Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Political Efficiency of Non-Violence
First, consider Malcolm X, who famously stated that "there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution". He was right. Any revolution at all harbors violence at least in the sense of violation, meaning a discontinuity which violates a ground of understanding or authority. The operative term is discontinuous, and this postulates an abrupt change of state. There is nothing seamless about revolution.
Any revolution worth the name involves, more or less, a paradigm shift. More to the point, it involves violation of a paradigm in the form of a breakout. And how do you break out of a paradigm? The same way you break out of anything else -- by breaking something! And it is violent to break things, is it not?
But I admit that Malcolm X could have meant "violence" in a layman's understanding of the term. That is, down-and-dirty physical violence, or threat of such, or anything approaching the boundary of such. If nothing else, a confrontation where voices are raised, emotions run high, and somebody eventually backs off while somebody else prevails. So as you might conclude, "violence" embraces quite a spectrum.
Next, consider Mohandas Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence who certainly tried his hand at revolution, although he did this far too soon to benefit from Malcolm X's 1963 wisdom. Well Gandhi certainly faced his share of violence, and violence ultimately ended his life. Yet he did pull India out of the British empire. Didn't he? I think it is safe to call that a revolution.
As I said, Malcolm X was right -- there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution. Not only are establishments notorious for never giving up their power without a fight, but revolution would not be revolution in the first place if it did not entail a violation. That is what "violence" means: violation.
You must break eggs to make omelettes.
So how did Gandhi make his revolution happen non-violently? The answer is, that he didn't. Or at any rate, not precisely. Let's take another look at Malcolm X's precept. He says that there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution, but what are we entitled to conclude from this? I would say, only that no revolution correctly so-called can be effectuated without the admixture of violence somewhere along its timeline.
But that says nothing about the source of the violence. It does not stipulate that the dissidents should be violent against the establishment, only that violence should occur somewhere in the mix of events. So it could just as easily be the establishment cracking down on the dissidents. That too would count as violence, and would stamp the character of violence upon the revolutionary process.
The non-feminist revolution, like any other revolution, will entail violence because it will entail violation. The ruling cultural paradigm, that of feminism, is being unceremoniously booted out of our lives -- and that is surely a violation of intellectual protocol, if nothing else. Those on the receiving end (the feminists themselves) will experience this as an abrupt, wrenching change -- almost like a quantum jump, owing to its discontinuity.
Recent events at the University of Toronto, in Canada, have been revelatory in the field of revolutionary violence. On three separate occasions, speakers were scheduled to give public lectures on matters pro-male or critical of the feminist establishment. And each time, anti-male partisans greeted the event with behavior that could well be classed as violent. Their purpose was manifestly political: to block open expression, within the academic community, of ideas that could undermine the accepted paradigm of that community -- that is, the accepted ground of understanding or authority.
Putting it simply, Toronto was a turf war. The anti-male rioters perfectly understood the critical nature of the conflict. They of course understood the symbolic significance of the occasion. But further, they knew that if the non-feminist side could proselytize unmolested in what they (the rioters) consider "their" territory, it would be a game changer. It would signal that the non-feminist side has "come up in the world" and gained institutional legitimation. So the anti-male rioters were repelling an attack upon their shore, to keep the enemy from gaining a beach head that would ease the way for incursions further inland. Their naked, hysterical fear was quite evident.
The greatly outnumbered non-feminist contingent acted with restraint and coolness, and did credit to itself. Nothing in their comportment hinted at violence. And yet, a rarified form of violence was undoubtedly present, or at least implicit. I mean violence of a purely spiritual or cerebral kind. It may have lacked noise, physical impact or other such dramatic elements, but it was a violation of the most profound sort. A paradigm of understanding and authority was being openly, if non-physically, called into question, and the implications were of such enormity as to summon a reaction that might seem wildly disproportionate.
What prompted all the fuss and feathers? A pair of staid middle-aged authors were making a speech about a serious social problem, namely misandry: the pervasive hatred of men and maleness in the culture at large. Now, surely we ought to look into something like that, and if possible, remedy the situation. Don't you think so? I would certainly think so. Furthermore, I would commend the authors, Nathanson and Young, for their active moral conscience, and I would encourage them to give lectures at every possible venue.
But as we have seen, it is no easy thing to make an openly pro-male speech on a college campus. Many people in such settings simply do not want the possible reality of misandry to be referenced in any way, and if you try to do this they will try to shut you up by force. In other words, by violence. They clearly hate to be told that man-hating exists at all. Their screaming paroxysms and their 'Lord of the Flies' stick-poundings bear eloquent witness to this.
The anti-male "Femistasi" group in Vancouver was whipped into a similar rage by the statement that men's rights are human rights. Evidently they don't approve of male human rights, and the mere concept of such a thing makes them rabidly angry.
Friends, it looks like we are on the side of Ralph and Piggy. That's the sort of revolutionaries we are.
So again, revolution is a violent process, meaning that violence is involved at every level. First comes the violence of intellectual audacity needed to break out of a paradigm. Next, any form of violence meted out by defenders of that paradigm. And finally, any form of violence meted out by the attackers of the paradigm in response to the defenders. Such is our template of revolution as extrapolated from Malcolm X, and it is a true vision. It comports with the facts of the world.
Malcolm X stated the facts, but Gandhi astutely put them to work. He apparently understood that violence in a raw, dramatic form comes at a cost because it can very easily make you look like the bad guy. He also apparently understood that abstention from violence virtually never makes you look like the bad guy. He understood that if you confine your violence to only the most rarified forms of paradigm violation, you would drive your opponent into an untenable position -- to either inflict raw, dramatic violence at the risk of discrediting himself, or to do nothing at all and leave you free to move your plans forward unmolested.
Gandhi's method, if ideally practiced, amounts to nothing but the violence of a pinprick which ends the life of a balloon. Even so, the principle holds true that no revolution happens without violence or violation in some form. Feminism, with its genius for playing the victim, seems to have imbibed, in a perverted way, the spirit of Gandhi. Feminists will use every trick imaginable to reverse the narrative in their favor, and either provoke actual violence from their opposition, or elaborately lie about it. Such is the art of the threat narrative, of which the feminists are past masters.
I have concluded that our best plan is to out-Gandhi the feminists. In principle, this is not difficult. We have seen how morbidly sensitive they are, when any threat to their paradigm looms on the horizon. That is when they "lose it", and do unwise things, and make fools of themselves. And this happens right readily, for the tree of feminist folly is heavy with fruit and need only be shaken. A threat to their paradigm, even a subtle one, is a pinch they will keenly feel -- and keen too, will be their reaction. Thus far, their reaction has consisted of yelling, pounding, ripping, lying and journalistic smearing. These operations attain a certain point on the violence spectrum, though not, I grant you, the utmost. But as matters predictably escalate, so too will the level of violence.
Such is the nature of revolutions. We ought to be on the lookout for this, and what's more, we ought to be careful that none of that revolutionary violence comes from our side. Let THEM be the violent ones -- that is, let them be the ones who look like the bad guys. They have already damaged themselves plenty, by their behavior, and we know that if we only push their buttons in the right combinations, they'll repeat the performance .They can barely hold themselves in check, and not for long.
If the anti-male rioters had been wise, they would have stayed home and let the scheduled events take place in peace. But they were not wise, and so they gave our side valuable publicity while giving themselves absolutely awful publicity. Of course, they were in a bind and they knew it, for if they had stayed home they would have symbolically surrendered the field and admitted the right of pro-male groups to operate on "their" campus. They figured they had to make some kind of gesture, and so they did, but they did it very discreditably. In the end, they showed the world just how much they hated the idea of male human rights.
A word to our side. All who see themselves as part of the pro-male, non-feminist vanguard should openly espouse the principle of non-violence, and reiterate this regularly in a way that the broader public will undoubtedly hear it. And when you form a non-feminist organization or co-movement of any kind, you should state this principle in your manifesto in no uncertain terms. Run that manifesto, as it were, up the flagpole, so that you need only point to it and say, "THAT, right there! That is what we stand for!"
Let us categorically repudiate all physical violence apart from that which self-defense requires, and let us stand quietly with our arms folded while the other side comes slowly to a boil. Let the world see this. If there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution, then let theirs be the raw, dramatic violence, and let ours be merely the intellectual violation that we have committed against the feminist regime and its cultural paradigm.
From such a strategy, we can only gain, and they can only lose.
Fidelbogen. . . .out.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Message to Non-Feminist Women -- Full Playlist
The message in this three-part video series needs to be rammed into a few brains again, in light of recent statements by a certain prominent MHRM personality, and in light of the angry reactions which these statements have triggered.
My own position, given in this series, is neither a "MGTOW" stance, nor the stance taken by the unfortunate individual whom the irate "MGTOWs" were roasting. Rather, my position is the impeccably counter-feminist Fidelbogian position. So as you might expect, it is something a bit different.
Okay, a LOT different!
Warning: the full runtime for the playlist is close to an hour.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
The Fault is in Our Semantics
"Equality"? One thinks of Robespierre, who proposed to chop down all the domes and steeples in Paris in order to make the skyline "equal". But Robespierre himself got chopped and equalized before that project got rolling.
Seriously though -- rather than "equality", why don't we just strive for an equitable balance of life?
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Feminism Shows Its True Colors Again!
Just remember: this is as close to a statement of quintessential feminism as you will find anywhere outside the Redstockings Manifesto. And while it may be literally true that "not all feminists are like that", you must never forget that, yes indeed, all feminism is like that! The trajectory of the feminist future is ALWAYS in the direction suggested by this article. So be not deceived by the presence of mild-mannered or moderate feminists -- they are mere camouflage. Nothing but camouflage.
Yet radical feminists cannot keep their mouths shut for long. Sooner or later, one of them will always pop up (as we see at HuffPo) and let the cat out of the bag. That is their most useful quality. Never forget that the radfems are the TRUTH about feminism. The moderate feminists are a lie.
More about feminism's true colors "mansplained" below. (Click to enlarge.):
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Friday, May 03, 2013
GirlWritesWhat Addresses the New York Libertarian Party
What is the Non-Feminist Revolution?
We have chosen the word "revolution" not because it sounds cool and glamorous, but because no better terminology occurs to us. A revolution is a thing which overturns or abrogates a system of authority, and does so without seeking permission. Indeed, it would be an ironic kind of revolution that would say to the targeted regime "may I overthrow you?". But the non-feminist revolution is nothing of that sort.
On the contrary, the non-feminist revolution works to reverse the entire spectrum of adverse consequences which feminist innovation has introduced. By this means, it nullifies the feminist project in toto. It works as a primordial energy upon a distributed range of attack points, and not all of the humans involved will intellectualize the meaning of their actions. That is, they might not be aware that they are compromising feminism as such. They might only be reacting to life conditions, yet the combined effect of their actions will undermine the feminist power structure from many directions.
As you might guess, the non-feminist revolution does not compose an identifiable human target group. It has no clear demographic profile and no membership roster. Rather, it operates as a cloud of forces manifesting through human actions which can sometimes be politically linked to each other, but other times not.
The people lazily called "MRAs" are not the non-feminist revolution but only a conspicuous manifestation within it -- rather like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. And like the Great Red Spot, the "MRA" vortex will eventually dissipate. Yet the Jovian turbulence that originally spawned it will continue.
The boundary between MRA and non-MRA becomes meaningless when you consider the holistic nature of the non-feminist revolution. So-called MRAs are on a continuum with every form of non-feminist reality there is, and the feminist obsession with "MRAs" misses the forest for the trees. This myopia shall be their undoing.
Ever since recognizing the existence of the non-feminist revolution, our interest has been to harness the energy of it so as to make it politically efficient. To make the non-feminist revolution politically efficient means both to minimize the transit time from a feminist world to a post-feminist world, and to minimize any chaos and human misery that might go along with this.
The project to harness the non-feminist revolution is broadly termed counter-feminism. It is the mountain top view. The gameboard view. The vanguard view. And yes, a revolution needs a vanguard if it is to be distinguished from chaos. Gut reactions might arise from broad masses of people, but politically efficient plans assuredly do not. Therefore, somebody might as well give it a go. If they don't, somebody else will.
Please note that feminism is a utopian project not unlike the pursuit of a rainbow. Some might call it dystopian in practice, but in the minds of its participants it aims at a perfected future state of life.
Counter-feminism is not utopian. It aims only at the disappearance of feminism and harbors no blueprint for a perfected post-feminist state of life. Counter-feminism considers both feminism and non-feminism to be flawed states, but counts the latter preferable to the former. In the end, the role of counter-feminism is simply that of midwife to a post-feminist consciousness.
The project of feminism is to increase the power of women with no specified limit. More tersely stated, feminism is female supremacism, since that term describes the logical outcome of such a project. However, it is not amiss to suspect that the unconstrained growth of female power will generate natural consequences, and that these consequences are not bound to be pleasant or tidy. And this describes the character of the non-feminist revolution -- it is the natural order of life bursting chaotically through the structure of feminist innovation and reasserting itself.
When water breaks through a dam and roars away downstream, sweeping all before it, the scene is chaotic. But it does not remain that way, for the chaos is a healing crisis, the natural consequence of something that should never have been permitted to develop in the first place. And at last, the water will settle down into a tranquil stream again.
It is even so with the non-feminist revolution and its chaotic manifestion. Forces of nature can be that way, especially when they are unnaturally pent up in defiance of common sense. These things are predictable. And political revolutions follow a similar pattern -- it is best to initiate reforms well before the crisis comes to fever pitch. If you wait too long, you get dérapage. You get Jacobinism and Sansculottism and reigns of terror and all manner of unpleasantness.
Let it be our endeavor, therefore, to ease the transition to a post-feminist world and keep the bad stuff to a minimum. Let us reduce the non-feminist revolution to the most politically efficient order possible.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Who the Hell Is Matt Forney?
So brethren, make of it what thou wilt.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Innocent Boy Accused of Rape and Beaten to Death
Five killers carried out the 'extraordinarily callous, violent and brutal' murder of a teenager after the sister of one wrongly claimed he had raped her, a court heard today.
Luke Harwood, 18, was punched and kicked to death by the gang, who planned to slice off his fingers and pull out his teeth so the body could not be identified.If you are keen to hear more, read the full story as follows:
The victim, who was 5ft 7ins tall and weight just seven stone, had the misfortune to move into a council house when Alice Hall, who made the false allegation, was there, the Old Bailey heard.Even though the case had been dropped, Hall claimed again that she had been attacked by Harwood, the court was told.Her sister Emma Hall, 21, and four friends killed Mr Harwood by 'punching and kicking and stamping on his head many times,' said prosecutor Simon Denison.
So, I reckon this must be that notorious "rape culture" which the feminists like to talk about, yes?
I mean, it surely is a "culture", and it surely pertains to "rape". And so that surely makes it a "rape culture". Right?
Now before anybody gets too excited, I should remind you that we live under the patriarchy. And although it is regrettable what happened to young Luke Harwood, please bear in mind that under patriarchy women are oppressed. And likewise under patriarchy, men are privileged. Therefore, Luke Harwood was not "oppressed", and even though he suffered, he was actually privileged. But he was not oppressed. Do you follow what I am saying? Bear in mind also, that patriarchy hurts men too. So the four boys and the girl who murdered young Luke were just doing the work of the patriarchy here. And young Luke was privileged to have been hurt by the patriarchy. Or something like that. But he was not oppressed. Do you follow what I'm saying? Well you're pretty damned smart then, because I sure as hell don't follow what I'm saying.
Hopefully some feminist will get in here and straighten this out for us, and explain why Fidelbogen is a misogynistic asshole for writing the present blog post.
Afterthought: This story is every bit as horrific and newsworthy as the recent Steubenville debacle. No. It is much worse. And it supports a very different narrative.
Want to bet how much worldwide press coverage it will get? Ahh...the gentle sound of crickets.....
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
I Will be on AVfM Radio Tonight
More information here:
Monday, April 29, 2013
The Atlantic Publishes Crap Journalism
My own brief contribution was the following. (Click to enlarge.):
By the way, it is HUGELY significant that this story is even showing up at all on the Atlantic's radar screen. They felt driven to report the story for some reason, and I must conclude this was because they felt they couldn't ignore it.
A Modest Proposal for Solving the Rape Problem
Friday, April 26, 2013
Earl Silverman -- Rest in Peace
Tomorrow night, Saturday, April 26 2013, we will be airing a special episode of AVFM Radio, commemorating the life and work of Earl Silverman, the man who founded and operated the only refuge for battered men in Canada. Mr. Silverman committed suicide after the shelter, which was completely ignored by the Canadian Government, fell into hard economic times.
While the circumstances and precise reasons for his decision are not known at this time, we do know that Earl had struggled for years to provide services to men who needed to escape violent relationships. He was first exposed to that violence when he was married to an abusive woman. He sought out help for that and found there was none. Against all odds and in spite of the fact that the Canadian government summarily rejected all of his requests for funding, he pushed ahead with plans and provided services to battered men out of his own pocket and with meager contributions from a largely uncaring society.
Said one advocate today:
"The fellow I was staying with in Calgary hung himself this morning. He had spent 20 years fighting the courts and agencies of government to have men recognized as victims of domestic abuse worthy of equal treatment by the courts and government. He was frustrated because no one seemed to care or do anything about it. In his own case, he was victimized first by his ex and later by a system that didn't care to hear him. No [one] wanted to help the battle.”
His death has just been confirmed by the medical examiner to James Huff.
AVFM Founder Paul Elam will be co-hosting the show with Operations Director James Huff. We will also be trying to bring you someone who knew Earl on a personal level and can give us much better insights into his work and his experiences in his final days.
The call in number for the show is 310-388-9709. All MHRAs are invited to call the show in order to pay their respects to Earl Silverman.
www.blogtalkradio.c ... attachment
Monday, April 22, 2013
Got a Problem With Male Human Rights?
This article, as you will note, concerns the recent anti-male demonstrations at the University of Toronto. Please read the article carefully, and note the pattern, or rather sequence, which plays itself out.
First, an unabashed feminist acted like a dreadful pig. This feminist was captured on video and the video went viral on the internet, where the general population was exposed to it. A load of abusive and threatening comments were then directed at the feminist in question, or so we are told -- but not all of this is clearly substantiated, let alone vetted for authenticity.
A number of feminist supporters claim that the senders of the abusive material were something called "MRAs", yet proof is not given. For example, it is not known how many, if any, of the senders actually called themselves "MRAs" as opposed to merely being deemed such.
Furthermore, the term "MRA" is never properly defined in such a way that we could know if the terminological application is appropriate. If we were told precisely what an "MRA" supposedly is in the first place, we might hazard a guess whether the abusive commenters were actually in that class of people.
But Katie J.M. Baker offers no definition of terms. Therefore, all we've got to go on, is what the phrase itself plainly intones. The acronym "MRA" is said to mean "men's rights advocate", namely, one who is outspoken upon the subject of men's rights. The phrase contains nothing more than that, which means we are not entitled to conclude that an "MRA" is "a person who makes abusive statements or threats". Nor are we entitled to conclude that an "MRA" is a "stalker" or anything else of that nature.
Nothing in the phrase "men's rights advocate" even faintly hints at abusing, threatening, or stalking. I trust that I have made this point clear. If you impute anything further to the phrase "men's rights advocate", then you are reading more than the plain intention of the text will allow.
Very well, I would submit that Katie J.M. Baker is simply attacking the idea of men's rights in itself. For whatever reason, the idea that men (and boys) might have "rights" just like other people, does not sit well with her. But of course, she does not care to pronounce this openly because it wouldn't sound very nice to say "I don't think that men and boys have rights." So as feminists typically do, Ms. Baker conveys this feeling circumspectly, through the use of doubletalk. Yes, when Ms. Baker conflates men's rights advocacy with abuse and harrassment, it is the worst kind of doubletalk I can imagine.
Let me put it simply. Either you believe that men have rights just like other people -- namely, human rights -- or you do not. It is just that simple. Even if you stuck the "MRA" tag to every abuser or misogynist on Earth, it would detract nothing at all from the stand-alone premise that men's rights are human rights. Yet Katie J.M. Baker is attempting something quite along this line -- her logic (if you can call it that) comports perfectly with such a motivation, and scarcely at all with any other.
Although few if any of the abusive commenters were self-described "MRAs", it wouldn't matter one jot if ALL of them were. Even if every self-described "MRA" on earth were as bad as Ted Bundy, it would still make no difference. All that counts in the present discussion is the issue of "men's rights", and whether men are entitled to such. Everything else is extraneous baggage that needs to be thrown off the wagon.
Yes, if you agree that men's rights are human rights, it doesn't matter who says it. So if Ted Bundy said it, it would be no less true than if Jesus Christ said it.
But I would conclude that everything in Katie J.M. Baker's article is designed to mystify this point by use of an irrelevant diatribe. The impression I get is that Ms. Baker doesn't want men to have human rights, so if I am mistaken about that Ms. Baker had better speak up and make it clear to all the world.
Oh wait.....does this mean that I am harassing her?
Something else.The viral video has gotten over 300,000 views, only some of which generated comments. I mean, we are told only that "thousands" of comments arrived. However, of that number, not all would have been threatening or abusive. No doubt some of them were merely critical or insulting -- which seems about right in view of the redhaired feminist's appalling behavior. I mean, she needed to get some flack, in the same way that a local peer group might apply corrective social pressure to one of its misbehaving members. After all, such things are right and proper, and the cyber-age plays this timeless game by a whole new set of rules. By the end of the day, redhaired feminist is not such a special snowflake that she can't take peer correction from the human community -- she can jolly well suck it up and experience shame.
Bear in mind that the video would have gotten many views which generated no comments at all. So we are left to guess which percentage of those viewers were male human rights advocates. Remember, these viewers wrote nothing whatsoever -- which hardly makes them threatening abusers. And yet they too could be described as "MRAs". Couldn't they? You bet they could.
Not that it matters. The principle that men's rights are human rights is axiomatic, eternal and uncorruptible. Isn't it? You bet it is.
So Katie J.M. Baker, please get busy and explain why you feel that men's rights are not human rights.
And no, this is not harrassment. It is peer correction from a fellow member of the human community. You owe us an answer, Katie. And for your own sake, I'd think that you would want to clear up any possible misconceptions. I mean, if we non-feminist men and women are wrong, this is your chance to tell us why we are wrong.
So let us hear from you.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
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. And 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 as well, 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 not rooted in the power of individuals, but in the power of institutions made disproportionately available to some groups but 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 everybody 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 governed 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.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
I was just informed of this powerful, morally-outraged video. I think you will enjoy it as much as I did. Give it some traffic, okay?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Yes, Feminism IS a Hate Movement!
This above was posted as a video response to my own video titled "Is Feminism a Hate Movement."
I was honored, and immediately approved it. I think you will agree that it makes its point and pulls no punches. Enjoy!
Once Again: The True Face of Feminism
I have not contacted you for a while. I wish to draw your attention to a 5min clip of the ugly face of modern feminism. The footage was taken in Vancouver and Toronto. Modern feminism is demonstrably opposed to free speech and is completely ignorant and indifferent to male problems. Their preferred tactic is to vilify, insult and silence anyone they do not agree with. See for yourself:
Many of the aggressors in the film have been found to be students taking women's studies courses. If universities are churning out these bigoted people, is it not time that such courses were scrutinized for their academic standards?
Kind Regards.How, indeed, could anybody associate with feminism? This is why we fight.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Feminism is a Tool of the Patriarchy
This would mean that any dialogue predicated on the assumption that "patriarchy" even exists AT ALL, is a conversation that should not be happening. Full stop. As a non-feminist man or woman, you would have zero obligation to engage in such a conversation for any reason. And why? Because: such a conversation would be a feminist conversation, and as a non-feminist you may rightfully abstain. And any feminist who might engage you in feminist terms is just bloody ill-mannered and bound to apologize for the arrogant imposition and presumption.
That said, it also occurs to me that the idea of patriarchy is co-optable -- which means that we could make an exception to the above generalizations. I have sketched this idea lightly in the following comment that I left on Wooly Bumblebee's YouTube channel. (As always, click to enlarge.):
So as you can see, feminism and "the patriarchy" are actually business partners working to empower women for the purpose of keeping lower-ranking males in their place. The more you study the objective state of the world, the more sense this begins to make. (It always helps to entertain the question "cui bono?") Of course, this system would not work without an extensive network of male sycophants, white knights, poodle-boys, etc.... lending their support.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Ontario TV Interview With JTO and Dannyboy
See? That is what "men's rights looks like."
They're just folks, folks!
Although...if it had been me, I would have taken the opportunity to define feminism as "the project to increase the power of women." Then, without being too wordy, I would have added that the feminist project has no proposed endpoint short of some nebulous state called "equality". I would have concluded that since "equality" has no stable meaning, it can always be redefined or reinterpreted, so that in the end the feminist project is to increase female power without limit. That is to say, the feminist project is to bring about female supremacy by using "equality" as a rhetorical smokescreen.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Nathanson and Young Lecture -- Video
For some people, the idea that men's rights are human rights is a mighty hard pill to choke down. Evidently, it stuck in their craw that evening.
Yeah...it's a bitch to lose control of the social narrative, isn't it? Their hatred of the non-feminist sector is clear indeed.
But to be fair, a lot (not all!) of those little fascisti are just wet-behind-the-ears kids who sopped up everything their professor told them. So, we need to reach them with a different message. Forward with the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace! But hang onto your hat, 'cuz it's gonna get wild.
The Gathering Gloom and the Darkness in the Distance
In particular, the plan is continue, by other means, the traditional male obligation to sacrifice for women and to supply them with resources. But in tandem with that, a social fiction of female "independance" is to be constructed, by means of elaborate rhetoric and societal stage props. In this way, women who are so-inclined may go jauntily about the charade of "not needing a man", while depending on blood metaphorically wrung from men in order to sustain this.
All of the foregoing may then be combined with women's sexual bargaining power. Thereafter, through the witting or unwitting agency of women at large, the feminist project will maximize its domination of men both politically and in the realm of personal relations. In short, the feminist maxim that the personal is political will have been usefully brought to fruition. In the end, women will have more choices than ever and fewer obligations toward men. That is what the feminist project seeks to make real for women at large. But men and boys would be squeezed toward a condition that more and more approximates slavery -- although it would be considered bad form to call it that, and if you floated any such suggestion you would be branded an extremist, a misogynist, or some other dreadful thing.
This paints a grim tableau for the future -- grim not only for its predictions, but for the backstory it provides to the growing alienation among men toward women. I monitor these things pretty closely, and if you are a newcomer to all of this—especially a non-feminist woman wishing to help in some way—then I can hardly overstate the case: this is all very, very REAL, and is growing steadily worse.
You must understand that far too many women, whether self-declared feminists or not, seem to fall acquiescently into line with the things we are describing. In consequence, more and more men are drifting toward a settled conviction that women are mercenary animals who cannot be trusted. And you can hardly blame these men for feeling that way, when so much in our present-day culture conspires to lend weight and bear witness (if falsely?) to the possible veracity of such dark conclusions.
And yes: I BLAME FEMINISM!
For many years, the feminist endeavor has been to drive a wedge between men and women—to infect the atmosphere between them, to poison the water between them, to render normal, natural productive relations impossible between them. And the present deteriorating state of social existence will testify to the considerable success of feminist efforts.
Make no mistake: feminists are aggressive, driven, worldly-minded, "alpha" people—full of vanity and craving! They are not mellow. They are not laid-back. They are not philosophers. They do not have "the gift to be simple."
Feminism has willfully and skillfully set men and women at odds with each other, almost at each other's throats, by undermining their sense of shared interest and mutual obligation. Moral constraints upon women's behavior have been largely redefined as forms of "oppression" or "controlling" - as if anybody could hope to go through life with no occasional sense of "heaviness" and absolved from even self-control?
The feminists love to toss around the word "misogyny" as a kind of pan-womanistic moral atom-bomb device, a way to stampede ALL women into a state of cooperative moral panic—even women who wouldn't normally give feminism the time of day! It is a way to sell feminism by high-pressure sales tactics, since misogyny is a kind of ambient poison that would (in theory anyway) strike women universally and irrespectively.
And yet, the growth of male ill-feeling toward women is positively guaranteed to happen under the septic conditions which feminist innovation has introduced into the world. There is no conceivable way it couldn't happen! For years, feminism has been like a busy farmer, growing misogyny like a crop: mulching, manuring, disking, harrowing, plowing, sowing, constantly bringing new acreage under cultivation—and reaping progressively bigger harvests!
So, the present state of social existence pushes men and women both down an escalating spiral of bad behavior and mutual recrimination, and the worst of it is that the average man OR woman doesn't know what is really going on, and accordingly takes appearances at face value, falling into the same trap time and time again at every iteration of the cycle.
And feminism grants women a free license to do their worst at every stage. Yes, feminism empowers women by unleashing the power of the Dark Feminine. Meanwhile, men are held fully accountable for every misstep or misdeed, and for every cross word about women that might roll off their tongues for any reason whatsoever!
At any rate, one thing is certain: if present trends continue, then "misogyny" will grow and grow. And the feminists will never stop blaming men for this—for if they did, they would, ipso facto, no longer be feminist. But if non-feminist women in appreciable numbers don't ultimately wake up, hoist their colors, and raise their voices militantly against feminism and feminists, then men shall be entitled to draw the worst conclusion about women that might ultimately seem right to them.
That day, of course, is not yet.
However, it is not looming smaller on the horizon.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
New Video -- The Non-Feminist Invasion of Feminist Mindspace
Feminism, the biggest uninvited guest the world has ever known, will be treated to an uninvited cultural and cognitive "home invasion".
Friday, April 05, 2013
Another Report From Toronto
No Fear! -- Early Report From Toronto
That was JTO's prevailing impression of the youthful protestors: "Something inside their brains was broken." John also compared them to aliens -- meaning, the outer space kind. "They are not like normal people. They can't seem to process information coherently. They did a lot of chanting, and they appear to think that rhyming counts as intellect!"
As evidence of their stupidity, consider the accompanying photo. The young woman is holding a sign which reads: "MRA's say women are dogs that need to be trained." The problem is, this statement is sheer fabrication. "MRA's" do not say any such thing, and I am not sure if the young women is stupid, or simply lying on purpose. But I will go with the theory that she is an emotional reasoner who doesn't let small potatoes like linear thinking get in the way. So I believe that she is honestly too stupid to know that she is lying. Not that it matters, since it comes to the same thing any way you cut it -- she is spreading falsehood and distorting reality. Friends, these are college students, who are said to be the best and brightest, to be the cream of civilization. Well I weep for civilization.
All right. I know exactly what is going on here, so let me explain. The sign which the girl is holding indicates that she is an AVfM reader, for it references an April 3rd article by JTO, titled "Bad Doggie, Good Doggie." I invite you to read that article:
Did you read the article? Very well, then you know that nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does John the Other ever say that women are dogs who need to be trained. He Does Not Say That. EVER. Read the article again, if you you need to double check this.
JTO is actually saying that the University of Toronto student protestors are dogs that need to be trained. And that is a group that includes BOTH men and women.
John the Other NEVER said what the stupid, lying girl in the picture is suggesting that he said. Much less did any abstract, nebulous "MRA's" say any such thing.
So, do you see what kind of people we are dealing with here? They act this way all the time.
But the concept that men and boys are entitled to human rights is alien to a lot of people, and goads them into the most twisted behaviors you can imagine. We are expecting this to escalate. These are interesting times.
Moving right along, JTO told me that he mingled among the crowd in the pre-event protest we are discussing, and made no effort to hide his identity. At one point he stood shoulder-to-shoulder between two protestors who each held signs, one of which was a sign denouncing John the Other. That's right, he stood directly between them, and they did not even appear to know who he was!
The official main event was the speech by Nathanson and Young, and this started at 7 p.m. JTO says that he, along with about twenty other pro-male partisans from far and wide, entered the lecture hall with no problem. So did the general public. The lecture proceeded uneventfully, but JTO tells of a dramatic episode where some of the protestors got into a corridor. They pulled the heavy-weight staves out of their protest signs and pounded on the floor in unison, and chanted angrily, while John walked directly in front of them. According to him, the episode was like "Lord of the Flies", but he reports that he felt no fear whatsoever.
It seems that a lot of police were on hand, including plainclothes personnel circulating in the crowd, and a contingent who guarded Nathanson and Young like a Secret Service escort. I am told that the presence of plainclothes officers (who are Toronto city police) was unusual for such an event. They seemed to be anticipating more than ordinary trouble. Nevertheless, all of Our People got through the evening just fine, and are now, I presume, writing memoirs of it in their various hotel rooms. I am sorry not have been there myself.
Articles and videos will be coming out in the next few days, and I am looking forward to these as much as you are.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
The Non-Feminist Invasion of Feminist Mindspace
To take control of the narrative means, among other things to shove a completely new conceptual reality into the feminist mindspace with no prior explanation or preparation of any kind. For them, it would be like walking into a movie halfway through -- although that comparison hardly does justice to the radical nature of what we are proposing. The point is, that they have had more than enough time to tell the rest of the world what reality is. The time has come for them to shut up and experience life on the receiving end. It is now their turn to wonder what in heaven's name is going on, and be impolitely told to "get with the program".
The treatment that we would dish out, differs in no essential point from how they have treated the rest of the world for half a century. From henceforth, every settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of ideas like it was just any old thing. They will be critiqued, problematized, made light of, or best of all ignored. No more epistemic privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they will fare. And they will lick it up, and they will like it.
We advocate this as a policy, consistent with the doctrine of post-argumentalism. Post-argumentalism proposes that argument or debate has no primacy among the methods that we might use to move our project forward. Post-argumentalism further proposes that argument or debate, although useful in combination with other methods, is by no means imperative to the final accomplishment of our ends. For in the end, we are not obligated to argue with a bully, a tyrant, or a lunatic. We do not delude ourselves that if we craft our words well enough the bully, tyrant or lunatic will suddenly understand us, admit that we are right, and begin to act differently. That realization is a truth which sets us free. So we are free to block their power unceremoniously, by walking away from argument altogether and moving ahead with our plans.
Those who specialize in argument, debate or explanation are certainly free to set up shop doing what they do best, according to their several areas of expertise. It is not good to waste any natural talent you might possess. But we have understood that argument or debate are not the main engine that will press matters forward. Recruitment, mobilization and networking will do that, independently of whether our enemy is persuaded or unpersuaded.
Very well. We have reached our conclusions, and we claim the right to state them freely and to assume that others are up to speed about what we are saying. We cannot be bothered to attach a full explanatory essay to every word or concept, every time we use it, in our spoken or written communication. So in true post-argumental fashion, we are not arguing the merit of our discourse by explaining it. We must assume that our foundational ideas have been sufficiently established by an accumulated history of explanation, and that friend and foe alike will make some effort to learn the basics before they converse with us. We must assume that the laborious work of establishing our ground of meaning has been concluded, and that we may now discourse with that agreeable speed which is properly the life of conversation.
So any feminist on earth must either sink or swim in the ocean of ideas that we will generate. If we graciously stop to explain, it is more than our duty requires, and gratitude is in order. But we will not slow down for them, and we will unleash a torrent of new jargons, new concepts and new frames of reference that will leave them mentally adrift and bewildered, as if the ground had been ripped from under their feet without warning and they were suddenly bobbing in zero gravity with no idea of up or down any more.
No doubt they will find this disturbing, and will experience something like culture shock when they realize that their reactions are not automatically shared, and that people not only don't know what the hell they are talking about, but are rudely telling them so!
Such is the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace.
Feminist ideology has been busted to the ranks, and must share the stage with everybody else. Nothing about the customary feminist discourse will be shown any preference, any deference, or any right of way through any discussion whatsoever. Feminism does not "own the conversation", and accordingly does not set the rules for any conversation where non-feminist participants are present. Granted, where none but feminists are present it may be said that they are "in the feminist clubhouse", and may order the conversation as they see fit. But in the common marketplace of humanity, it behooves them to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and "do as the Romans do".
More and more, feminism's realm of thought and discourse will implode, and it will be as if the floodwaters were breaking through the barriers from every direction, sweeping away every vestige of narrative privilege they have ever enjoyed and placing them on a footing of conversational "equality" with any men's rights agitator, or any Joe and Sally, they happen to encounter. They can barricade themselves in the towers of academia for a while, but in the end the towers too will crumble and be swept away, and they will have no choice but walk through the world to the beat of a timeless drummer they can no longer ignore. Either that, or go crazy and do something stupid.
So . . I would prepare for that day, if I were them.
I really would do that. . . . if I were them.
NCFM Sues the Selective Service Regarding the Male-Only Draft.
"NCFM has filed a lawsuit that challenges the legality of requiring only males to register for the military draft. The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013, Case Number 2:13-cv-02391-DSF-MAN ."This is a very important story, as I am sure you will agree. You can read the rest of it HERE:
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
A Message for the Poodle-Boys
If I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest a bit of activism for anybody (in Toronto) who wants to try it. Print up several hundred small leaflets bearing the following sentence: "A message to all self-respecting men at the University of Toronto", and directly after that, the URL to the above-linked article. Here is an expediently 'crunched' version of it:
You can lay out the leaflets on a standard 8.5" x 11" (letter sized) master sheet. Eight leaflets to a sheet is ideal. After that, print off as many photocopies as you wish. Then, cut out the individual leaflets with a bayonet paper-cutter, or plain old scissors if that's all you've got. Good. Now you're ready to roll.
Spread those leaflets everywhere on the University of Toronto campus. You can paste them to surfaces or you can leave them around loose, but try to saturate the environment with them.
I think you see where this might lead. It could be a fun little shitstorm, and it might even open a few eyes and bring in some recruits.
Go now, and spread the Gospel!
The Criminal Nature of Feminism
Feminism is without doubt a hate movement. If this were not so, it would quickly run out of steam and chug to a stop. At its rotten core of cores lies a seething bolus of criminal violence, obfuscated only by the possession of a stolen moral hegemony and a franchise upon police power. Yes, when they are in power they can afford to maintain respectable appearances, but when the chips are down the mask will fall and they will revert to primordial gutter tactics. Be on guard!
For years, the feminist community has used the technique of reversal to project its inherent violence onto the world around it, but the world has grown wise and now demands accountability. As this trend accelerates, we may predict ever more desperate defensive measures, and those who advocate the human rights of men and boys, along with the right to cultural self-determination by traditional women, will find themselves on the receiving end of dangerous and erratic feminist actions.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
"Men" Cannot "Stop Rape"
The feminist rape hysteria virus seems to be breaking out again, of late. So I reckon it's time to give another run to this intensely hated Fidelbogen video. Hell man, they hated this one even worse than they hated the "feminism is female supremacism" video. All of the responses were emotional, pavlovian, and very, very childish. Nobody, but nobody, engaged it intellectually -- which speaks tons!
What I do here, is take the anti-male agitprop phrase "men can stop rape" to the shop, and dismantle it to the last bolt, in order to exhibit the vicious fraud which it conceals. I am ice-cold and cerebral in my method of work, with a mild undertone of sarcasm. Some might claim that I am being "long-winded" or "pedantic", but in fact I am being inhumanly clear and thorough, to the last degree, because I don't want to miss one single nuance. I am quite aware, as I do this, that I am treating people's emotions in a rude and callous way -- but I am forcing bitter medicine down their throats, and I would not be doing so if I did not wish to heal them, and all society, of a pernicious sickness. So in the end, I am motivated by LOVE. I do what I do, because I care!
It goes without saying that the video contains zero "misogyny". No feeling about women, either good or ill, is voiced anywhere here. But this has not prevented a few hysterical ninnies from flinging the inflammatory old "M word" all the same!
Very well. Always remember that "men" is a pure abstraction, a phantom collective, a hobgoblin, a chimera, a mental spook. And a mental spook, of any kind, is not an entity able to perform action of any kind.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Equality? I'll Give You Equality!
Fair enough. If you are an asshole, I will treat you equally to any other asshole.
And in my considered opinion, most feminists are assholes who deserve every ounce of equality they can get.
Ah, yessss! Equality! Gotta love it!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
The Agent Orange Files
Go here to download the zipped, 60 megabyte file: