December 09, 2013
For Download - Feminism Poisons Women
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Camille Paglia Tells it Like it Is - But Some People Don't Want to Believe It!
[First, I quote a snippet from another commenter:]
""* For some feminists, if you don't subscribe to certain viewpoints or even attempt to be critical of the “movement” then you’ll get lumped into the far right, anti-feminist crowd.*"[Then, I comment on that snippet:]
The real question is, why does the "far-right, anti-feminist crowd" itself . . . . get lumped in with the "far-right anti-feminist crowd"?
For that matter, precisely what IS this mysterious "far right, anti-feminist crowd", anyway?
What actually defines it? Is it really "a thing" at all??
Let's face it, cultural insurgency against feminism is growing and spreading across the human board. Yet I sense a growing panic among certain people, a rush to distance themselves from oh. . .what shall I say. . . the hoi-polloi? One might admit that there is a lot wrong with feminism, and yet. . . one is still loath to admit being one of "those people" who are...oh... I dunno..."anti-feminist"?
Get real! The anti-feminist river is rising and overflooding its banks, and soon we shall all be wading in it, and therefore we shall all be wet whether we like it or not.
In the end, you see, one is not merely "lumped in" with certain people - one is part of an organic continuum with such people, and said continuum is slanting downhill on an ever-increasing pitch, and yes....it is a slippery slope indeed!
We should all get used to this, and try to make friends with our new... um... "cultural neighbors". ;)"
This comment was meant for an article that interviews the always-interesting Camille Paglia - who flat-out informs us that "feminism is dead", and then tells us why. It's worth a read:
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Kevin Driscoll on AVfM Radio
False accusation of rape happens a LOT, and don't you forget it! And no, I won't shut up about it, even though that makes me a potential rapist according to Amanda Marcotte. Oh wait a minute, I forgot.... According to feminism, ALL men are potential rapists!
Kevin Driscoll's case was classic, and I was privileged with an insider's view, since I worked with Kevin myself and helped to promote awareness of what was happening while it was happening.
Certainly, this is not healthy for Kevin Driscoll. But in the long run, do you reckon it will be healthy for women when more and more men go through the kind of hell that Kevin went through? Do you figure women will somehow benefit from such things? Do you?
Reflect on how feminism interlaces with all of this - how it spawned the culture which makes it possible for the Jody Vaughans, Mike Nifongs and Mary Kelletts to prosper, and how it poisons not only women, but everybody and everything in general!
If you're like me, you'll conclude that feminism is a social leprosy, toxic to all concerned, and has a lot to answer for!
So sayeth Fidelbogen.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Feminism Poisons Women - the "Poison" Spreads!
Please do follow that link, even if you have already read the article. I want MR-Edmonton to get the traffic, so feel free to help out, folks! Also, I am officially "on staff" over there now, so I reckon I will be contributing a fair bit in the future. Not all of what I post there will necessarily be duplicated here, although some of it might be. Hopefully, some of you will feel inspired to surf over thataways from time to time, and give them traffic! ;)
The official home of "Feminism Poisons Women", as always, is here:
Sunday, December 01, 2013
December 1 is Stop Violence Against Men Day
On this day, we take a minute to think about violence against men. That seems about right, considering that the bulk of all violence on planet Earth falls upon males. We are so accustomed to hearing the phrase "violence against women", that we might almost think that violence against men does not exist.
But I'm pretty sure it does. In fact, I KNOW it does. Not only do men get kicked and punched and battered far more than the other sexual demographic in the world at large, they also experience these things at least EQUALLY within the four walls of home-sweet-home. The evidence is certainly not lacking that women are the guilty parties at least half the time, but to hear feminists and other such people talk, you would think that men are doing it 95% of the time, and that women are innocent as doves and pure as the driven snow.
Actually, women are guilty as hell in this department - but feminism does not trouble itself with the question of female guilt. On the contrary, it is central to the feminist project that women be let off the hook for every possible wrongdoing on every possible occasion. Only in this way is it possible to maximize the sense of male guilt in general, in order to justify the many anti-male projects which feminism would like to set in motion. Additionally, common gynocentrism ( or "women first-ism") has been a perennial fixture of traditional culture since long before the uniquely left-wing version stamped itself upon the world. Hence, the cultural institution of male disposability (which flows from gynocentrism) makes violence against men and boys invisible, or at least somehow "different" from the same misfortune when it befalls women and girls.
So not only does more violence happen to males in the world at large, and at least equal violence in the home, but adding insult to injury, only violence committed by males seems to be an accepted target of public morality campaigning. And that brings me to my next subject.
The White Ribbon Campaign is precisely the kind of public morality campaign which I am referring to:
This organization describes itself as follows: "Organized by men working to end men's violence against women, the campaign is dedicated to the women engineering students murdered in Montreal."
Having studied the White Ribbon Campaign a fair bit, I can testify that the phrase "men's violence against women" crops up in their rhetoric ad nauseam. To hear them talk, you would think that women's violence against men didn't exist at all. You would also think that violence against men didn't exist at all , or at least that it was not worth mentioning.
In fact, the White Ribbon Campaign appears to serve no other purpose than to inflict collective guilt upon men, merely because they are men. For when you consider that the bulk of all violence is suffered by males, that the bulk of all MALE violence is inflicted on OTHER males, and that women are the least violated segment of the population overall, then the WRC's perpetual iteration of "men's violence against women" is not only misplaced, it is utterly fraudulent, sadistic, abhorrent and perverse.
I think that the White Ribbon Campaign needs to be harshly called out for this, and publicly shamed for it! Don't you?
In the months ahead, we will be sitting in our think tanks, with our thinking caps on, devising ways to put some heat upon the WRC organization. I expect that we shall be boiling the frog slowly, if you know what I mean, and turning the heat up gradually. But that's all right, since we've got plenty of time - in fact, all the time there is!
I'll see you again next month, on Stop Violence Against Men Day.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
An Interesting Blog I Just Discovered
"We now have reached the point where like a grain of sand in an oyster acquiring layers and layers of covering, feminism has acquired layers and layers of pseudo scholarship, academic gobbledegook and a positive forest of “writings” “studies” and feminist “research” designed to obscure the original poisonous seed planted into the consciousness of the western world like a grain of sand invades an oyster. But unlike an oyster, the end result is not a pearl, not a precious and valuable jewel, it is a carbuncle, a festering boil comprised of hatred, vindictiveness, spite, lies, calumny and poison. It needs to be lanced."Here is a link to the blog. Check it out:
New Video -- Feminism Poisons Women - Part Two
This one has some "living footage" - a first among my productions!
Full text for Parts One and Two, is found, as always, here:
Friday, November 22, 2013
New Video - - Feminism Poisons Women - Part One
This is part one of two.
The full text for the whole thing is here:
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Barret Weber, U. of Alberta Sociology Prof, is Anti-Semitic! No Evidence Needed!
I hope you all enjoy this as much as I do! Nick Reading (aka Eric Duckman), wants me to pass along the following to one and all:
[1:06:06 AM] Eric Duckman: please encourage people to send emails
[1:06:22 AM] Eric Duckman: I want as many people sending as many emails as possible
Yes, please do send those e-mails! Here is what is written in the lowbar on Karen Straughan's channel:
Men's Rights Edmonton responds to this piece of slanderous clap-trap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDu9l...
Concerned citizens may want to email the following administrators and faculty regarding Barret Weber's and Dr. Cristina Stasia's lack of intellectual rigor:
Red Deer College sociology departmenthttps://rdc.ab.ca/programs/academic-d...
U of A President Indira Samarasekerauofapres@ualberta.ca
Faculty, staff and graduate student directory, U of A:
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Both Sides are on the Enemy Side Now!
Yes. On their side AND our side!
And you know what else?
BOTH groups, on BOTH sides, are a plague and a nuisance.
And I am bloody tired of them. BOTH!
All right. A kindred realization struck me today at about the same time as the first realization, namely, that there are plenty of people on BOTH sides who are not happy when you attack feminism! Needless to say, it is old news that the feminists feel this way - indeed, from their point of view, it is quite understandable!
But the arresting new insight which I got today, is that a distinct cohort on OUR SIDE TOO will ridicule and scoff at the very idea of attacking feminism! The reason they will often give is that attacking feminism is a "waste of time", or barking up the wrong tree, or the like. Still, the bottom line is that they want to take the spotlight off of feminism.
Conclusion: a lot of people, on BOTH sides of this war, will refuse to differentiate "feminist" from "female", and will make vociferous objection to the very idea of attacking feminism.
I see a pattern here. A very serious pattern.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Feminism Poisons Women - Complete Text
The present statement carries a harshly provocative title. That is deliberate, because the title is a hook. Our main purpose is to excite the reader's anger or curiosity and inspire further investigation. Our secondary purpose is to leave an indelible mark on the reader's memory, whether the reader agrees with us or not.
So what is feminism, how does it poison women, and what should we do about this? Our statement will involve these and related questions.
Feminism is many things, but for now it will suffice to know that it is antagonistic toward men and all things male. We obtain this knowledge both by long study of objective reality and by reasoning from an irrefutable premise: that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. This leads us to wonder precisely how far the feminist project proposes to increase that power, and we are forced to conclude that the project has no clearly stated upper limit.
The feminist project, then, means to increase the power of women infinitely - and those who would insist otherwise must bear the burden of proof.
To increase the power of women infinitely would naturally make female power clash with male power. Here women would confront a choice - to either rein in their own power or to go on increasing it by overriding male power. To choose the former would terminate the feminist project. To choose the latter would advance the project, but only with a steady erosion of male autonomy.
The erosion of male autonomy could have only one eventual outcome - to establish a subjugation of men along with any undesirable consequences this might entail. We conclude that the feminist project in its unfettered form can be none other than a campaign of anti-male aggression, that such a campaign is tantamount to war, and that such a war is bound to inflict collateral damage on humanity at large.
To recognize that such collateral damage is bound to happen, is simply to affirm that men and women share a social ecology where damage to any part of the system has systemic consequences. Thus, to declare that feminism poisons women is to recognize such an effect as a systemic consequence.
It matters little where the poison is introduced. It just so happens that feminism, which initiates an attack against men, sets the process in motion by "poisoning" men first - by subjugating them, by denigrating them, by compromising their human rights, by bending them contrary to nature. From this, the collateral effect ripples through the social ecology and taints the lives of men and women alike. The web of male and female existence is far too interwoven to confine the damage to men. You cannot poison merely half of a well.
In the long run, to poison men can only poison women also. Therefore, since our study of objective reality leaves no doubt that feminism indeed poisons men, we may confidently attest that feminism poisons women. However, if you mean to enhance the well-being of women it will not do to poison them.
In the end, we oppose feminism because feminism poisons everyone. So consider the present statement a rallying call to men and women everywhere who oppose feminism. By our study of objective reality we know that their numbers are considerable and, if the right stimulus be applied, apt to grow.
Accordingly, we wish to grow politically-awakened non-feminist numbers and bring about intellectual crystallization among those numbers. Most of all, we wish to create a public square effect - to break the silence so that everybody not only knows what's up, but knows that everybody else knows. We want each and all to realize that they are not alone, and to catch a glint of that realization in the eyes of others.
The foremost obstacle to our proposed work, is the MYTH OF FEMINISM. By that we mean the orthodox narrative which the feminists themselves have fed to the world, and which the world has swallowed hook, line and sinker. We mean the sanctioned interpretation of reality which wraps around the word feminism itself so that no other sense can be admitted.
Hardly a conversation anywhere does not lie beneath the shadow of feminism's narrative, and hardly a thought can take flight independently of that narrative. Such is the power of the feminist myth - it forms the beginning and end of all public discourse and swallows our lives into an intellectual gravity well. As a controlling paradigm of the present age, the myth of feminism spreads its power over most of the earth.
Opposed to the myth of feminism stands the reality of feminism - the part which it is not polite to talk about. It is this reality that we labor to unmask, in peeling away the myth layer by layer. Our impolite counter-feminist project is to subvert the orthodox meaning of the word feminism itself, but that is only the beginning. Our project goes further in that we aim to take back control of the language, and along with it the public discourse altogether.
The myth of feminism is one with the system of feminist lying. Nearly all of feminism is predicated on a structure of lies and half-lies that prop each other up, and the reach of this system is not easily overstated. A slow indoctrination of the public mind has occurred in the last half-century. One dubious proposition after another has passed unchallenged, hardening into commonly accepted dogma, and forming the intellectual substrate not only for progressively greater distortions, but for institutional changes predicated upon such distortions. Furthermore, the changes and distortions have crept into our lives and cemented themselves many layers deep. Hence the original violation of truth is buried deeper than most people would care to search even if they knew where to start looking.
Our approach is post-argumental, meaning that the time for argument is past. Mutual quest for truth in good faith is a wasted occupation when you are dealing with feminists, for we have learned by hard experience that they have a thousand tricks to sabotage this. Briefly, they do not wish to know what they do not wish to know. Likewise, they do not wish to make known what they do not wish to make known. Either way, they have a vested interest in concealment. So nearly everything they say promotes the myth of feminism and veils the reality of it, and if we consent to engage them on their chosen terms we validate their discourse and defeat ourselves before we speak a single word.
They wish to keep doing what they are doing until they exhaust every inherent possibility which the feminist project contains. Their method is cyclical and dialectical, and they will redefine their project in a radical way whenever the original definition no longer serves them - that too is part of the feminist project. They will repeat this time and again, even contradicting earlier-stated principles if by so doing they can extract just one more drop of female empowerment. They will do all of this and more until some intervening power - human or otherwise - puts a stop to it.
That is why we are post-argumental: because we know that persuasion effort is wasted on most feminists, who will always find a way to dodge, deflect or derail anything we try to communicate.
We are not totalitarian. We are not the thought police. We do not wish to modify feminist belief, but only to uncouple that belief from the power to act upon it in pernicious ways. Briefly, we wish to modify outward feminist behavior from the outside. That is because we know they will never modify their outward behavior from the inside as long as they feel secure in their power.
So our policy is simply to increase non-feminist power, chiefly by growing our numbers and making our presence more keenly felt within the public discourse. This will modify outward feminist behavior because it will make the feminists less smug. They will draw back into their shells a bit and moderate their tone a bit - and that is what we want them to do. Every time they draw back a bit we advance a bit, occupy more space, and operate with more freedom and ease. Thus secured, we become free and easy - and this draws more of the world to our side.
Once again, to argue with these people in hope of persuading them is a wasted occupation. Our effort is to whittle down their power - a slice here, a slice there. So we direct our persuasive force at the many non-feminists who are ready - nay, eager! - to be persuaded. In this way we consolidate our own power and make our job easier.
The over-arching plan is to confront the feminist project with an autonomous power that goes its own way without consulting feminism. This autonomous power equates to the aggregate political will of non-feminist men and women everywhere. To say that this power goes its own way without consulting feminism, means that it operates outside the myth of feminism altogether. That myth has been overthrown, and along with it, the power of the myth to organize personal or political life.
Less abstractly, you may look any feminist in the eye and say: "Excuse me! I am not a feminist, so I am not bound to swallow anything you have told me!" Remember that they do not know the chain of reasoning which leads to your conclusion, and since you don't owe them any answers, you have no duty to explain it. It matters only that by this one curt gesture, you have vacated the myth and gone your own way. Truly, this is where the road branches off. The personal and political ramifications of such a gesture are without limit, and you have a lifetime to explore them.
To be sure, that is a small victory - but the formula is what matters. In time, such individual victories will accumulate and join forces interpersonally. The micro will merge into the macro and, having reached a tipping point, will enter the public square where the sum of personal power will become political power. In the end, this will generate a public polarization of opposed political wills - non-feminist against feminist. Everybody will know, and most importantly, everybody will know that everybody knows.
Feminism will undergo an existential crisis where it is confronted by an "other", compelled to negotiate co-existence, and made to lose its collective solipsism under the sunlight of the world's gaze. The "other" is the combined political will of non-feminist men and women everywhere. The mere introduction of non-feminist alterity - the otherness of all that is not feminism - will re-balance the scales of power and alter the nature of the game.
We have reached our verdict about feminism for well-considered reasons, but cannot hope to unfold these within the scope of the present statement. Furthermore, it would not serve our present purpose to do so. The business of the moment is to connect with affinitized minds everywhere, and we trust to their nascent intuition concerning the veracity of our conclusions.
We are often told that we "don't know what feminism really is", and admonished to read feminist books. In fact, we have studied a great amount of feminist literature over the years, but we have drawn from these readings a very different conclusion than the various writers intended. Simply put, we have refused indoctrination.
We gauge the words of feminist authorities as we would gauge the words of politicians, with an eye to their duplicity. Some of them may be cynical and others may be self-deceiving, but never do we take them at face value. We know that these words, which conceal as much as they reveal, will not explain the living truth of feminism as it operates in the world around us. So that is why we confront feminism not merely as written words in a book, but as a factor in our lived experience - an alien force encroaching on our world and manifesting through its consequences.
We aim to subvert the orthodox meaning of the word feminism, and we begin by studying feminism's consequences. We say that feminism's excresence is its essence. What feminism excretes or oozes into our lives is not accidental but foundational - it marks feminism as feminism. This "essence" resides along the interface where feminism breeches our world. It does not dwell within the explanation that any self-declared feminist prepares for public consumption, nor does it dwell within the private ideology of such a person. So if you want to know what feminism really is, you must look at the world around you.
As non-feminist men and women, we reject the myth of feminism. We know that the feminist project is to increase female power with no stated limit, and this same knowledge is our key to the reality of feminism. Make no mistake: we know with precision and clarity what feminism really is. All feminist words or actions, even the ostensibly laudable ones, serve to increase female power in one form or another, or to conceal some illicit motive. Observation over time has borne this out, for we see that feminism's accomplishment has been to pile up advantages for women in a one-sided way and to absolve women of moral accountability - always with a subtext of female victimhood and female entitlement. So when we pronounce the word feminism, we are speaking of precisely these things. We identify these things as the core of feminist reality, and assert that if you took these things away, feminism would effectively cease existing.
The myth of feminism, which governs the orthodox meaning of the term, dwells continually on the theme of so-called "equality" - and this theme operates as a sub-myth with a vastly powerful halo effect. One has only to intone the word "equality" to invoke the power of a fetish, yet the word amounts to little but a conversational windsock. The concept behind the word amounts to a mental rainbow - meaning a pretty thing that exists in the mind. As with an optical rainbow it shimmers on the horizon and invites pursuit but stays forever out of reach. In real life, the word "equality" is feminist double talk which, if translated into plain speech, means "as much power for women as we can grab."
Here again we see the principle confirmed, that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. We must understand that the project would grind to a halt if it were constrained by clear rules and fixed goals. That is why so many versions of feminism operate simultaneously. Feminism's drive for power cannot be sustained without endlessly switching the rules and pushing the goalposts further down the field, and the chimerical notion of "equality" serves this strategy to perfection.
It is this - the reality of feminism and not the myth - which holds our interest. In the end, feminism is precisely what we, as non-feminist men and women, declare it to be. We can't help wondering why mere self-description as a "feminist" bestows any special authority to define feminism. Feminism's inconsistency, fuzzy boundaries, and failure to self-police, makes the definition of it a universal concern and an open shop. You are as much entitled to call feminism "a destructive force sweeping through my world" (while unindoctrinated into feminism), as to say the same about a tornado (while uninstructed in meteorology). No, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. What feminism is for us, as non-feminist men and women, is objectively as true of an assessment, as what feminism is for a self-described feminist.
Here we may anticipate the bleating lament, "but that's not really feminism!"- to which we can only reply: "Oh yes it is! We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot, and that is how we know what feminism really is!" And we may anticipate the related lament, "what's that got to do with feminism?" - to which we can only reply: "Feminist, you will make this clear to yourself in the fullness of time."
No, we do not speak incorrectly about feminism. Rather, we speak the complete truth about it, minus feminist approval. Feminism's greatest lie is a lie by omission: it does not tell the complete truth about itself - not even to itself! As politically activated non-feminists, we intend to make good on their omission. That they will hate what we are doing, shall not deter us. We know that in the end, the only way to stop them playing games with the word "feminism", is to claim that word and control the meaning on our own account. Hence we declare the definition of feminism to be fair game for non-feminist men and women. The feminists will check their feminist privilege and resign themselves to this.
Feminism is an earthly power whose legitimacy we are entitled to question, and if we find it detrimental we are entitled to seek remedy. That said, we do seek, by both direct and indirect methods, to undo feminism as a normative cultural mythology.
The question is not whether all feminists are a certain way, but whether all FEMINISM is a certain way. Feminism's over-arching tendency takes a form that can be broadly discerned and modelled. That said, we do not hesitate to paint all of FEMINISM with a broad brush, and to characterize it as, at best, an advocacy movement for the sole benefit of women, and at worst, a hate movement driven by disaffection toward the male sex.
We understand feminism as an endlessly growing social organism, distributed across the culture and across all points on the political spectrum. This organism draws its lifeblood from many quarters and it is difficult to distinguish feminism proper, from everything which upholds it or sustains it. That is, we cannot always precisely map where feminism ends and the rest of the world begins. However, if we bear in mind that feminism is fed by a cultural supply chain, we will understand that this chain may be interrupted to good effect when we apply the necessary actions to the necessary links. In this pragmatic manner, feminism may finally be isolated as a target of operations.
The non-feminist revolution is a primordial pushback against feminism, a force of nature which cannot be suppressed. However, the exact form this revolution eventually takes will be either chaotically reactive or politically conscious - that is up to us. One can hope that it will be politically conscious, for this will minimize unpleasant developments and efficiently pave the road to a post-feminist future. That is why we have conceived the counter-feminist project - to make the non-feminist revolution politically conscious. The project is multi-faceted, socially distributed and holistic - for we have concluded that a social organism, such as feminism, must be countered by another social organism that works to block it or neutralize it.
Consider the celebrated fable of the six blind men and the elephant. Feminism, to be sure, is much like the elephant - a collection of parts that can't be isolated from each other lest we miss knowing what we are dealing with. But we are nothing like those blind men. We may specialize in different parts of the elephant but our sight is keen and we know how the beast looks from every direction. The counter-feminist social organism is distributed exactly as the task requires. Different operators in different sectors will apply the necessary actions, informing each other continually of developments and adjusting the plan as contingencies arise. The prime directive, ever and always, is to sap the feminist power structure by drilling into points where that structure is weakly shielded.
The nameless feeling that something is wrong, has been growing for many years. We have searched hard for answers. We have studied deeply. We have conversed far into the night. The shape of the problem has yielded gradually to our analysis and we have released our knowledge, by stages, to the world at large. Feminism is the name we give to the problem. We have taken control of that word and what it means because those who formerly controlled it have sought to propagate a myth. Our effort is to thwart this and show the world something different.
In the course of our work we have discovered a pair of social taboos which hold the world in an iron grip, and we have seen that the problem is deeply rooted in these taboos. First, the taboo against naming feminism as a pernicious force in human affairs. Second, the taboo against treating male existence as a thing of inherent value. Counter-feminist action is based on a systematic and escalating violation of these taboos, and networks of groups and individuals will carry out the project in a variety of innovative ways.
We ought to note in passing that the distinction between attacking feminism and helping men is artificial - both activities violate the two taboos, both weaken the feminist power structure, and both are vital to the advancement of the counter-feminist project. The difference is one of focus or specialization, and you may choose either option as your talent inclines you. Vanguard practitioners have no quarrel with each other's specializations.
The counter-feminist project, as simply as we can put it, is a cultural insurgency from all quarters. We would introduce novel elements into the public discourse and by so doing guide that discourse in a radically different manner. We aim not to establish universal belief in a set of ideas, but to establish those ideas as an overshadowing landmark in the cultural discourse. You may love it or hate it, but you can't ignore it. It colors your world and changes everything.
The counter-feminist project is a three-pronged initiative that aims to do the following:
First, to confirm a working definition of feminism within the non-feminist community. This will establish a focal vision for coordinated operations. It will also prevent the operators from working at cross-purposes.
Second, to decenter and disestablish the myth of feminism by building a counter-feminist culture of critique that pervades every corner of society. This will include both a serious intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, and a mainstream growth of mockery and witticism at feminism's expense. It will also include an effort to catalogue the many forms of feminist aggression in the greatest possible detail, so as to make these publicly known and available for correction.
Third, to promote conventional issues-based activism, such as lawsuits, lobbying, standing for public office, letter campaigns, street demonstrations, and pro-male "good works" in the community. We recognize that such activities will generate publicity, attract members, and weaken the feminist power structure in general. Hence, we deem them good.
Here we have depicted the counter-feminist project in broad strokes. We wish to make commonly known that such a project is underway and to enlist all manner of people, from everywhere on earth, as co-workers. The present statement is cast upon the world like a net which gathers affinitized minds. Anybody of any nation, occupation or station in life can settle into any corner of the project as we have sketched it, and commence work. The nature of their involvement is limited only by their imagination.
The project, indeed, has been going on for years, and keen observers will know that the community of affinitized minds is growing quickly. In the past this growth has been intellectually chaotic and politically inefficient, so the present task is to remedy that. However, we trust the accumulated in-draft of past outreach efforts to keep pulling in new people. Furthermore, we assume that a baseline of understanding has been established. After all, the conversations have long been happening and the word has gotten out. So we address present remarks to those who are either up to speed or able to get there quickly. We seek such people - intellectual self-starters who can take a hint, see the lay of the land, govern their tongues, and needn't be told twice.
Critique of feminism will become a sort of cottage industry. Anybody, of any sophistication, may have a go at this - but only high-level thinkers and strategizers will compose the vanguard. If you are of the latter, then do drop by.
In time, the counter-feminist project will merge with the ambient of the culture and not be recognizable as the product of any singular group or "movement" This will end feminism's control of the cultural narrative. Having been shouldered aside by an upstart counterculture, feminism will become merely another competitor in the marketplace of ideas. It will no longer be privileged, but rather jostled with the rest of the throng and expected to "take its lumps".
That day, which we so fondly anticipate, has not arrived quite yet. But to look on the bright side, it is getting closer - we who have been in the game for a good long while can attest to this. The last two or three years have brought dramatic changes, and there is no question that the defenders of the feminist faith are digging in for a fight. They belatedly realize that a threat to their power has arisen, and the smell of panic mingled with false bravado is wafting from their side of the field. They are up to their usual tricks and lies, but they are doubling the dosage. Apparently, they think they can get out of trouble by doing more of what got them in trouble in the first place.
So let us consider the future. If we mean to boost feminism along the road to extinction, what can any one of us individually do to help out? More precisely, where would any random person now reading this find his or her point of entry into the counter-feminist project?
The answer is, that only YOU can supply the answer. You are on your own. However, that is not so bad as it sounds because many have walked this road before you, and if you seek them out, or if you track down the wisdom they have left on record, you will find much of the guidance you need. But still, you must take the initiative to find what will sustain you in your quest, and in so doing you will find your answer and discover your niche in all of this. Consider that we, the pioneers of the community, were given no map, no compass, no pole star, no flashlight, no field manual of any kind. We simply found our way, driven by the imperative to decipher things that made no sense. Your case, in many ways, shall be no different. Ask yourself, why are you here now, reading this? What brought you to this juncture? The fact is that you have travelled a good way upon your road already - more than you realize! You ought to reflect upon that.
Know that you are not alone - you are reading this now and that should give you a clue. Look around, for the times are changing and a new spirit is abroad upon the earth. It is everywhere : catch the glint of understanding in a glance, the flash of recognition in a phrase! And yes, read the writing on the wall. Trust me, it's out there, and you'll know it when you see it.
This statement opened with the provocative idea that feminism poisons women, and prior to concluding, we should touch upon that once again. Truly the poison of feminism spreads, and given the workings of the social ecology, this will poison women along with everything else. So even if we cannot expect compassion for men and boys to become a cultural norm, we can at least appeal to the socially conservative "woman-firsters" on their own level of understanding. If the male population is not treated decently, you may depend on it that the outcome for women will be poisonous. That is an ice cold logical prediction - there is nothing outlandish about it. We would have only to fold our arms, sit under a tree, and watch it happen - for happen it will!
However, our present purpose is to issue a warning, like a man standing at the roadside waving a red flag, shouting "danger ahead! Turn back! Proceed at you peril." We wish to avoid the worst for all concerned, and we make this statement because conscience guides us to do so. We call upon others, similarly guided by conscience, to align with the present effort.
Very well. Such dark and wild words will not sound dark and wild to everybody. Some who are now reading will directly comprehend what the non-feminist side is transmitting. Others will be on the threshhold of comprehending, wanting only a few choice hints to make it all light up. Either way, there is a ready public to be reached, and reach we shall! In three years, five years, twelve years, words like these will settle into place and make perfect sense to a critical mass of people. For now, we preach to the circle of the knowing, and work patiently to expand that circle. Looking back across the years, we see that we have been successful in this method. We trust the future to crown our efforts likewise.
There is a new game in town, and the game is on.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Wednesday, November 06, 2013
The Manifesto of Coalition JS38
JS38 is a coalition of politically conscious non-feminist or counter-feminist groups and individuals. The name itself is a random character string which serves only as an identification tag. However, it is euphonious and memorable.
As a project, JS38 is designed to combat the problems which labelling often generates - such annoyances as branding, false grouping, conflation, stereotypification, message degradation and the like. We who oppose feminism are plagued by such difficulties either because we fail to transmit a clear, unified message signal, or because we fail to adequately differentiate the multitude of signals that we do transmit. Call this lack of coherence or call it lack of planning, but either way it comes back to haunt us. Worse yet, the legacy has been accumulating for years and we are now in it up to our earlobes.
We must first recognize that we are in a contest to sway hearts and minds, and that this contest is played out on the field of public rhetoric - by which we mean things audible to the world at large. Fortified with that understanding, we must set about to craft a message as best we are able.
Hence the JS38 coalition. Our project is designed to boost and clarify a chosen message signal in a way which cuts through the chaotic background noise from other feminist-averse groups and individuals. In this way, our chosen message will gain a more individuated presence within the public discourse.
Think of the JS38 message signal as a tidy corner in a messy room: it naturally draws attention and creates focus. It becomes a center of orientation.
Members of JS38 (called "signatories") are aligned with each other under the terms of a Prime Constitution - a list of points encompassing a mission, a code of principles, and a practical worldview. The Prime Constitution is only moderately detailed and may sometimes raise questions that it doesn't quite answer. However, it includes enough key information that the signatories will share a mission-critical body of discourse which stands apart from other feminist-averse discourses. Conflation, in the public mind, will be avoided.
So JS38 offers the advantage that any kind of "chorus" would offer - it punches a message through by boosting the volume. But additionally, it permits each signatory to establish a clear self-identity. Signatories may readily disavow affiliation with groups and individuals who do or say untoward things - it would be as simple as pointing to the Prime Constitution and saying "I sign to THAT, and I stand upon it. If you want to know more, talk to ME."
What is more, the JS38 signatory may disaffiliate not only from random feminist-averse others, but from any other JS38 signatory as well! Hence, JS38 offers the best of both worlds because it permits you to be part of a group without the risk of being tainted by this.
In the end, JS38 is neither a moral collective nor an organization but only a joint intellectual effort to distill a message signal, and to differentiate this from what other feminist-averse groups and individuals are transmitting. It is based not on personal association, but on message affiliation.
JS38 separates the message from the messenger, and the personal from the political. The message is everything, the messenger nothing, and efforts to derail the message by making the messenger the subject of conversation, will be disallowed. In principle, JS38 is pure message. More precisely, it is a genetically related range of messages which set the parameters of a discourse. So if conversation strays too far afield, or if misrepresentation multiplies, reference to the Prime Constitution will pull the discourse back on track.
The points in the Prime Constitution are not listed in order of priority, and there is no linear progression of ideas from one item to the next. However, the items do form a loose holographic unity. The purpose is not to make everybody agree clear down to the last decimal point, but to confine their disagreement within a clearly mapped terrain of understanding.
The possible flavors of JS38 are unlimited. Any JS38 signatory may, if so inclined, publish a sub-constitution which enlarges on selected points from the Prime Constitution or adds new points. Any sub-constitution so created may then collect its own signatories, and any of these signatories may again publish a sub-constitution, and so on.
Ideally, every sub-constitution would list its entire chain of linkages, leading eventually back to the Prime Constitution, which is deemed canonical. In the end, this would generate a pyramidal structure of variations which cascade from the Prime Constitution.
We realize that signatories to the present document may at times differ sharply on matters of policy or interpretation. We believe that they can "agree to disagree", and remain within mission parameters. We believe that such disputes, if creatively managed, needn't compromise the mission trajectory as a whole.
Prospective signatories are advised to trust their intuition. Reading through the Prime Constitution, you might say to yourself "this sounds about right - I think I can roll with this." If that is the sensation you get, you will probably do just fine.
To be a JS38 signatory, you need only make a mental decision that you are one. That is all. It is not a matter of public record unless you choose to make it so.
The Prime Constitution follows. Points are listed in a numbered format, for ease of citation.
JS38 - Prime Constitution
1. We repudiate the use of violence except where self-defense requires it. We are prepared to confront violence from others if they initiate this.
2. We reject all forms of racial, religious, or ethnic identification. We view such identification as conflating the messenger with the message, or the personal with the political.
3. As non-feminist men and women, we eschew denigration of the opposite sex. We recognize such expressions to be counterproductive on all levels, and we maintain that every individual ought to be characterized by merit.
4. We are opposed to collectivist and totalitarian thinking. Furthermore, we classify self-identity as a personal property right - meaning it is right proper to the person.
5. We value self-containment and aplomb in our spoken and written communications. As a rule, we favor a philosophical tone. Furthermore, we believe it is good practice to "think like a lawyer."
7. If a particular idea is not expressly stated in this document, it cannot be attributed to the document. Equally, however, it cannot be said that the document excludes it.
8. Our discourse shall be mainly of a political or world-historic character, set upon the great stage. Accordingly, we shall not dwell upon the mundane micro-realities of personal relationships or the puzzles which arise in that realm. Above all, we eschew the element of personal complaint in this realm.
10. We recognize that the de facto consequence of feminist innovation has been to make "male" and "female" into separate political interest groups, or power blocs. We maintain that this does not bode well for the long-term viability of civilization.
11. We recognize that men as a group are unaware that they have political interests as a group, and that said unawareness makes them vulnerable to erosion of their well-being within the social polity.
12. We assert that all men are men, and shall waste no time disputing what is a "real" man, or otherwise. A man may be a good man, a bad man, or an indifferent man - but he is a man all the same, and never less than a man. As men, we shall treat other men with brotherly kindness and forbearance unless they give us compelling reason to do otherwise.
14. We recognize that the growth of male political consciousness could increase the male-female political split and exacerbate the dangers inherent to it. Yet we cannot deny that the growth of male political consciousness is NECESSARY. In consequence, we recognize that we are in a paradoxical double-bind, a catch-22, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma. That is what feminism has brought us, and a nuanced, high-level understanding of this reality is necessary if we hope to extricate ourselves.
15. We recognize that, regrettable though it be, men in growing numbers might have no choice but "go their own way" in the face of growing anti-male conditions in the world. We shall not judge them or condemn them on that account. This is not a prescriptive statement, but a reality-based prediction. It is proferred in the understanding that such things might be prevented, and the worst avoided.
16. We affirm that males and females possess, on average, bio-genetically based differences in psychology and behavior not due to cultural training. We maintain that it is foolish to pretend such differences, on average, don't exist.
17. We affirm that the existence of male-only social space - in the form of groups, clubs and organizations of whatever sort - is a POSITIVE GOOD. We assert that such things ought to make part of any future society we would aspire to, and that the formation of male-only spaces should begin immediately.
18. We seek to bring about a decolonization of the non-feminist mind. To that end, we claim an epistemic standpoint independent of feminist discourse, and from said standpoint we develop a counter-discourse.
19. We assert that the non-feminist community is an autonomous power in relation to the feminist community. As such, diplomatic courtesy from the feminist community will be expected.
20. We assert the prerogative to define feminism in the light of our own study, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is. Our authority to make this claim is equal to any other, and our audacity in making it marks an historical violation of previously accepted authority. As such, our action is revolutionary.
21. When we state that "feminism is x", we are describing what feminism is FOR US, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint, in terms of our experience and observation. We would underscore that the feminists have always done the very same thing from their own standpoint, and would affirm that they are quite entitled to their own linguistic usage within their own community. However, when they venture into the world at large, they must not presume upon the linguistic usages of others.
22. We recognize that feminist issues and talking points, whether singly or as a list, are not in themselves feminism. Feminism as a thing is transcendent. It is greater than the sum of its issues and talking points. It is in fact a worldview. For that reason, it is possible to agree with a feminist on a great many points and yet be adamantly opposed to feminism as such.
23. We affirm that feminism generates a cloud of inconsistency or indefiniteness about itself, and switches from one set of rules to another as need dictates. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.
24. We recognize that feminism is a product of the entire cultural spectrum, and not merely of the political Left as so many have insisted.
25. We affirm that feminism, as a cultural project, seeks to increase the individual and collective power of women with no limit. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.
26. We affirm that the feminist drive to increase female power involves a willful attack upon men and maleness as such.
27. We recognize that according to feminism, everything wrong with the world flows from a male source, or as the saying goes, that "men are the problem". We work to expose this way of thinking wherever it crops up.
28. We affirm that men and women share the same social ecology, and that harm to any part of this system will generate systemic consequences. Consequently, we recognize that feminism's attack upon men amounts to a war of aggression against the world at large, and that this war will damage men and women alike.
29. We affirm that feminism is dynamic, must remain perpetually in motion, and that if forced to become static, would expire. We refer to this condition as "perpetual revolution". In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.
30. We recognize that the feminist campaign for "equality" between the sexes is fraught with hypocrisy in practice. Furthermore, we realize that the term "equality" itself, as a free-floating abstraction, is deeply problematic by its nature.
31. We affirm that there is a cultural taboo which suppresses open critique of feminism. We propose to violate this taboo in a methodical way, and we have calculated the effect that such violation will produce.
32. We affirm that there is a cultural taboo against recognition of male suffering and against recognition that male life has inherent value. Some have called this "male disposability". We propose to violate this taboo in a methodical way, and we have calculated the effect that such violation will produce.
33. We call for an end to the feminist stranglehold in the realm of public education.
34. We call for a full intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint. We call upon credentialed academics to join in this work, along with all manner of people everywhere.
35. We affirm that misandry (disaffection toward men and maleness) is a real thing with cultural and institutional presence.
36. We affirm that misandry and misogyny are two aspects of an underlying unity, that they cannot be understood separately, and that they increase or decrease in direct proportion to each other.
37. We affirm that misandry, rather than misogyny, is the primary driver behind the present crisis.
38. We recognize that radical feminism, far from being at the fringe the movement as so many would insist, is in fact the core, the motive source, the very fuel rod of feminism as a whole. Without radical feminism in some form, there would virtually be no feminism at all.
39. We affirm that the growth of freedom without responsibility is pernicious, and we recognize that feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has encouraged precisely such growth among the female population.
40. We seek to generate solidarity among non-feminist people of every sort, worldwide. We seek to instill in them a common understanding of what feminism is and how it operates.
41. We assert that feminism is like a product that must be sold, and that nobody is obligated to buy.
42. We assert that non-feminist men and women have no duty to stay current with the discourse in the feminist community. The case is rather the reverse: that the feminist community must listen sensitively to what non-feminist men and women are saying, and address respectfully any concerns they might raise.
43. We maintain that feminism, in its ideological and politicized form, was imposed on the world as a social innovation and that the impacted population was never consulted about this. For that reason among others, we view feminism as a primary aggressor.
44. We maintain that the aggressor in any conflict sets the terms of engagement. Feminism, as a primary aggressor, will predictably find itself engaged upon the terms which it (the aggressor) has originally established. There is no reason not to anticipate this, since we have never known the world to operate otherwise.
45. Failure by any feminist to display diplomatic tact when dealing with a non-feminist, shall be considered a form of feminist aggression. Given that feminism is the primary aggressor, the primary burden of establishing diplomatic trust shall fall upon feminism accordingly, and any individual feminist who wishes to parlay with our side ought to show especial diligence in this connection.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
Think of this the next time you hear some feminist say "I do NOT hate men! I have male friends, uncles, brothers, etc whom I dearly love!!!"
Another Exchange with a Boring Feminist Nitwit
A representative of feminism - which is arguably the biggest shit-stirrer the world has ever seen - has called me a shit-stirrer. Now that's what I call irony gold.
This grrrl sounds like a wooden robot with a tape recorder inside. Now do you understand why we call them "fembots"?
Feminism is not the world! When will these people ever get the memo that they do not own the discourse??
Once upon a time there was an old zen master meeting with a young student, and the student was quite full of himself, babbling on obliviously about his bright ideas. Does anybody remember this old story? Well, the master was pouring tea into a cup, and when the cup was full he kept right on pouring. The tea spilled over and flooded the table, and the student cried out, "why are you still pouring? The cup is full!"
The master replied, "like this cup, you are full and overflowing with your own ideas. How can I show you Zen if you will not first empty your cup?"
Anyhow, click on the image to make it bigger.
Friday, November 01, 2013
November 1 is Stop Violence Against Men Day
So we take this occasion to share a few words that are fitting, in the hope that some will reflect upon them and pass the idea along to others who will pass it along again.
In our feminist culture, we hear plenty of talk about "violence against women", and everywhere you turn, it seems like there is a campaign of some kind to "raise awareness" of this.
And yet, hardly anybody talks about violence against men. Hardly anybody seems to think it is important to raise any awareness of that issue, do they?
Well this certainly shoots a hole in the feminist ideas of "patriarchy", and "male privilege" and "misogyny", wouldn't you say?
Women are oppressed, as the feminists never tire of repeating, and yet. . . . we live in a society which is full to the brim with special perks and programs for women! I'd call that ironic at the very least, and when you consider that our society is NOT full to the brim with perks and programs for men, the irony is twofold.
Mind you, we are not complaining about this. It is not so much the double standard which perturbs us, but rather the unmitigated gall of declaring that women are "oppressed", and then blaming men for it!
That, yes THAT. . . is what makes us boil!
We shall see you again on December 1, a month from now. On that date, we'll have something to say about the White Ribbon Campaign. Until then, take care, and spread the meme.
"Equality" is Bullshit!
"We heuristically compare politically salient attributes and call two people "equal" when we should be using the word "congruent under the context I flat out made up." One who seeks "equality" without sharing what the hell he means has no idea what he wants, but feels that people will like him if he squawks "Equality! Equality!"Ahhhh yes! Here is somebody who says exactly what I am saying, and have been saying for years - that the entire notion of so-called "equality" is BULLSHIT. It is impossible to be either for OR against "equality", because there is literally nothing to BE for or against. Anywhere outside the realm of mathematics, it is a null concept and a non-thing! That's right, I will say it again, but louder:
"This abuse of language makes conversation with feminist zealots nearly impossible, but you know that. I'm preaching to the choir at this point".
"Equality" is a null concept and and a non-thing.
The quote which I shared above is from a non-feminist chap who answers to the name of Victor Zen. At last I have met my match! Victor is more intellectual than I am, and uses more big words than I do, as the quote illustrates!
Oh..but I know precisely what he is talking about! ;-)
More on-the-money thoughts about "equality", HERE:
Rape is Under-Reported? Meh!
What difference would that make, when a jury was hearing the arguments in a particular rape trial or deliberating on the verdict in that trial? All that counts is whether the man is guilty or innocent, and his fate balances on a sober and perspicacious judgment in this matter. Therefore, only relevant factors ought to be taken under consideration - wouldn't you say?
So do the feminists want those jurors to somehow factor the alleged under-reporting into their final decision? How is that circumstance relevant when a particular man's guilt or innocence are in question? Are the jurors expected to throw more weight on the “guilty” side of the probability scale in order to compensate, somehow, for all the rapes that never get reported?
And so even if the guy was probably innocent, they should more likely be inclined to convict him anyway? In some mysterious way, is that what the feminists would like us to conclude?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Something Very Basic that you should Remember
If you attack the concept of a "men's rights movement", you have no moral high ground from which to uphold the right of women to form a "women's right movement".
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Giving the Ribbon a Rude Tug
All right, I just gave those White Ribbon people a piece of my mind in their comment box. The comment did not post up on the website, but I have preserved it for posterity below. Notice that I was not profane or abusive, but did make a half-assed effort to address them in their own ideological vernacular. I feel that the points which I raised could not be entirely ignored by them without the risk of their looking somewhat obtuse or arrogant. Ideally, the following would initiate a conversation in which I would control the direction of the narrative, although I do not expect that any "conversation" will ever come from this. Since the communique was not public, I have no doubt that it will be ignored. But never mind, it's the politics of gesture which counts here. I have preserved this for posterity, so it is part of the "permanent record":
"Why does the White Ribbon Campaign not equally call for a femininity that embodies the best qualities of being human? Are not women part of the human race too? Don’t we all need to cultivate our best qualities, in order to improve humanity? Focusing on men alone seems rather one-sided, wouldn’t you say?
"And do you not believe that women too are part of the solution and part of a future that is safe and equitable for all people? Isn’t it rather sexist to assume that women cannot also make a contribution along this line? Do you feel that women are simply not capable of such an achievement? Or conversely, do you feel that women are already doing enough, and that men are NOT doing enough? But isn’t that, too, a sexist attitude?
"Why not develop a safer and healthier attitude among women and girls as well as men and boys, and through that make the city a healthier and safer place to live? Do you feel that women and girls need no improvement in this department? Or do you feel they are simply incapable of improvement? Either way isn’t that rather sexist?
"Why should I take the White Ribbon pledge if that pledge does not address any of the points which I have raised?
"There are many harmful elements to popular ideas about what womanliness is, so why should the goal not include working with women and girls to do our part to change what we can, starting with ourselves?
"Please correct me if I am wrong, but White Ribbon appears to be a feminist organization. If White Ribbon wishes to gain a broader base of support, it should try to be inclusive of people in the non-feminist community, who might wish to address the issues you have raised without being implicated in a feminist ideological worldview."Here's a little activism idea for anybody who feels so inclined. Call up your local White Ribbon rep, get into a friendly chat, and then tell them that you like what they are doing but cannot consider any involvement unless they reconsider their clearly anti-male ideological slant. If they start hearing that particular message in sufficient volume, they might feel pressured to put out some diplomatic "feelers" toward the non-feminist community.
Update: Mr. Reading of Edmonton has supplied me with the following two contact addresses for Edmonton White Ribbon, and asks that you make use of them to speak your mind about the White Ribbon campaign in general:
Margie Marvin, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sacha Aldrich, Community Initiatives Against Family Violence, email: email@example.com
Another Little Skirmish in the Mind Wars
People say weak things all the time, and all you must do is watch and wait for an opening. Attack what is weak, and you will stay in a position of strength. Don't be in a lather to attack at the slightest provocation. Sit out battle after battle and gather your strength, and when opportunity beckons, strike! Seek the cracks in your enemy's armor, and weasel through, and drill into the soft guts below. It's easy, and yet so many people have a hard time doing this, or even understanding this. That leads me to speculate that maybe it isn't so easy after all - or at least not until you learn the trick. But yes, if we can train a thousand people to fight in such a way, victory will be ours.
(Click upon the graphic in order to view it at a legible size.)
Monday, October 28, 2013
Man Falsely Accused of Rape Spends Four Years in Jail
Things like this happen quite a bit, and according to most feminists that is hunky-dory. It is nothing to worry about. You see, the feminists know that men with their patriarchal privilege are collectively guilty of rape, and collectively guilty of nearly any other bad thing which any man does to any woman. That is why they don't care if innocent men suffer - because they know that those men are not actually innocent. According to the feminist view, it only matters that male flesh be ground up in the impersonal machinery of feminist retribution, and it is immaterial whose particular male flesh this gets inflicted on. Any man will do.
They calculate that if due process and rules of evidence are relaxed far enough, and if presumption of innocence is done away with, the outcome will be "more convictions" - that is the key phrase. And the feminists are right. This will indeed result in more convictions because it will make it easier to return a guilty verdict in a larger number of cases. One might very correctly point out that this would result in more innocent men being falsely convicted, and sent to prison, and having their lives destroyed. However, we must understand that to the feminist way of thinking that is immaterial because the point is, first, to punish men collectively, and second, to increase the mathematical odds that all or most actual rapists will get punished.
Feminism teaches us that men should be "taught not to rape" - and when feminism empowers women to make false accusations, the idea is to instill the necessary anti-rape instruction by destroying innocent lives.You see, it is all the same to a feminist if innocent male flesh gets pulled into the meat grinder along with the guilty, so long as men are properly "taught".
Also, as the feminists are keen to remind us every chance they get, rape is "the most underreported of all crimes". So clearly, it satisfies the feminist requirement for retributive justice that "men" should make a collective blood sacrifice for all those rapists who got away with it. And that is why the feminists are fine with false rape accusations and convictions - because even if those particular men did nothing to deserve such a horrible fate, it is imperative that somebody pay the price for all of the rapists who never get caught.
Now that I have illuminated some of the cultural differences between feminists and non-feminists, you will hopefully gain some insight into things that might formerly have perplexed you. So if you or somebody you care about gets falsely accused or convicted of rape, you will understand the logic and the moral necessity of what is being done, and you won't feel so bad about it. Ideally, it should initiate a process of reflection on whether the rape accuser was violated in some way, or if not, how she might have been.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
A Little Koan for your Konsideration
Friday, October 25, 2013
Once Again: This is how we nick 'em!
All right, if you wish to chart the swirling tensions and complexities within the community of those who don't like feminism, check the latest from Bernard Chapin. You will find it to be a useful snapshot of the present historical moment:
A couple of points I will briefly note here. First point: BC is right on the money when he suggests that utopian thinking is bad, bad, nasty stuff that will only bring us grief.
Second point: Nothing could please me more than to see people of the political left turning against feminism - which, in growing numbers, they are indeed doing!
And you know what else? I am more than willing to at least chew the fat with those people. Foe of my foe, and all that sort of thing. I am a total conversation whore, and I will sit down for a li'l old chit-chat with anybody I please. Misogynists, feminists, left-wing, right-wing, druggies, saints, sinners, holy-rollers, anarchists, atheists, stiffnecks, rednecks, hard-asses, fat-asses - you name it! I don't mind saying that I have rubbed shoulders with some right colorful critters in my day, and I have learned a lot from the experience.
Donald Dutton on AVfM Radio
So here's a double-whammy. My personal favorite among DV researchers, Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia, will be a guest on the show tomorrow with Erin Pizzey. I don't plan to miss this episode, and I hope you don't either:
Friday, October 18, 2013
Putting Michael Campbell on the Map
On that page, you will find a description of the proposed action, and how to get involved if you choose to do so. Also, if you are not yet acquainted with this episode (involving principal Campbell and the late Adam Adamek), you will find a basic introduction and links to further information.
Please share this with anybody and everybody, and encourage all alike to participate.
Update: I would like to thank Men's Rights Edmonton for mirroring this post on their website:
I would would also like to thank TyphonBlue for mirroring this post on Genderratic:
I would like to thank Kevin Wayne for passing along the word on Under the Goddess:
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A Key Point Briefly Summarized
As a man in such a hypothetical case, you would have (in a purely objective sense) no objective moral obligation to look out for the well-being of women in general, or any woman in particular. Thus, to pick a classic example, if you became aware of a woman being raped, there would be no objective moral obligation for you, as a man in such a case, to intervene or call for help. I realize that certain people would read this and recoil from the thesis stated here, but the vehemence of their emotion would equate to no philosophical proof of any opposite conclusion.
In a social order where male life was not valued equally to female life, those who claim there is a male obligation toward women, would not occupy an adequate moral standpoint from which to assert the said claim.
In a social order where male life was not valued equally to female life, any man would operate as a free moral agent in regard to any woman. The basis of any man's conduct toward any woman, would be a moral law within himself. This could take nearly any form imaginable.
In such a case as we are discussing, the moral order could be remedied, and mutual obligation restored, by a series of philosophical pronouncements enshrined in law. These pronouncements would make clear that neither male life nor female life was rated higher than its counterpart. They would additionally lay the foundation for enactments at all levels of jurisprudence, legal practice, and public policy, to ensure that the needful spirit was instilled into the life of the culture.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Bell Hooks Book - Free Download
Yes, I do read feminist books! Yes, I do know what feminism is! So don't ever tell me to "read feminist books", and don't ever tell me that I don't know what feminism is.
Yes, in case you haven't figured it out, I am a strong believer in the maxim of "know your enemy".
Quite a few wet-behind-the-ears, bushytailed young feminists have breathlessly urged me to "read Bell Hooks", under the impression that this would somehow make me "see the light" regarding feminism. Well, I have indeed read a number of Bell Hooks books, and the sky looks darker than ever. Sorry 'bout that, bushytails!
But I'm on a roll now. So, if you ever had a hankering to read every book Andrea Dworkin ever published, you can get all fourteen of them free, here:
I confess that I have only read about 7 of them. Does that mean I should shut up about feminism altogether until I have read all fourteen of them?
Finally, here is the landmark essay by Audre Lorde, titled "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House.":
Know your enemy.
Vote for the Patriarchy! You Know You Want To!
Yes indeed, I fully expect that Nick Reading of the Patriarchy Party will win his election by a landslide in Ward 8 of Edmonton. After all, as any feminist will tell you, we live in a patriarchy where men do everything they can to oppress women. So I can see no reason at all why those filthy sexist pigs . . .er....MEN, I mean, wouldn't vote one of their own into office. When Nick Reading gets elected to his city council seat, I know that it will permanently silence all of you nay-sayers who tell us "there is no such thing as the patriarchy". I can't wait for election day - bring it!
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Some Thoughts About Intimate Partner Violence
Archer, J. (2006). Cross cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153. (A review article which suggests that "women's empowerment is associated with lower victimization rates from their partners." Greater individualism and empowerment by women, however, are also associated with higher perpetration rates.)Note the passage which I have highlighted in boldface. In the first part, it is saying that if you are more powerful, people are less likely to mess with you. Well, I'm glad that wiser folk than me are conducting academic studies to recover such arcane truths from obscurity and make them available for all to know. In the second part, the sentence is saying that power corrupts. Yes, that is what it is saying. It seems that if women become more individuated and empowered, some of them will commit more physical aggression against their intimate partners than they would otherwise. That is what "perpetration" means - that the perpetrator is the aggressor. So the lesson we draw, within this micro-context at least, is that women are inherently no less aggressive than men.
If you want to see the most recent edition of Fiebert's bibliography (with 343 entries), go to the following and click on the link which says "Assaults by Women on their Male Partners". The document will download as a text file:
All right. As it now stands, based on Fiebert's bibliography and other lines of evidence, we may conclude that women perpetrate at least as much intimate partner violence as do men. I say "at least", because there is reason to suspect that women are worse than men in this department. But since I am not greedy, and since I don't want to look like a misogynist bent on casting women in the worst possible light, I will conservatively settle for a 50-50 split. I will not state categorically that women ARE more violent, only that they might be. However, I have inserted the qualifying phrase "at least" because, to me, the quest for truth is ultimately more important than not seeming misogynistic. In the end, this gives me the best of both worlds. In a textual way, it clears me from undue imputations, and yet it leaves the field open to anything the quest for truth might ultimately reveal.
To hear the feminists talk, you'd think that men are pummeling innocent women everywhere to enforce "the patriarchy" like squadristi enforcing Mussolini's regime. Such is the world according to feminism. It is what they want you to believe - they are banking on it! They have poisoned the public mind with this story for many years and made it part of the cultural ambient, so our task becomes, somehow, to undo all of that. It won't be easy.
It will not do to assert categorically that men, as a class, are oppressing women, as a class, in the realm of intimate relations. It will equally not do to assert that men in such relations are initiating violence any more than women are. The evidence will not support any of this - it is not certifiably factual. Yes, we know that such statements are commonly made and taken for granted by millions of naive people, but those millions are supporting a grotesque lie and a blazing intellectual crime. They may be forgiven inasmuch as they were misled and deprived of the tools to effect their own intellectual liberation. But if they stubbornly persist in upholding the lie even when the full story is given, they forfeit their claim to indulgence. As for those who originally conceived and propagated the lie, indulgence is at no point warranted.
As I never tire of repeating, the intimate partner violence narrative is the crown jewel of feminism's anti-male talking points. To undermine this narrative, eventually to the point of collapse, will damage the feminist regime more than anything else I can think of. So let's get cracking, shall we?
Friday, October 11, 2013
Do Not Miss This - Martin Fiebert on AVFM Radio!
A landmark, for sure!
Oh...and here is Fiebert's renowned bibliography - a goldmine of evidence that Feminism is a Lie:
They're Starting to Fight Dirty!
Fidelbogen:On second thought, what do I really mean by the phrase "they're starting to fight dirty"? Silly me. When have the feminists EVER fought any way but dirty?? Feminism is a dirty game from stem to stern and that will never change. I can't promise we'll come out of this war with entirely clean hands ourselves, considering the nature of the conflict and the necessity which it imposes. So my advice is: don't worry, be happy! You want to get thrown under the bus with clean hands? I hope not.
On the subject of anti-male bias, today while out running errands, I saw an episode of the 'Maury Povrich Show'---one of those daytime TV hate-fests that passes for entertainment. Anyway, his topic was DV against women and brought on a guy who admitted to abusing his wife.
First, I thought it was strange that a lowlife like this would go on national TV and confess to felonies, but when he started talking (or rather, screaming) he went off about how feminism has corrupted women and how women 'need to be taught their place' and I noticed he repeated many phrases current in the Manosphere---along with some near verbatim quotes from some of the Game crowd and other Manosphere hangers-on. None of this had anything to do with the context of what he was accused of.
There was a psychologist there too and the guy's 'victimized' wife. The psychologist---obviously one of Povrich's jack-puddings---was leading the lynch-mob mentality of the crowd. He even said how this type of 'violence against women was being openly promoted on the Internet' and a few manginas in the crowd jumped up to agree. This whole melodrama ended when the wife threw out the husband (amid great fanfare) and agreed to let himself be abused just to learn how it feels (another dubious scenario).
Anybody who's read this far can, of course, see that this whole melodrama was totally faked and was a calculated attempt to portray men's rights advocates as violent thugs. I don't know if this program is available for viewing, but you can see the sickening depths to which our opponents have sunk.