Friday, November 07, 2014

What is "MGTOW"?

What is MGTOW?

MGTOW is an acronym that stands for "men going their own way". As the phrase might suggest, it signifies men travelling in a way they have freely chosen -- literally, "their own way".

In the context of history, MGTOW signifies the objective political reality where men, as a class, are currently situated. Under the system of feminist innovation which now predominates, men are effectively second-class citizens. Furthermore, the situation is not static, and what is presently so promises to become more so as the state of feminist innovation continues to evolve.

Under such conditions, the system of social-contractual obligation which formerly bound men to either women or society as a whole, is devoid of moral authority and may at discretion be nullifed.

Briefly stated, MGTOW signifies the death of the social contract and the liberation of all males into a system of individual agency where they are free to form ad hoc contracts on an individual basis.

MGTOW signifies merely freedom, leaving open the question of what should be done with it. Hence we use this term in a political or world-historic way, and would stipulate that the realm of personal relations does not fall within its purview.

MGTOW, as such, is not a cult, club, coterie or tribe of any sort -- and nothing in the present writing should be taken to imply this. Thus it is incorrect to attach the indefinite pronoun and speak of the individual as "a" MGTOW, since this implies club membership. In the end, MGTOW is no more than 1.) a principle or force of history, and 2.) a primitive situation map of the male condition.

What we have sketched here may be understod as the MGTOW core minimum. Anything less would insufficiently describe MGTOW, and anything more would be bells and whistles.

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

The Truth about Whiteribbon91

There is nothing even arguably untrue about the following tweet. Whiteribbon91 indeed IS a feminist organization, indeed DOES promote feminist ideology, and indeed does NOT work to end violence:

Friday, October 31, 2014

Jessica Valenti: Racist. . . Sexist. . . Feminist!

The trouble with being a "public figure", is that you are always standing in a pulpit that could turn into a pillory at a moment's notice.

So the lesson is, that if you are a public figure, it behooves you not to be a public asshole, lest you get pilloried.

Jessica Valenti, being a feminist, is naturally a strong, empowered woman. So I'm sure she understands this.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

It's Official: All Feminists ARE 'Like That'!

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Feminism is Morally Bankrupt

Saturday, October 25, 2014

One More Time: Feminism IS What We Say it Is

Friday, October 24, 2014

Nicht-Feminist, Berlin Chapter - November Meeting

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

The War for Inner Space

Please retweet, If you've a mind to do so.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Vanguard Report -- Episode No. 22

Episode No. 22 of the Vanguard Report, with Nick Reading and Fidelbogen.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Hatred of Men is Feminism's Operative Core Principle

 Judging by the number of retweets in the last 24 hours, this item has struck a sweet spot in the zeitgeist.  Apparently, it's what a lot of people are avid to hear right now. So you can keep the ball rolling by hitting that button too!

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Lake Washington

Here is a photograph I took today. (Click to enlarge.) I am sharing because. . . well, just because! Enjoy.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Feminist Lying Deconstructed -- Again!!

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Feminism is What We Say it Is -- and Here's Why

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Feminist Subjectivism

Friday, September 26, 2014

Worth-Based Entitlement - A Repost

Here is a blog post from a couple of years ago, which I found worthy of a dust-off and second run:

find no good reason to believe that women are uniquely "oppressed", or that their sufferings in life transcend the common lot of humanity. And more, I can see a strong case that men have it worse in many ways.

But feminist theory maintains that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, and specifically names women as a "political sex class". Moreover, feminist preaching for many years has openly incited women to see themselves in such terms. Such is the sisterhood trope. Furthermore, the last half-century has witnessed a mushrooming growth of women's advocacy groups, lobbying groups, government bureaux, and all manner of special services for women both public and private.

But it doesn't end with blind favoritism toward women. No. The state of matters takes a malignant turn when you consider that female citizens presently enjoy disproportionate power to compromise the well-being of male citizens. As simply as we can put it, women have the power to lie about men with impunity, in a way that seriously harms them. And that power, being vested in laws and institutions, becomes a political power and makes women a political class.

To put this another way, it is not women, but MEN who are "oppressed". Oppression, as feminist theory informs us, is structural. It is rooted not in the power of individuals, but in the power of institutions made disproportionately available to some groups and not others. And when the disfavored group feels the institutionally-based power of the favored group like a boot on its neck, only then may we correctly say that "oppression" is taking place. So that is why men (not women) are the oppressed group in today's civilization -- because the power of women to harm men is embodied in laws and institutions. In other words, structurally. If we are to hold the feminists to the letter of their own law, we must insist that they acknowledge this.

What we have related here tilts the political board against men as a group. In light of this, we feel no hesitation in stating that men, as a group, have no political obligation to go to bat for women as a group. Under the circumstances, why should they? Rationally speaking, men would do best to look out for themselves as individuals and to form contracts of mutual assistance in order to multiply the benefit. No consideration, either moral or utilitarian, can inspire me with any sense of duty toward women as a group. This would be true even in the best of times, but is doubly true at present, when men are an oppressed class.

Therefore any individual woman I meet will get special consideration from me only as an individual, and only if she proves herself worthy. And clearly, some will prove themselves worthier than others. This way of thinking entails no "misogyny" because it entails no opinion, either good or ill, about women as a group.

Now, misogyny means disaffection toward women irrespectively. Hence, even if you were to form a bad opinion about every female person on earth, it would not entail misogyny if you had weighed each case on its merits. You would merely harbor a bad opinion about this woman, that woman, and the next woman -- but not about women.

I am far from having evaluated every woman on earth, and I know my life is too short to do that. So I am content to say that I harbor no opinion either good or ill about the huge majority of women, but that as I make their acquaintances I will evaluate them one at a time. Then, according to the case, I will form a social contract binding myself to specific behaviors. Upon that base alone, I will decide what, if anything, I "owe" to the individual in question. In this, I do just as I would do with any man -- I am entirely even-handed.

Yes. Characterization by merit is a first principle, and it frames my conduct toward everyone I meet. Nobody, man or woman, is "entitled" to anything save what I, by my good pleasure, bountifully proffer -- and calculation of merit weighs considerably in that dispensation. In short, I study the manifested qualities of other people in living form, and work from there.

But prudential considerations are always uppermost in my thinking, with an eye to rational self-preservation grounded in a prescience of natural consequences. My policy, then, entails a strategizing sense of  the Kantian hypothetical imperative: "If you want the world to be X, you must do Y and Z." The reason is, that if you fail to do Y and Z, then by natural consequence the world will not be X.

So in the end, although my conduct is governed purely by a moral law within myself, that moral law is framed by the considerations which I have sketched above. I should add that it never hurts to get on my good side. Deal squarely and rightly with me, and I shall be the truest friend you could ask for. Otherwise, things might get sticky.

Feminism views women as an entitled class, and fails to hold them accountable as individuals. I find this both pernicious and unworkable, and for that reason (among many others) I reject feminism as a movement and as an ideology. I disavow it. I disclaim ownership in it.  I repudiate the cultural narrative which it imposes and I wash my hands of any project predicated on any aspect of  that narrative.

Briefly then, I am not a feminist and no power in the universe will force me to become one.

Finally, no woman I shall ever meet may exercise any claim upon me in the name of feminism, or under color of feminism in any form. She is entitled to nothing until she proves to me that she is worth something.

Such is worth-based entitlement.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Diplomatic Protocol that Every Feminist Must Follow

It doesn't matter how many non-feminists might waive this rule in practice. It is still the rule, and any feminist who won't abide by it may be disregarded and dismissed.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Damning Definition of a 'White Knight'

The best definition of a "white knight" ever given, bar none! And I wrote it.

If you agree, please retweet this.

Friday, September 19, 2014

They Must Walk Their Talk

Long Comment at KSU Sentinel

I have left the following reader comment at the Kennesaw State University Sentinel, in regard to article about the KSUM organization. The comment is of sufficient heft to make a decent blog post, so. . . why not?

I commend Ashli Howell for respecting protocol, by forthrightly disclosing her position as "feminist", and by doing so right at the beginning of her article. Many feminists try to be shifty about this, so it is good to see that Ms. Howell is an exception. 

I will disclose my own position. I am non-feminist. 

The purpose of KSUM, is to establish a non-feminist social and intellectual oasis (or "safe space", as some might call it). Ms. Howell clearly objects to  such a thing at Kennesaw, so I can only assume that she'd rather silence non-feminist voices in academia, and maintain the feminist hegemony. 

Ms. Howell's stance, as revealed in the article, is clearly that of feminist subjectivism. To merely call oneself a "feminist" bestows no authority to tell others what is or is not feminism. We all live in the same world and have access to the same information, hence we are all entitled to draw conclusions as we see fit and discuss these accordingly. That is especially true in academia, where the free exchange of ideas ought to be held in high esteem.  
So if the non-feminist group KSUM wishes to "critique feminism for the damage it has caused due to its inherent hatred of males," then I say "full speed ahead". Those sound like pretty serious matters, yet I get the impression that Ms. Howell doesn't want them to be talked about at all. But surely, feminism OUGHT to be critiqued for its inherent hatred of males, and for the damage this has caused. To me, that sounds like an urgent issue, and I can't help wondering why Ashli Howell would want to sweep it under the rug. 
Ashli Howell devotes a long paragraph to discussing AVFM, but apparently doesn't notice that AVFM is not KSUM. These are separate organizations. Nor is there really such a thing as "the men's rights movement" -- apart from the phrase itself, there is no monolithic entity or point source that one may properly assign that title to. As the saying goes, "there is no 'there' there."

Moving along . . .  I have a problem with the following statement: 

"The final problem I have is that the men’s rights movement really misses the mark. They believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man."

Ms. Howell misses the mark here, for reasons explained above, namely, that there is  no "men's rights movement" in a concretely identifiable sense.  As such, it is simply misleading to suggest that  "they (who is "they"?) believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man." That generalization has no warrant, and does no credit to the author.

The bottom line is, that if there is to be any meaningful discussion of feminism, and its implication in men's problems, and its coexistence with the non-feminist community at KSU or anywhere on Earth, then "the hate has got to stop" -- and that means from all directions. "Extremist" feminists are not the issue here. All of feminism is the issue here, because all of feminism is implicated. 

It is simply not possible to discuss men's issues in isolation from a broader critique of feminism. Certain conversations must (and will) take place, and academia has always been the venue of choice for such talk. 

KSU, by providing a space for such discourse, can make itself a shining example to schools everywhere, and to the world at large.
The article to which this was attached, may be viewed here. Hopefully it will not get moderated:

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Feminism is What We Say It Is

Kindly retweet this ^^, if you've a mind to do so.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

That's Right: We Just Want to Attack Feminism!

The following brief statement was posted by somebody, somewhere on the internet. I share it here because, in my opinion, it neatly summarizes what needs to be summarized:

"Why work to end feminism instead of men's human rights violations? The former engenders those violations and organizes to frustrate our efforts to end them."

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Watch this Video!

I reckon they lay out a pretty sensible philosophy here . . . don't you think so? ;)

Friday, September 12, 2014

A Minor Skirmish on the Twitter Front

I offer the following brief vignette by way of example, to show how men and women (in this case, myself and Kristal Garcia the Honey Badger!) can work together to open a can of whoopass (metaphorically speaking) on feminism:

This ^^ is small stuff, on a small scale, but the underlying principle of operation is the important thing here.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Thought for the Moment: On MGTOW

I acknowledge and respect the MGTOW principle in its world-historic aspect. 

By "MGTOW principle", I mean the morally justified prioritization of male self-interest as against the anti-male zeitgeist of the feminist regime.

However, I disavow any human group, clique or club which sticks the label "MGTOW" to itself. 

Hopefully, that clears things up. ;)

A Lot of People Don't Want to Talk About Feminism

A "conspiracy theorist" recently twitted the above ^^ at me.

So why am I presenting this? What is the takeaway point here? What is the object lesson?

It is this: that a lot of people want to steer the conversation away from feminism. Some of these people are feminists, others are not, and their motives will vary.

And yet, they all want to steer the conversation away from feminism.

Sort of makes you go "hmmm", doesn't it?

Well. . . counter-feminist analysis holds that we must keep feminism, as a topic, front and center.

But if I were to reply to "EqualB4Law", I would start by granting, just for the sake of argument, that the Illuminati are real. Then I would define "feminism" as a tool of the illuminati, and would quickly suggest that we ought to wreck their tools.

Yes, I am a strong believer in fighting the power by wrecking their tools.

Hey, you never know, the Illuminati might just turn out to be real. But whichever way it rolls we've got our bases covered, and we are reclaiming power in a very real way.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 16: The Application of Feminist Collectivism

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Feminist Micro-Aggression: Sneaky Language

Here is what I call "allegation by induction". Notice how feminist Shanleigh MacKenzie means to say that I am "threatened by women having power", but is too dishonest to be straightforward about this. By avoiding a direct accusation, and by not seeming to address me at all, she leaves me no ground from which to formulate a response to her insinuation. But I knew how to put her in her place, tartly:

Are the Feminists Planning a Smear Attack on the Computer Gaming Community?

Are the feminists planning a smear attack on the computer gaming community? Go to the following Reddit post, look at what is presented there, and consider the matter for yourself:

We make no claims, but we are presenting this material for the consideration of the world. We know what kind of people feminists and "social justice warriors" are, and how they operate, and we certainly don't put such a thing past them.

But still, we cannot pretend to know anything for certain. So, decide for yourself.

And if so inclined, share this widely by publicizing the Reddit link given above.

Thank you.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Thoughts for the Moment

The following are two forms of feminist aggression that should be harshly called out whenever they occur:

1. Failing to engage you as a non-feminist individual, and instead treating you as part of a collective.

2. Making YOU the subject of conversation, rather than the topic at hand.

Short form: You are an individual, and the conversation is not about you. 

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode 15: The Poison Manifesto

Due to a last-minute emergency, this episode consists mainly of Fidelbogen reading the Poison Manifesto. But the originally scheduled episode 15 will be rolled over into episode 16, next week.

The Poison Manifesto may be read online at the following address:

A PDF copy of the Poison Manifesto for offline reading and distribution, is available here:

The illustration for this week's YouTube version is a 19th-century lithograph depicting the infamous Five Points district in old New York. 

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 14: Critique of MGTOW, and Other Topics

Monday, August 25, 2014


Sunday, August 24, 2014

Nicht-Feminist Deutschland - auf Berlin

Okay, I realize that most of this blog's readers live oceans apart from Germany and cannot attend the meeting advertised here, but I thought I would share this just for the international flavor.

Counter-Feminist Plans for 2014 Edmonton Walk-a-Mile Parade

Please tweet this, and skype this, and Facebook this, and e-mail this, and Reddit this, and propagate this in every way that occurs to you.

Academic Feminism and Pop Feminism

Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: Academic feminism (more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them.

Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual vanguard -- so that the snake will have a head, in other words. The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers -- so that the snake will have a body, in other words. 

Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.