Thursday, April 26, 2007

Gaining Serious Media Ground

Another communique just recieved:
To:
CC:
Subject: Awesome
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:45:16 -0400

Man you are awesome thanks a ton. Ask other bloggers to pick this up ASAP it is gaining some serious media grounds!

Pedersen

http://www.achildsright.net

http://www.daddy.typepad.com

----------------------

As we all know, one of radical gender feminism's main projects has been the destruction of traditional marriage and family. What does this mean? In the final analysis it means pushing fathers (read: men) out of the picture entirely and placing mothers (read: women) at the center of the picture, through the destructive political manipulation of family and divorce law.

Elegantly simple, isn't it? Goes straight for the jugular, yes? And that is precisely the point, for such indeed has been radical feminism's poison-coated dagger thrust at the heart of our world.

Truly, the epicenter of the struggle is all things pertaining to marriage and family: If there is one area where we ought to concentrate our efforts to undo what feminism hath wrought, that is clearly the realm of choice! Other things are important too, but they pale in comparison.

So I would urge all members of the male-friendly web community, and all readers of this blog, to visit the links posted above and below (if you haven't done so already) and get acquainted with the Equal Parenting Bike Trek. It promises to be big. REALLY big. It can generate publicity, and publicity can generate all sorts of other things that will move things ahead! Whatever puts the cause on the map, puts it in the public mind and helps to break the silence.

http://www.dcrally2007.com/

And after you have visited the links, spread the word by every possible means.

Thank you!

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Recommended Reading

At the bottom of my links list to the right is a blog which I added 2 or 3 days ago, called "A Brotherhood of Man".

I recommend it. It is well and clearly written, and offers plenty of useful, interesting fodder for us folks who can think of things we like better than feminism.

To save a trip to the links list, here's the link for you now:

A Brotherhood of Man.

Detailed Flash Movie...

...depicting the Battle of Trafalgar, blow by blow, with interesting explanations of naval tactics. Check it out!

Battle of Trafalgar - 21 October, 1805

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Rote Zora


http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=368

Germany: Radical Left-Wing Feminist Given Suspended Jail Term

The Rote Zora group claimed responsibility for over 40 bombings


A member of a German left-wing feminist guerrilla group was handed a
suspended two-year prison sentence on Monday for her role in two failed
bombings 20 years ago.

Adrienne Gerhäuser, 58, had admitted that she "knowingly and willingly"
attempted to bomb the Berlin Genetic Technical Institute in 1986 and a
clothing factory in Bavaria in 1987 on behalf of the Rote Zora movement.

Gerhäuser, a photographer, handed herself over to the police late last
year after two decades on the run with her boyfriend, who is also
suspected of aiding terrorist activities.

She told the Berlin court that the attacks were motivated by her political
beliefs at the time, including a fierce opposition to genetic engineering
and solidarity with striking female factory workers in South Korea.

Gerhäuser said she had provided alarm clocks for two bomb detonators.
But in both cases the devices failed to go off and no one was injured.

The sentence was widely expected. The Berlin court had said that because
Gerhäuser had turned herself in, this was the maximum penalty she could
expect. She was convicted of membership in a terrorist group and two
counts of attempting to cause an explosion.

The Berlin judge who handed down the suspended sentence said Gerhäuser was no longer "motivated to manifest her political views violently."

Named after a German children's book about a female Robin Hood-like
character, Rote Zora was a women's splinter group that broke away from
the so-called Revolutionary Cells network in 1986. It claimed
responsibility for 45 bombings and cases of arson between April 1977 and February 1988 with the aim of bringing about "violent, radical change in German society" but tried to avoid casualties.

Germany will this year be commemorating the "autumn of terrorism" 30 years ago in 1977, when murders and kidnappings by the Red Army Faction (RAF)reached their climax.


...........................................................

More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
world/europe/article1642717.ece

Monday, April 23, 2007

Exposing Them Without Commenting

The following was selectively extracted from a discussion thread on the Feministe blog, whose header banner is shown in the previous post. The comments are numbered just as in the original. Note the range of responses to the initial comment by "Evil Male Oppressor" - these are most revealing. In their native habitat at Feministe, they enjoyed a certain home stadium advantage, lost among the crowd, and the sympathetic ambient buzz. But here at CF - on the steel countertop beneath a glaring halogen lamp - we come to know them in a more naked light.

First, the comment from EMO:

99.
Evil Male Oppressor Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog. What, or more specificaly, whom is she targeting with that weapon. It isn’t exactly clear, but I imagine that person wouldn’t be wearing a dress. Feminists spend an awful lot of time pointing out all the hatred that (some) men have for women, but precious little time trying to figure out where all that hate comes from................You may not go so far as the worst, but the sentiment is the same, as evidenced by the obviously misandrist illustration on your blog. Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…
I’m sure it’s all an innocent little bit of fun, right?

.........................

Now they chime in:

.........................
103.
# Heraclitus (Jeff) Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Let’s see, direct personal abuse and threats = picture of a small girl with a gun.

It has now been officially determined that it is indeed possible for human beings to live with nothing but shit for brains.
........................


115.
# Evil Male Oppressor Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Let’s see, direct personal abuse and threats = picture of a small girl with a gun.

It has now been officially determined that it is indeed possible for human beings to live with nothing but shit for brains.


Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. Yes, it is completely acceptable and justified to imply that violence against men is acceptable and justified. Anyone arguing otherwise has “shit for brains”.

But no doubt you will say that I am the hate filled bigot.

Extremism and the hatred it spawns is the biggest problem in this country today. Nice to see you’re doing your part to add to it, lord knows there just isn’t enough hate in the world.
..................................


122.
# ahunt Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

“Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…”

Dad was a Demolay firearms instructor, and naturally, I grew up handling shotguns. I can assure you that the little girl in the graphic isn’t going to blow away anything. Bad form.

I’m only telling you this because you seem so…so… so…worried.

“I’m sure it’s all an innocent little bit of fun, right? “

Well, now that you mention it…


....................................

126.
# spencer Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

"I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog."

Um, wrong.

...........................

129.
# Janis Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

But no less disturbing than the
picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have
prominently displayed on your blog.


Yeah, cuz one in three MEN end up in the emergency room from shotgun qounds inflicted by women.

Oh, right. Sorry.

..........................

136.
# Lindsay Beyerstein Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

That shotgun would be a protected under the Second Amendment, if it were real. Since it’s just a picture (calm down), it’s protected under the First Amendment. What are you, some kind of Republican who hates the constitution?

---------------------

153.
Left Wing Militia Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Evil Male Oppressor is just suffering from weapon envy.

-------------------

156.
# RacyT Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Funny. I always assumed the picture of a little girl playing with a toy traditionally reserved for the opposite gender might be making a statement about traditional gender roles being outdated and inappropriate. What the hell was I thinking? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, it’s really just that I hate men. That stylized cartoon graphic is actually as offensive as having your personal information posted in a public forum as part of a thinly-veiled campaign of intimidation. But EMO (wow, that’s actually a funny acronym…!) has fortunately explained how misogyny is women’s fault for being Evil Bitches. Thanks, asshole. Never heard that argument before.

“DID YOU KNOW MANY HOUSEWIVES HAVE KNIVES”

hahahahaha

...........................

166.
zuzu Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Cute little girl with a shotgun… who’s she going to blow away with that thing… he he he…

She’s coming for you, obviously. And she’s going to shoot off your balls.

Jesus, man, get a grip

----------------------

176.
# JackGoff Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

I won’t defend the behavior described in your post. It is actually quite disturbing. But no less disturbing than the picture of the little girl with the shotgun you have prominently displayed on your blog.

What? Look, I’m a pacifist, and guns squick me out, but Shweet Jesu, that’s moronic. First off, aren’t you morons the idiots who keep telling us that the Second Amendment means we can all have automatic weapons? Secondly, a picture, obviously meant to be somewhat ironic, is more directly threatening than talking about raping and brutalizing someone whom they call out by name?! Maybe you could make that argument if it was Jill holding the gun saying “You, yes you EMO. I am going to shoot you in the face.” As it stands, that isn’t the case, and your “argument” is complete idiocy.

--------------------------

176.
# JackGoff Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

And other people have already answered the troll. Shite.

...................................

347.
# r@d@r Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Evil Male Oppressor Says: zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZ
zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz……………
.........................

Fidel's Note: Here's a hint. Try looking at the little girl in context with the word FEMINISTE directly behind her. Note the synergy of the two elements, how they combine into a visual-conceptual unity of message - effectively amplifying and reinforcing each other. Ah, yes....! She's a little "feministe", isn't she?

Amazing what you can learn about feminism when you brush aside what they say about themselves, and just look at the world with your own eyes and your gut instincts! Remember, we too have the right to say what feminism is, from our side of the barn!

Friday, April 20, 2007

A Little Girl Waving a Gun in the Air


Above you see a reduced, grayscale version of the graphic header from the popular feminist blog entitled "Feministe". In case it isn't clear, the image depicts a little girl aged about 4, brandishing in the air a shotgun with a pistol grip, and a barrel of less than 26 inches length.

The title employs a stylish, eye-catching, sans-serif font...
.

Major Publicity: Spread the Word

The following will be of interest especially to those who specialize in the domain of family and parenting issues, but naturally it will be of interest to all in "the movement":

Robert and Rob EQUAL parenting bike trek!

ItEqual_parenting_bike_trek2 is official! August 11th 2007 Robert Pedersen and Rob Mackenzie will start their over 600 mile bicycle trek from the Lansing Capitol to Washington, D.C.. This will be an intense multi-day bike trek through numerous states ending in Washington, D.C. where they will be greeted by thousands of people attending the national rally in Washington, D.C. on August the 18th.

It is simply amazing that two fathers are going to attempt this trip all in the name and support of shared parenting! They do this to protect a child's right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents! Many elected officials and supporters will see the riders off at the Lansing Capitol and thousands will greet them in Washington, D.C. www.dcrally2007.com

We are in need of volunteers for this amazing undertaking! We have 100% confirmation that the Michigan media will be documenting this event. The Michigan media that do not cover this incredible story will certainly be in the minority. There is a strong possibility that this may also make national news as well! We have a dedicated media van with supplies. There will be an upcoming dedicated website for this event where you can watch the riders via GPS. There will also be video and photos uploaded in real-time during the entire 600 mile grueling trip.

Please help us with this event! Spread the word in EVERY state and throughout the media! Help protect a child's right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents!

Contact us: volunteer@achildsright.net

More here....

Thursday, April 19, 2007

To Feminists Everywhere...

.....regarding the late horrendous events at Virginia Tech.

From MSNBC:

"[Governor] Kaine [of Virgina] warned against making snap judgments and said he had "nothing but loathing" for those who take the tragedy and "make it their political hobby horse to ride."

You will undoubtedly take this to heart. I have nothing to add.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Capital One Advert: See It HERE

Here is the male-bashing ad in question. Requires Flash Projector for viewing:

CLINK HERE...

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

CF Asserts that Feminism Will Never Yield to Argument Alone

If feminism appears to make concessions under the persuasive force of argument, this is solely because the balance of power has changed owing to the pressure of oppositional forces. One way or another, it means they are yielding ground because not doing so would either make them look bad, or pose a particular danger.

This is true of almost any so-called establishment. We delude ourselves if we believe that the stakeholders in any major power structure will be talked out of their advantages by sweet reason alone. That is not how the world works. The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn, until one side or the other says "yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will embrace your opinion as my own and rearrange my entire life according to what it requires of me." No, only simpletons believe the world works that way. The actual truth of life is a deal more tricky and treacherous.

And the feminists are like any other established group entrenched in its power. They will not come out voluntarily. They must be smoked out, or drawn out by a ruse. Whatever it takes.

You already know that you've got the ability to argue them to a standstill, or in perpetual circles—this has been happening for years, between their side and ours. And likewise, you know perfectly well that all you can expect from them is dodges, debating tricks, manipulations and outright lies. Your points, however well stated, will never be admitted or intellectually taken on board by them in any way. They're either as smug and fat-headed as French aristocrats on the eve of the Estates-General, or as rabid as sansculottes! Take your pick.

Yes, we have been debating them for years, and we know by now that neither side will budge an inch.

But that is precisely the good news. "Standstill" means standing still—literally! We have the power to argue them to a standstill, and do you know what THAT means? It means that all argument is at an end, and therefore, we need no longer argue! Think about it. If THEY cannot win the argument, it means that we are morally entitled to go our jolly way in peace! Or if BOTH sides cannot win the argument, it is incumbent on both sides to negotiate and to draft the articles of co-existence! But either way, it means that argument is ended.

Our side gains a big advantage from this. A strategic edge. But a lot of MRAs don't seem to realize this. Certainly, they know it is all in vain to argue with feminists - and yet there they go logging on to Usenet again, for just one more twirl in the spin-cycle with the infernal Hyerdahl device! Like reaching for just one more potato chip even when you are sick of the damn things!

Hyerdahl and all such vampire mechanisms are like perpetual revolutions in microcosm; in fact, they are feminism itself in microcosm! Engaging them in dialogue is like inserting a suction hose into your very own psychic energy pool - this will only drain you, and fatten them!

So stop arguing with feminists! Stop fattening them! Just stop it! And understand the power this gives us! It means that we can effectively put feminism out of the perpetual revolution business! Think of it: no more perpetual revolution! And we know that if they relinquish perpetual revolution, they're toast!

Very well. Given the impossibility of advanceful argument with the other side, we are henceforth under no obligation to devise any moral justification which they will understand—for they have shown that their understanding is intractable. Clearly, the time for argument is past. No, that's a silly thing to say because it was never present in the first place; we cannot, and never could, commence with argument! Mere argument, as we have clearly stated, can never (now or ever!) set the wheels in motion—something more efficacious is required just in order to get things rolling.

I say it is time to turn the heat up; it is time to play the boiling frog game!

Simply put, this means escalating the level of criticism and general disrespect for feminism, floating it into the culture little by little, but with such finesse that they can't creditably call it hate speech. Still, it will ratchet up their mental tension—finally to the point where they will snap, do something rash and, as it were, draw first blood. After that, we've GOT them!

But even if they keep their cool and don't do anything unseemly, we've still got them, because we will continue to grow in point of audacity. And they, having no alternative, will continue to suck it up—which will drive perpetual revolution into retreat. . . .

At least until they finally can't take it any more, and finally snap, and finally do something rash. At which point, as aforesaid, we've got them. Or more to the point, we've got them where we want them. Counter-feministically speaking, your motto is that you've always got them where you want them! And if you are doing counter-feminism correctly, that is how it should be. Always.

The campaign suggested above needs a jump-start that will spark it to life. You need to begin somewhere, so begin by being steadfastly unimpressed. Unpersuaded. Unconvinced. Confront the force of all, or nearly all, feminist polemic or feminist theory, with the brisk little phrase "so you say!" Let them know in effect that you find most of their case insufficient, and that in the sweet name of intellectual freedom and intellectual honesty you'll not give it your rubberstamp of approval.

This is not the same as arguing or debating. Rather, you are straightforwardly telling them that their words carry no weight with you, independently of what they think the truth might be! So, it all comes down to their conviction against yours—and there you stand in your stand-off, miles above the rest of the world, on a barren, windswept mountain top!

You are straightforwardly telling them—informing them!—that you will not play their game! And that barring some heavy-handed method which will backfire and burn them, there is nothing they can do about it!

Let me say that again: there is nothing they can do about it!

And that sets the counter back to zero again.

So make it clear that they have a duty to consult with you and persuade you before they institute their policies or promulgate their viewpoints, and that failure to do so is a transgression on their part.

Yes, feminism's cardinal sin is that of PRESUMPTION—or usurpation if you prefer. And they need to be told this. They have no legitimacy. No sovereignty. Therefore . . . . mock them! Mock their presumption!

Since we look upon feminism as just another ideology, and in no way sacrosanct, we feel entitled to shrug our shoulders and act smug about the whole job. Feminists are on a par with any group of Mormon missionaries, Jehovah's Witnessesor even anabaptist-episcopalians!— who might appear on your doorstep one day. They are just another pack of dusty competitors in the jostling marketplace of ideas—that is ALL they are! And it is high time they got off their high horse and learned some manners! They should not presume that you respect their presumption any more than they would presume that you believe in the holy ghost!

And we are free to take our stand upon the fixed center of moral gravity which this provides. Simply put, the other side has lost its moral arm-twisting power. All we must do is look them square in the eye and say, "Sorry, no sale!" They may go for the hard sell, but it will be in vain and we will tell them so. Their perpetual revolution will smash headlong into the force of our perpetual counter-revolution—and there we shall stand upon that barren, windswept mountain top!

Ah, that glorious mountain-top feeling! The icy, invigorating air; the sparkling, crystal clear sunlight . . . .

It is to our temporary disadvantage, that our adversary has more state-constituted political power than we do. But this is where revolutions get interesting; this is where we either challenge the legitimacy of the state, or finagle our way around it.

For example, you should remind yourselves that feminism does not engage the quintessential core of your selfhood. It is simply a thought which you can bounce around inside your brain if you wish to do so, but it has no bearing upon you as YOU. So you don't take it personally when somebody deprecates feminism, since they are not deprecating YOU. Therefore I believe it is perfectly acceptable in every way to say "I do not support feminism". Where is the offense in this? Don't tell me it's "hate speech". Again I ask, where is the offense? Have you actually harmed anybody? Have you slandered anybody? Have you even criticized feminism at all? No, the only offense is that you have profaned an ideological shibboleth.

(Shibboleth: "A belief that is widely held but interferes with the ability to speak or think about things without preconception.")

The feminists no longer have the sole power to define feminism. We have busted their monopoly. Granted, they have the right to concoct "theory" to their heart's content, but we have an equal right to concoct "counter-theory" that will address what their "theory" inflicts at our end of the transaction. From our unique standpoint of original knowledge, we may decide if feminism merits our support or otherwise.

And there is nothing they can do about it!

They have presumptuously restructured the world, and by the same presumption, they have restructured all of our lives. Owing to this act, their creation escapes their control and bleeds off into that penumbral region we call the femplex; the feminists are no longer entitled to the last word on what feminism effectively is or is not, since there is now more to feminism than feminism. We too are entitled to speak the truth with authority on that subject - simply because we suffer the consequences of it. The feminists are like the sorcerer's apprentice, who started something that he couldn't stop. Such being given, it is appropriate for others to step in and bear a hand.

After all, what good ever came of arguing with a feminist?

So, don't argue with feminists. Just TELL them things!

--------------------------------------------


You may advance to the NEXT article in the CF Series here:

http://tinyurl.com/ytxupz


You may return to the previous article in the CF Series here:

http://tinyurl.com/59shqv

Labels:

Sunday, April 08, 2007

BOYCOTT MALE-BASHING CAPITAL ONE CREDIT Company.!!

The following arrived in my inbox a few hours ago, and after securing the kind permission of the sender, I am sharing it here with readers of this blog.

Spread the word! And give certain people a piece of your mind!!


----- Original Message -----
From: "George Rolph"
To: julie.donnison@capitalone.com, grads@capitalone.com
Subject: Boycott Warning
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:17:41 +0100

Dear Mr Basini and Ms Donnison.

As you will see from our previous correspondence the men's movement made a clear and unequivocal call to your company (Capital One Credit) to remove your offensive and divisive advertisement from our TV's. We warned that if you did not do so, we would call for an International boycott of your product. It is with great sadness that we see you have not taken our warning seriously and have decided to continue to promote the hatred and ridicule of men in your Ad.

We are now giving you fair warning that a call will be issued to ask our members world wide to condemn your company and remove support from it by their friends, families and colleagues.

Please see a copy of our previous request you below.

George Rolph
London Office.

I read your reply with great interest and note your comments. However, I would like to point out that in the 1960's when discrimination was so prevalent against women, you would have got identical comments from a focus group panel concerning advertisements that were demeaning to women and being made then. The fact that the panel then would have seen such Ad's as "harmless bits of fun" make us shudder today, as they rightly should. The real question that needs to be asked by yourselves at Capital One is, "Are we, as a company, progressive and forward thinking enough to outlaw this now, so that history will not judge us as being Misandrist fools, but instead, see us as leaders in the fight against ALL discrimination?" (Misandry. Hatred of men)

I wrote to you after receiving a large number of complaints about your Ad' from our members. I have since canvassed opinion from many others and the unanimous feeling is, that if Capital One refuses to pull this Ad and change their policy towards men, then action should be taken. This action will include video evidence being sent around the world to press outlets in every major country on earth. In case you have any doubts about this I would suggest you look at the video already produced on the subject of Violent Women and released world wide and which is featuring on many web sites and being distributed locally around the world by leaving it on buses, trains, in libraries etc. The days of men sitting back and quietly accepting these insults are over. You can find the video in question at the link below.

http://www.antimisandry.com/vbdr/bullbusters

What the law allows you to get away with as a company is not the real issue. The issue at hand is that your company have portrayed men as fools, being dragged along the ground, desperately clinging to a women's leg, before being dumped into the trash with the derogatory comment from the woman, "I've lost interest." The effect of this is spread anti male hatred and disdain. Boys watching this Ad will be disturbed to think that they are seen as worthless, just by virtue of being male. Try reversing the genders in your Ad and see if you can get away with it!

We are not prepared to sit by and let this kind of thing be taught to our sons and daughters any more and action WILL be taken as a protest all over the world. We therefore urge you to rethink your policy and adopt a more enlightened attitude than your current one which is, that you found it "funny." I would also consider, if I were in your place, warning the company that made the Ad, that men around the world are getting a very, very tired of being constantly put down as fools worthy of this kind of ridicule.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your reply with interest.

George Rolph
London Office.


This mail has been BCC'd to contacts around the world calling for a boycott of Capital One credit cards.

--
I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none.
Macbeth from Macbeth Act I Scene 7

Thursday, April 05, 2007

CF Operates From a Specialized Analysis

As already stated, we are creating a map. This map specifically charts the workings of feminism as a socio-political organism. However, it neither pretends to be or needs to be exhaustive. Nor does it pretend to be the most effective map for every conceivable task that might arise in the course of future campaigning. It claims only to chart the terrain in terms of master strategy. Tactical maps for localized scenarios may be drawn at need by those of more localized expertise.

We create maps in order to pattern our world, for we know that plenty of "wise heads" are drawing up maps as well, with plans for us and patterns for our world. We wish to block them, and regain a bit of liberty—for which the price is eternal vigilance. Therefore, we too make maps and plans.

We operate independently of feminist self-description and feminist subjectivism. Those things are an involuted microcosm intended to wrap a fuzzy, suffocating blanket around our brains while the spider spins a silken mummy-bag around our lives. We prefer to view feminism from the outside, in terms of a larger socio-political pattern, and in terms of what we need to know about it in order to let the air out of its tires. We feel doubly well-advised in our policy when we consider that feminists have difficulty agreeing among themselves what feminism is. But we know what feminism means to US, and that suffices for our plans.

Counter-feminist analysis understands feminism as an unstable system of restless energy which seeks continually to arrange the surrounding world according to its needs. However, since feminism's needs are themselves shaped and guided by the evolving condition of the surrounding world, feminism must accordingly modify its demands to suit the changes which it (feminism) introduces in the first place—simply in order to sustain expansionary equilibrium. This fuels another round of change, and another and another—a condition that we call perpetual revolution.

If feminism stopped moving it would become meaningless, as when air stops moving, wind becomes meaningless.

Perpetual revolution operates as an endless loop of change driven by feedback. However, one thing endures as an unfluctuating core, namely: the drive for female supremacy arising from disaffection toward males.

This core constancy explains why feminism so often contradicts its own dogmas. Those dogmas lack the true character of dogma, having instead the character of convenience doctrines—to be jettisoned when they are no longer convenient. Convenience doctrines lack constancy. For feminism, constancy appears in one point only, as stated above: the drive for female supremacy arising from disaffection toward males.

Feminism's status as a perpetual revolution dictates that feminism must remain in motion. The necessity for this is initially evident both from A.) feminism's nature as a hate movement, and B.) feminism's never-ending quest for a chimerical "equality" between men and women.

Let us consider the former case, item A. Here, we discover that hatred of men is built upon a selective use of data as a means of generating validation. Such a process must remain in motion, continually seeking new material in order to function effectively. Its inherent lack of stability derives from what can only be termed "willed ignorance"—that is, a form of deception which the element of selectivity itself entails -- and this implies partiality, or partial truth. Stability would render further deception impossible because it would make the core of that deception plainly apparent simply by forcing it to sit down and keep still. The questions and criticisms would then crowd in from all sides, and the dynamo of perpetual revolution could no longer generate a counter-tide in its usual manner— that is, by shifting the discussion like a game of three-card monte which hides the deception.

Now, let us consider the latter case, item B. — which concerns "equality." The feminists love to remind us that they are just looking for "equality". Oh, the saving power of clichés! The heart of this particular flim-flam has already been scrutinized, so I will pass efficiently to the matter at hand. And that is, that sexual equality is just another shimmering heatwave mirage which moves ahead of the deluded traveler in proportion to his travels, and so stays forever out of reach. This ideally suits the requirements of perpetual revolution.

A two-fold task, one that might seem laughably self-contradicting, sets a particular burden upon feminism's perpetual revolution. It must establish the fictional world of feminism as the concrete, living actuality of daily life, and yet simultaneously prevent this new state of affairs from stabilizing itself. Any such stabilization would annihilate the movement along with all hope for a complete subjugation of men. The feminist movement must at all cost prevent a growth of normality from which a static pattern of life could evolve.

In a static pattern of life, feminism's habitual and constitutive fictions become progressively harder to sustain. Yet these fictions remain imperative as ever. The campaign for total subjugation of the male population (and the erasure of non-feminist reality) is structurally integrated into feminist ideology; the end of these things would spell the end of feminism itself.

If feminist culture becomes a static pattern of life with clearly understood rules and boundaries, feminism will lose its irrationally all-encompassing dynamism. But this it cannot afford to do—it has power because it is a dynamo, and it is a dynamo because it is dynamic. No dynamism, no power!

Feminism cannot settle into a static form of existence - for this would entail a static (and rational) distribution of power between the sexes, which means that men would be able to regain their equilibrium and their autonomy. Having done so, men would soon master the situation and master the game—if only by re-grouping their forces—and then they could no longer be subjugated. It is necessary to keep men perpetually off-balance, so they can't get their bearings and adapt to their environment. Hence the need for perpetual revolution. The feminists must continually press forward along their chosen pathway in order to compensate for natural forces that would carry them backward if they sat down and kept still.

How far would, or could, perpetual revolution extend itself? It is our thesis that perpetual revolution will sooner or later collapse under the pressure of competing forces. However, it is of interest to ponder the logical endpoint toward which perpetual revolution points according to the law of its own nature. That endpoint is, the annihilation of "patriarchy" or "male privilege"—and one must understand feminist code language to know what these things actually mean.

It would be necessary to master men "from the inside"—in the totalitarian tradition—in order to bring about the full consummation of perpetual revolution. The reason for this will be evident if we consider that "thought is free", and that destabilization of the social environment might not be quite enough, all by itself, to impinge upon the sanctity of inner space.

Thus, any man who remains in control of his emotions and ideations would have (at least in theory) the power to think ill of feminism, and such a man might turn into an organizer. So the collaborationists (consisting of the pro-feminist men's movement and other males supportive of feminist political energy) are working to instill the necessary deferentiality and servility in as many men as possible, as a prophylaxis against such eventualities, such equilibriums, such autonomies......

Feminism's central project—the colonization of male space—can never be complete without the colonization of male inner space, and so long as feminism continues in existence, it will exert directed energy (under whatever system of camouflage) toward the fulfillment of this goal.

The above (purposefully brief) article treats in summary form what counter-feminist analysis holds to be the essential facts about feminism upon which any optimally effective counteractive policy ought to build itself.

-----------------------------------------

Advance to the NEXT installment of the CF Series here:

http://tinyurl.com/4ypu7h


Return to the PREVIOUS installment of the CF Series here:


http://tinyurl.com/5rav56

Labels: ,

Notes Upon the Theory and Practice of Counter-Feminism

This website is called The Counter-Feminist, and it talks about something—a movement, an idea, a philosophy, a policy, a strategy - which is termed "counter-feminism". But up until now, only a sketchy and fragmentary explanation of that particular something has been provided. The present work will attempt to make good on the previous lack, and mark the needful pathways for future discussion.

What is counter-feminism? Or rather, what does counter-feminism do? Counter-feminism does exactly what the name implies; it counters feminism. More precisely, it counteracts feminism— by shadowing it, springing up in front of it, commenting on it, standing in its path, blocking it, embarrassing it, distracting it, causing it to stumble.

The present writing is intended as a map. Why a map? Consider the nature of maps generally; think of how they are made, and how they serve us. A map can be drawn in many, many ways; to show roads, to show rivers; to show mountain ranges, to show vegetation patterns; to show administrative boundaries such as states or counties; to display population densities, to show the deployment of forces in war; to chart the distribution of coal deposits or interstellar dust-clouds; to plot the annual rainfall region by region. There is no end to the maps we can generate, according to our needs. A map does not present all of reality, but only an abstracted slice of it—whatever we must know to expedite the matter at hand.

Accordingly, the present work is a conceptual map. It is a map of the political world adapted to our purposes, one which permits us to navigate toward the fulfillment of our purposes by providing the necessary information in terms of a pattern—a pragmatic template. We parse the world in a certain way and turn this into a chart to guide us, that we may know what we need to know in order to operate effectively. We don't need our map to show everything the world contains, nor do we need it to show what the world contains for others.

Again, our map shall sketch the political landscape in terms of what we must know in order to operate effectively, and attempt to outline what counter-feminism (CF) does and what distinguishes it as a system of understanding.

I had initially thought of writing one extremely long article to encompass the many points of discussion that are projected for the present work. But the longer I wrote the longer it got. . . . and it kept getting longer and longer. Furthermore, the blog has lain fallow long enough— it needs updating!

So, I've decided to break the long article into a series of shorter articles to appear as a serial. (Or, forgive the pun, as a cereal—spoon-sized shredded wheat instead of the big brick kind!) Now I can take all the time I want, and spin it out for miles.

Each article in this series will have a title that begins with "CF"—for counter-feminism. Article number one follows immediately:

http://tinyurl.com/59shqv

Labels: