Radical Feminist Typescript by Ti-Grace Atkinson - From 1969
I recommend that you archive this and share copies.
The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
"In 1841 Scottish journalist Charles Mackay published a history of popular folly called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a rather sensationalistic overview of the irrationality that occasionally seizes an entire society or nation. Most famous are his economic examples, like the 1840s “Railway Mania,” as well as the notorious South Sea Bubble (1711-20) and the Dutch “tulip mania” of the early 17thcentury.
Common to all the delusions Mackay cited was the enormous disparity between the confident enthusiasm these commodities evoked as the path to wealth and the lack of reliable evidence to support such an assumption.
If Mackay were living today, he would doubtless add “rape culture” to his long list of popular delusions. . . ."If that snippet intrigues you (and it should), then you will certainly want to read the entire article, published in the Canadian "National Post" online journal:
"on both sides, I've got evergreens with moderate-to-thick snow frosting. . . beyond the trees. . on my right, though, is a frozen lake, the end of which I cannot see"My response to Nick's description was, that it sounded very Canadian and north-woodsy.
"If a woman is raped, other women react. There is no such thing as an isolated attack on an individual woman. All women are us! When a sister is raped, it is a rape of the sisterhood and cannot go unpunished! The sisterhood is WATCHING!!!"This placard was posted by a feminist group in Edmonton, Alberta, called "the Garneau Sisterhood" - named after Edmonton's Garneau District. Here we see a group of feminist vigilantes who claim to speak for "women" in the abstract. These feminist vigilantes give women in the abstract a special name, "the sisterhood", and they imply that when an individual woman is raped (or "attacked"), then women in the abstract have also been raped.
". . .What ive noticed is that language has great perspective influence. A great number of non-feminist individuals unwittingly fall into the trap of using feminist syntax in a counter argument engagement with feminists. This is because feminists have had quite a head start in infusing their language into the general public and have been very successful in doing so. In order to counter their influence the language must be identified and replace with a counter set of non-feminist vocabulary. . . I remember your attempts to call-out the use of "gender." It didn't really catch on. I think in-part because there was no other word suggested to replace it. I correctly use the term "sex" in its place. This has seemed to work for shifting the dialogue in feminist confrontations. There are also other terms e.g. "Gender roles," "positions of power," "male dominated," "sexist violence" etc... These kinds of terms must be identified and countered with non feminist syntax. Ive been working on it and have received positive results."
Power Is - To Control the Narrative
The present video will enlarge on some of the themes given in the previous video. Look in the lowbar for a link to that video.
We have explained how feminism seeks ultimate power and control through control of the narrative - or the "story", as we called it. Reality, you see, is infinitely complex (or nearly so), and many interpretations are possible. Clearly then, whoever can boost a given interpretation of reality to the top of the stack, and get this generally accepted, will hold the trump card in the game of intellectual one-upsmanship.
There are many names for this: Controlling the story. . . controlling the narrative.....controlling the conversation. . . controlling the frame. . . . controlling the paradigm. . controlling the discourse. All these phrases mean pretty much the same thing. They mean that you initialize the parameters - and if you can do THAT, you've got the first word in the discussion, and whatever follows will bear the stamp of this in one way or another.
We are aware that feminism effectively controls the narrative in our present culture, and almost every talk with a feminist - or even the average non-feminist - is overshadowed by this central fact. The counter-feminist project works to re-engineer this state of affairs.
To that end, we have devised a method called the two-frame system, which serves to clarify our thought, facilitate our work, and give us the upper hand in general.
Simply put, this system is a way of organizing the message around not one, but two distinctly separate narrative frames which, taken together, capture the holistic reality of what confronts us. Following is a short description of the two frames:
1. The first narrative frame is the binary of feminist v. non-feminist.
This comes first because it sets the foundation. Our base conflict is with FEMINISM - and everything else unfolds from this. One is either feminist or not, and whatever complication the future might hold, that sets the entire business on a footing of bedrock simplicity.
We build half the message around this conflict between feminism and non-feminism, and the general public will hear us talking about this roughly half the time. Please note that by non-feminism we mean all forces, factors and things, human or otherwise, which compose the universe exclusive of feminism.
Please note further that when we speak of feminism, we mean feminism as we define the word - not as any feminist would define it. For us, the core of NON-FEMINISM is that we don't let feminism control the discourse - and when we define feminism on our own terms, we take the critical first step in that direction.
This step - the act of defining feminism - is the elemental and symbolic gesture whereby we, as non-feminist men and women, specifically TAKE POWER. That power is not given to us - we take it. More precisely: we take it back. In so doing, we initialize and crystallize our non-feminist identity, and we set the stage for everything that follows.
All of this, and more, is embraced within the binary of feminist v. non-feminist. I should add that we say "non-feminist" rather than "anti-feminist" for considered reasons to be explored elsewhere.
2. The second narrative frame, is the binary of anti-male v. pro-male.
By establishing this frame, we make known that the WAR AGAINST MEN is real. It is a foundational fact, and all of our work takes this fact into account. The second frame instills the necessary awareness by separating one decisive moral posture (anti-male) from another (pro-male).
We build half the message around this narrative of conflict between anti-male and pro-male, and that is what the general public will hear us talking about roughly half the time.
Frame number two reminds us that feminism is nothing if not a war against men. That is how feminism starts - as a war against men. But men are half the human race, and in the end there is no way to contain such a conflict. So the feminist war is bound to escalate, to spread, to inflict collateral damage, and to become a war against the world at large
Thus we may speak of feminism's war against men one moment, and a moment later speak of feminism's war against the world. There is no confusion about this, for both speeches declare the true state of things.
That concludes our description of the two narrative frames.
Our counter-feminist effort is to take back control of the cultural narrative from feminism, and the two-frame system gives us the tools for the job. Each frame provides a way both to understand the problem and to communicate what we have understood. Neither frame alone supplies the full picture, but taken together they yield, so to speak, an image of holographic character.
In discourse - both public and private - we are aware from moment to moment that we are using either one frame or the other, and we choose the proper frame for the task at hand. With practice, we learn to toggle quickly between frames.
Accordingly, we might start off advocating narrowly for "men's rights" (frame 2), but suddenly toggle the frame and speak broadly of a feminist v. non-feminist narrative (frame 1), only to switch back to men's rights (frame 2) half a minute later.
Each frame provides not only a necessary insight into the nature of the problem, but a tactical advantage as the moment requires. For example, frame number one might give you the upper hand in a certain setting, where frame number two might work better somewhere else.
By trial and error, we achieve mastery of a fine-tuned effect.
Continued application of the two-frame system, by a disciplined team transmitting to the general public, will instill this counter-feminist meta-narrative into a critical number of minds. It will then become possible to flank the feminist narrative and force its gradual retreat.
Details will be shared out gradually in future videos.