Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Just 4 Laffs!

The trouble is..

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Another Group Deserving of Shame

I would like to make brief note of a cohort of people who are properly a subject of interest in the world of gender politics. To date, their existence has not been greatly analyzed or remarked upon—or at least not to my knowledge.

We know about the feminists themselves, in their rich and varied shadings. Likewise, we know about the male supporters of feminism—those whom we bluntly call collaborationists, by historical analogy with World War Two.

But the group I am discussing today has so far kept clear of the hostile scrutiny it richly deserves. I won't list names, but rather highlight their unique qualities in a way that would call their presence to the attention of others, and encourage some awareness of the role such people play, or might potentially play, in the thickening plot developments of the gender crisis.

These people—these MALES I should say—have escaped the radar mainly because they show no sign of any friendly feeling toward feminism. If anything, the contrary. They are on the whole what you might call "traditional males"; politically, I would peg them as possibly neoconservative, or libertarian with neoconservative leanings.

What sets these men apart is their arrogant conventionalism, and their proclivity toward the customary alpha dominance games which, according to feminist propaganda, characterize men as a group. To say that these men lack male political consciousness is altogether too much of a kindness. In fact, they are flat-out rude, snide, callous and pig-headed when confronted by any honest description of the objective conditions that weigh upon men as men. According to them, any speech of this kind is the mark of a "wimp".

Therefore, such males are worse than useless to the men's movement. They believe they can make their way in the world—to achieve money, power, status, promotion, expensive cars and other such crucial necessities—despite every damn thing which has operated to poison the world against men in the last forty years. Oh no, none of it makes a chicken-feed worth of difference to them; suck it up, they say! Male political consciousness is only a character flaw, a lame excuse to be a pathetic loser. If you are rugged and square-shouldered, you can plow your furrow to the top of the mountain no matter what—and no excuses mister! Male solidarity? Brotherhood? That's just a load of worthless whining, you little drip!

These elitist cowboys are no help at all. They are not our brothers! They are wretched curs who would rather betray us to a common enemy than modify their traditional manly narratives and self-conceptualizations. Their presence on earth is like a 50-pound bag of buckshot around our necks! Every time the bar gets raised, their eternal answer is "jump a little higher!" Admirable tough guys, aren't they? Oddly enough, the feminists don't like such men any more than we do, for they are very much the "patriarchalists" of caricatured legend! And yet what a friend they are to feminism after all! Supremely ironic, yes? Finally, they shall be served according to their merit.

Since I like to invent names for things, I believe I will call these people SCABS. That word has a nice wicked "bite" to it... don't you think?

I am open to better suggestions. Perhaps later I will think of one myself....


Post Note: The original name that occurred to me was "cowboys", but I think "scabs" is better!

Friday, May 25, 2007

The Extreme End of the Collaborationist Spectrum

The following blog, right here on good ol' Blogspot, is instructive as an object lesson. Abject servility toward women, elliptically preached by the likes of Schwyzer and company, is here nakedly flaunted in its authentic blazing colors, minus the fuzzy curtain of sophistical double-talk and academic hocus-pocus. This guy lays it on the line for all the world to see - the occult paradigm of female supremacism; the psychic center of gravity; the moral axis of the vortex. Witness:
"Service and submission to women - as I see it - is not about sex or male desire - it's about coming to terms with the natural order of gender: women were meant to rule and [be] dutifully served by men - their devoted servants and protectors."

I'll give the dude credit for two things: he's up front about what he is, and he doesn't appear to make his personal oddness the foundation for any political agenda.

Monday, May 21, 2007

The Political Landscape Which Lies Ahead

A Road Map for the Future

Everybody should have a crystal ball. It is good to look into the future, don't you think?

Today, if it won't impose on you too much, I would like to gaze into my own crystal ball, and describe what I see there—or at any rate, what I think I see there. You never know, it might prove useful. And don't forget that "prediction" a pivotal part of counter-feminism. So let's get busy with some predictions, shall we?

In the treatise that follows, I will cover some rather new ground. And although I am discussing the future, I am also talking about many things that are current in the world right this very minute, so that quite a few of these "predictions" are in fact nothing of the sort. They are already old and familiar. However, we all know that the present is the seed-bed of the future - what is presently "so" may in time become "more so". Bearing this is mind, and bearing in mind likewise certain algorithms of historical occurrence which play and re-play perennially in every drama that involves the human animal, we may venture in all confidence to compose our canvas in broad strokes that won't go far amiss.

I have elsewhere spoken of feminism as a perpetual revolution, and have made it clear that the end of perpetual revolution would entail the end of feminism as well. Moreover, I have implied, without fully addressing the subject, that perpetual revolution carries the seeds of its own demise. However, although I still believe this is the case, I am able to envision certain conditions under which the dynamic of perpetual revolution, hence feminism as a whole, may be artificially fueled and extended - and longer, perhaps, than people like us might wish to endure! Let us not underestimate the evil intelligence of our enemy - which in many ways resembles that of a highly adaptable virus. Let us rather anticipate that they might have covered the bases more thoroughly than we wish to think, and prepare for the possibility that they have done so in fact.

The extension of perpetual revolution would occur, as I project, in the context of a three-tiered social power hierarchy. This three-tiered hierarchy would consist, from top down, of 1.) A primary ruling class called the (male) Elite, 2.) A secondary ruling class called the Overclass, and 3.) A more-or-less immobilized proletariat at the bottom of the heap, simply called the Underclass.

The Male Elite makes a tiny percentage of the total population, the Overclass a significantly large minority, while the Underclass is distinctly the largest human reservoir of the three. In the midst of the three-tiered system, feminism plays a complex, catalytic role which our talk will enlarge upon.

The transitional zones between these power layers will appear fuzzy when viewed at close quarters, but distinctly sharper from a distance. While there is a limited degree of permeability—or "upward mobility" to use a classic term—it is significant for our purposes, that mobility between zones is growing markedly more difficult. Something almost like a caste system appears to be under development.

The Elite

It should first be known that the purpose of this entire system is to secure the overlordship of the male Elite.

For if in truth there be any such thing as that "patriarchy " which feminist theory postulates, the male Elite could well indeed merit the title. Thus considered, the irony is quickly apparent in the feminist application of this word to thoughtlessly tar multitudes of men whose veritable power amounts to very little.

The most important thing to understand about the male Elite—or more simply the Elite, since many of them have mothers, wives and daughters after all!—is that they do not think or view the world in anything like the same terms as most of the human race. This is particularly striking in the case of political or ideological categories.

Labels such as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, left, right, Marxist, fascist, socialist and so on, barely exist at all for members of the Elite. They view the world from a different optic entirely—wired to different emotive triggers and bound by loyalties we needn't hope to unriddle. Consequently, the Elite are able to play all sides of all fences, with equal pragmatic indifference, in the variable service of their instrumental needs. This in practice makes them inscrutable puppet-masters and, from our point of view, even solipsistic: they are distinctly not us, therefore we cannot read them as ourselves. Such aloofness, such catlike alterity, comes naturally to them and is really no mystery at all: it is the consequence of being SO powerful that you can afford to live in your own world and remain oblivious to more generally held sources of meaning.

Simply stated, the Elite are the high alpha males of the world. The tip-top layer of the pyramid. Through their vast and densely networked lock-down on banking and politics, they control the foundational conditions which determine how our lives will go. Lesser powers cascade from their greater power. Yes, they are a boy's club. And they are getting better and better at their game!

I'll not spend much time talking about the Elite; they are in many ways the least interesting portion of my subject, given how they are so remote from the sphere of action that we know. Suffice to say that they are an intricate world unto themselves, by no means monolithic, and that all of this makes them proportionately more difficult to fathom from beneath.

The Overclass

The next level down, in the three-tiered system, is what we have termed the Overclass. In point of numbers this class far outweighs the Elite. In marked contrast to the Elite - who would rather keep a shadowy, elusive profile—the Overclass constitutes the everyday face of the ruling power structure.

The Overclass may be understood as the delegated contractual workforce of the elite, responsible for administrative tasks and various domains involving intellectual creativity. Globally considered, they are the upper managers and consultants.

In cultural terms, the Overclass has certain distinguishing features which mark them off from the Underclass. Most apparent to the eye, is that they are well-financed and well-heeled. They have, moreover, an unmistakeable air of ease and security about them. Their lives are not worm-eaten by debt to any great degree, and being well-connected and well networked, they have a host of fallback options when things go awry. On the whole, their lives operate smoothly—they are sheltered from the vicissitudes. They have greater access to the means of self-realization in many forms, along with better food, better health care, more aesthetically pleasing physical environments, and a lower degree of stress all around. Finally, they have the means to obtain postsecondary education; consequently, they are more likely to have done so—which makes them "better educated", at least along the lines that are apt to secure political advantage in various forms.

An interesting recent development is the rise of the so-called "bobo", or bourgeois bohemian, class. This has been a result of cultural tectonic shiftings in the earthquake decade of the 1960s. The bobos, being a vital element of the Overclass, are certainly a powerful sector in the presently emerging world order. This phenomenon would make an interesting study all unto itself.

However, as counter-feminist agents of change, what chiefly holds our interest is the relationship between the Overclass on the one side, and feminism both ideologically and politically, on the other.

The Overclass is heavily indoctrinated with the feminist world-view. This has been the case for some time now—it is so, and becoming more so. Infiltration of feminist ideations into the world of postsecondary education (and all education for that matter) has been one of the main vectors operating to convey this line of influence into the targeted region. Another, running in tandem with the first, is the steady, plodding encroachment of women into vocational areas which are either well-paid, politically influential, physically undemanding, or all three. This process is still underway; it is by no means complete or even nearing completion.

Along with the influx of politically naive women into the sectors mentioned, it is rational to anticipate the arrival of ideological feminists in certain numbers—or even feminist cadres. Hence, an ongoing replication of the feminist political machine by both formal and informal methods, gravitating always toward a theoretical point of saturation. The objective balance of probability in no way excludes such development—it is no less rational to anticipate such development, than to anticipate the contrary.

What is happening in the workforce is happening simultaneously, if in varied fashion, in other domains—many of which make their impact across the board, in both the Overclass and the Underclass. The propagation of the feminist world-view, along with the rapid extension of the femplex, is not easily contained within a particular demographic - nor would any such containment comport with feminist purposes. However, what IS easily contained, or at least regulated, is the mobility of male population from the Underclass into the Overclass.

Consider once again the infiltration of women (and consequently feminist women) into the generally desirable sectors of the working world. The upshot of this is to convert large and growing regions of the vocational landscape into effectively female-dominated, if not feminist-dominated, territory.

Next, consider the widespread propagation of anti-male bias in the realm of law, jurisprudence, criminal justice procedure, policies, regulations, and codes of various kinds. Such things have happened, and will continue happening. Such things have crept in the night, and will continue creeping in the night. Feminism's perpetual revolution does not stop rolling until somebody or something sabotages the track and derails it.

So, in large areas of life, males have undergone something very like the totalitarian process in which selected classes of people are listed as "objective enemies". Under feminism, men are objective enemies. Such is the psychic miasma that creeps slowly, slowly, invisibly, and never sleeps. If the miasma has not yet crept into every possible corner everywhere, this is not owing to any lack of ambition to eventually do so.

Such is the present condition of the Overclass. It is not feasible to exclude males from the Overclass. However, it is certainly possible to exclude males within subtle categories. The growing presence of the feminist political machine, along with a proliferation of naive acquiesence from the femplex, makes possible a system of cultural filters that can exclude men who are unable to walk an agonizingly fine line in their personal manifestations. The filters grow steadily more discerning, able to capture finer and finer nuances of personal style by turning the personal into the political in ways more and more microscopic, and setting a hostile assessment on whatever does not implicitly endorse the feminist world-view.

If you intend to prosper as a male in the Overclass, it helps immensely to have made a full psychic capitulation to the feminist world-view. To be a collaborationist, in other words. In Orwellian terms, you will find favor if you have won the victory over yourself and "learned to love Big Mother." If you have not so capitulated, or if you are not superhumanly clever at masking your true feelings, then the filters will catch you. If not today, then certainly in 10, 20 or 30 years, when detection algorithms have grown more sophisticated.

So, it is easy to see that large blocs of the male population can, for various reasons, be excluded from feminist or female-dominated ways of making a living. When you realize that these vocational sectors largely define Overclass membership at the level of economic prosperity, you will see that feminist or female domination of such sectors will operate as a gatekeeping mechanism governing precisely who, in terms of male demographic sub-groups, will or will not infiltrate the Overclass.

In the end, the feminist world-view shall effectively colonize the Overclass. Non-participation in this paradigm would, to males in particular, spell non-participation in the Overclass for all but a few hardy mavericks. The Overclass would then consist of "empowered" women, and "feminized" men. The real power would, in the final analysis, lie in the hands of women.

But the final power at the very highest level will continue to repose in the hands of the "patriarchal" male-dominated Elite, who will use women as tools to control the bulk of the male population with an effectiveness unprecedented in all of known human history.


Saturday, May 19, 2007

Alec Baldwin to Join Forces with Action 4 Justice?

Read about it here

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

What is a "Meretricious Relationship"...?

If you don't know, you ought to. Learn about it here, then Google on it to learn more.

So, you thought the marriage strike was enough, eh? Guess again, bud!

And if you haven't read the classic early CF article called Ideas Which Go Against the Grain, now could be a good time for it. It is replete with weighty ruminations that you might want to take on board.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Guest Column.... George Rolph - UK Men's Rights Activist

The Illusion of Freedom and Peace.
A view From The Street.

"Peace, peace they say, but there is no peace."
-The Holy Bible.

Our choice today, as citizens of the west, seems to be between the utopian view of the left and the dystopian view of the right. Both are extremes and both are dangerous to the well being of the people. Both involve the government ruling the people by appealing to fear. Both involve the submission of the people to an ideological vision that has no place in reality and takes no account of the desires, nature, or wishes of the populations they seek to control. Both manipulate, lie, distort, demonise and seek to crush, the will of the people. Both, are evil.

Political television programmes these days are filled with politicians claiming they must, "listen to the people" after failing to win elections, both national and local. What none of these politicians ever do is apologise for the immense arrogance of daring to fail to listen to the people in the first place and thus, losing the sight of the first rule of government:

That they are elected BY the people to look after the interests OF the people.

They are NOT elected to seek their own interests and line their egos with power and their pockets with money. Neither are they elected to attempt to brainwash the public into following their own dreams of either utopian or dystopian rule. They are NOT elected to use the state against the people and announce "rule changes" that will affect the people, without first consulting the people affected by them.

The government that does not fear the people is a government that the people cannot afford and the political colour of that government, under those conditions, is an irrelevance.

No government can rule without the will of the people unless the will of the people is first subjected to fear by that government. It is to be hoped that the British people will NEVER allow themselves to be subjected to fear by the offices of government without fighting back and fighting with every imperial ounce of power and strength within them. To fail to resist despotism is to become a sheep led bleating to its slaughter.

Already in our land the media has shown itself to be gutless and weak in the face of the increasingly distorted and sick will of government. Reporters, with few exceptions, are only too willing to follow government into hell in order to have a story to tell to a population.

A population who already know the story.

Therein lies the folly of the media.

They think they know better than the people. They think the people are stupid but fail to understand that the media's political and intellectual biases attract those that also think and feel the same way. Just as a BMP meeting will attract racists. However, the vast majority of the population do not support their biases just as they do not support the BMP.

Each newspaper or TV channel's readership and viewers are members of a club. There are the Sun "newspapers" members club and the BBC members club for example, but each is a small fraction of the largest club of all, which is the population club of the United Kingdom. Both media and government would do well to remember that members of the largest club of all have the most power and they should be very afraid of that power. If the members of the largest club of all ever rise up against them, their little empires will crash so fast they will not have time to rewrite their C.V's!

People everywhere are growing sick and tired of listening to money and power grabbing politicians presented and schooled in a sick media circus and both living far removed from the truth of everyday life inside their privileged bubbles. They are sick of the arrogant disregard for the intelligence of the people. The attempted rigging of elections and the dark reasons for it. The twisted attempts to make the man and woman in the street conform, by the use of guilt and threats, to a politically correct nightmare vision invented by the paranoid world of perpetual victims, inhabited by the lunatics of feminist politics and other persuasions. Policies that have created an underclass of disempowered but dangerous people and a whole gender vilified for the crime of being male.

No one minds being educated as long as all sides of the debate can be heard but, increasingly in this land and others, the people are being asked to accept only one voice and the debate is squashed beneath governments desire to brainwash with propaganda. Even the minds of children are targeted by these sick political vampires and their spin meister "advisors" who milk our money at every available opportunity and are unelected by the people.

In the European Parliament and its offices of control, the brood of EU vipers coil around each other and spit out laws that threaten our land's sovereign right to self rule while they refuse to be audited so that their corruption and malpractice can be exposed. All the while in our country, their equally corrupt political supporters suppress the use of the British flag for fear that patriotism will grow around it and defy their ambition should the public get used to supporting and loving this land of ours. All of this is about control and the totalitarian regulation of a vast population of the continent of Europe.

These snakes lost the right to impose control by democratic vote over the supposed EU constitution because the people know what the game is, but totalitarians are never subject to democracy and they seek to impose it by "changing the rules" and resubmitting it to another vote until they get what they want. A technique that Blair, Brown and their cronies are very familiar with.

Here in the UK the population are most watched people on earth. The totalitarians seek to finger print, blood test, follow, record, and intrude on every aspect of our lives. They cut us off from protesting outside of the seat of government and use laws like the Anti Terrorism Act to terrify us into submission. They claim they can label people criminals from childhood and they offer things to us not seen since the darkest days of Germany's sad history and Soviet Russia's nightmare under the cold war. The excuse is always the same, 'national security' and the mantra of, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is used to suppress anxiety and dissent. Some of us remember that that is how it began under Lenin and we know that even if some people do have things to hide, if exposing those things means the termination of freedom to move, meet together, travel and be private, then the price is not worth it. The price of democracy lies in the cost of allowing the innocent and the guilty to travel together down the path towards freedom. It does not lie in assuming that all are potentially guilty!

In a free country the right to say, "I do not like black people" is as precious as the right to say, "I do." No matter how much the racist speech may sound abhorrent to those who value freedom, freedom itself is worth the price of our offended ears and yes, even the blood of the offended people. In a free country the right to say another is a "spastic" or "cripple" is a fundamental right under the terms of freedom of speech and no matter whose feelings are hurt by such a remark, the cost to freedom of removing that right is too great to bare. Yet, here, in the UK, certain lunatics bent on thought control have deemed such speech illegal. They call it "hate speech" and they jail and persecute those who speak it. With each new anti-hate law and regulation they pass, they deny the right of people to speak their minds -- to have minds of their own -- and they drive the perpetrators of hate underground. In a free country we would know who they are and we could educate with the force of argument. Under this regime of left wing lunacy and suppression, we no longer know who they are so we cannot educate them. Thus we store up an undercurrent of underground hated that one day will surge upwards and out onto our streets.

Even as they make and enforce these laws, they break them. Any group not considered worthy enough to be protected by the law is hated with the same discriminatory hatred handed to others before freedom was suppressed. We have removed the freedom to hate the blacks, the sick, the female, the overweight, the small in stature and on and on but left out the male. He is a legitimate target of hate. Why? Because of the paranoid and inaccurate perception of history held by a few delusional nutcases that think the very idea of maleness implies a world wide conspiracy to suppress half of the population. It is insanity.

It is not just!

It is not freedom!

It is, brainwashing!

From within these mindless political ideas grows the hatred of the family, fathers, sons and men that those selling this hatred purport to find disgusting when aimed at sexual orientation, disability, or skin colour.

The hypocrisy of the political lunatic is evident in their nature. We need only look closely to find it.

People need to be very careful and to start demanding the undoing of these things NOW! If not, the future will be one of blood, sorrow, war, and grief and not peace.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth" Vladimir Lenin

George Rolph

Under the English legal system you are innocent until you are shown to be male.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Feminism's Critically Important Border States

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Sharing a Quick Thought

MALE PRIVILEGE..... feminist codespeak for "anything we wish to steal from men".

I hope somebody finds that useful.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

CF is Pragmatic in its Manner of Operation

Counter-feminism, as already explained, asserts that feminism will never yield to the force of mere argument or persuasion. The logic of this axiom dictates, in consequence, certain practical considerations of a policy nature.

Counter-feminist analysis does not build its knowledge of feminism on what feminists say about feminism—which we know to be dishonest, incoherent, and self-serving—but rather upon independently formulated conclusions blended with a critical, watchdog scrutiny.

If we cannot coherently declare what feminism IS, then we cannot coherently guard ourselves against it—since it is forever shifting about this way and that, such that when the many-sided beast assails us from all directions at once within the fabric of culture, we lack any fixed logical center from which to mount an effective defense. This is yet another reason that feminists ought not have the sole power to define feminism. They have no right to render us defenseless by intellectually dishonest and downright totalitarian methods. Granted, they are free to attempt this, but we are likewise free to throw stumbling-blocks in their path.

Accordingly then, we would understand our dialogue with feminism as verbal self-defense rather than argument. Or, to borrow a term from the feminists themselves, verbal karate. For too long we have deceived ourselves and acted the part of patsies because we naively supposed our enemy was playing the same game by the same rules. We should henceforth undertake to shed such illusions, and to face the future with unencumbered vision.

The counter-feminist enterprise may be reckoned as verbal self-defense on a societal scale. And we have concluded, upon the precept that the best defense is a good offense, to seize the offensive in our war of words. Verbal self-defense, be it in the social microcosm or the societal macrocosm, is not about carrying the point by strength of logical clarity or by any kind of Robert's Rules. It is about repelling an aggressor. It is about throwing the other person off your back, in a theatre of action where quickness, cleverness, acuity, eloquence, and sometimes even ruthlessness, are the order of the day.

We therefore affirm to all the world, that a growling watchdog stance is to be expected from the men's movement, as a strategy most befitting to the objective situation of men in the world today. The present writer cannot in good conscience recommend anything other.

It is with good reason that our policy is driven by coldly practical considerations—from the organizing premise that feminism is best understood as an impersonal and non-human force which merely gathers humans in its stride and utilizes them.

Feminism is not our friend, so it is proper that our style of engagement betokens no such assumption. We organize, we mobilize, we formulate plans, and at no point do we look upon feminism as anything other than a challenge to our powers and wiles, a vexed puzzle to be deciphered and eventually left behind on the way to better things. The question is not whether feminism has got to go, but how.

It does not matter if certain feminists feel that counter-feminist analysis misrepresents feminism. The purpose of our analysis is not to seek feminist approval, but to construct a pragmatic template which allows us to function effectively in terms of our lived experience, and in terms of what we hope to accomplish.

Let us suppose that Faith of the "Feminist Country" blog is sitting in her parked car with the engine idling, and I want her to turn it off. But Faith is not amenable to negotiation by any means, to which may be added that she has the windows rolled up and that she is toking and chugging and rocking out to her stereo, oblivious to the world. Argument with the driver is clearly futile, so I lean over and cajole the engine itself, but this proves equally unavailing. Finally, I take the law in my hands so to speak, by prying the hood open and rummaging around beneath it. I snip wires and unscrew things at random until at length I accomplish my design. However, note that I have done so NOT by any form of rational engagement with either Faith or her car, but rather by a method merely pragmatic and, I might add, impersonal.

Feminism, over the years, has operated impersonally upon men. It has negated our essence as individuals—yours and mine—and effectively swallowed our lives into a kind of dialectical machinery which must now be rewired and made to run in reverse, so that you and I may begin, truly, to exist once more. As feminism has operated upon men, so likewise must men now operate—not upon women—but upon feminists specifically.

As said, argument is not the road to victory—and if you walk this road you are no better than a snake chasing its tail on a hamster wheel. A true estimation of our foe does not comport with ingenuous conversation of any sort, since they long ago forfeited the right to be deemed fit for such communication. They play with loaded dice; they play with a stacked deck; they do not play a clean game! And the entirety of our counter-feminist endeavor should make due allowance for this unfortunate state of affairs. As they have measured unto us, so too we in our hour shall measure unto them, and quite rightly, since we have no other option. The shoe will fit them on the other foot, and they will wear it!

Verbal self-defense provides the working model by whose pattern we take the offensive against feminism. And this pattern is far more than "verbal": By analogy, it maps to every counter-feminist project that we might embark upon—it extends to ALL realms. The essential spirit of thrust-and-parry has its counterpart in every theatre of operation, and the central, preeminent quality here advocated is pragmatism: practical action that obtains results. For by now we surely know what results can be expected from a perpetual argument with feminism. So we must try our hand at something different—verbally and every other way. We can never make the other side behave differently by persuading it to do so. We can only make it do so, by making it do so!

This means assuming ownership of power; seizing the initiative; standing your ground! And then, coolly asking them what they intend to do about it. Refusing to yield is not the same as pushing—even though some will try to twist your mind into believing that it is. Treating somebody as an equal does not equal letting them walk all over you. And yet any time we refuse to roll over like dogs, you'll hear some feminist, somewhere, screaming about "male privilege". It's the feminist way!

They, who see us as dogs, merit human consideration in proportion as they have distanced themselves from feminism—ideally disowning the word itself, and at the very least swearing to the Oath of Abjuration of the Redstockings Manifesto. If they have accomplished none of this, they should expect to be viewed pragmatically, which in practice translates as impersonally and manipulatively. About the way a Jew might regard somebody who, however well-behaved, unabashedly admits to being a National Socialist.

Our pragmatic policy for the everyday social world is that feminists should be rendered self-conscious, so that they will draw back into their shell. Their shell is not a practical stance from which to mount a moral offensive, or any form of argument whatever—and that is precisely the point!

Remember that you are withholding legitimacy from their ideology. But you needn't always state this in so many words. It is often witty and penetrating to merely adopt an air of blithe disregard for all things feministical, even while steering clear of whatever could reasonably be deemed offensive. I repeat: reasonably. So you should as nearly as possible behave as if no such thing as feminism even existed at all, and to this end you may freely pretend to more ignorance than you actually possess. Act as if you find your own world, and your own thoughts, infinitely more interesting—which I'm sure you do! The catch is that they in fact will, at some point, feel "offended" - or irked at any rate. But if you have done your work right, they'll have no choice but bottle up their feelings and stew in their juices!

If the foregoing sounds like "passive resistance", let me assure you it is that indeed! Some might complain that such a method is not "masculine" enough for a "men's movement", but I say to hell with that line of thinking: we should use every trick in the book and then write some new books to boot! We should not limit ourselves.

However, "playing dumb" is not the only way to go about it, and you need not limit your approach in this regard. Suit your tactic to the terrain of battle. If you decide on a more openly assertive stance, you should bear in mind that you must always keep them on the defensive. Don't attempt to plead your case; you are not the one on trial! Rather, be an aggressive questioner, a prosecuting attorney; demand to know what they've got to say for themselves; get them on the ropes and don't let up!

Everywhere, in all theatres of operation both micro and macro, keep feminism on the defensive!

Here's a clever trick. You may be conversing with a feminist one day, and sure enough you'll find occasion to trot out your favorite war-horse maxim: "I do not support feminism". That alone should terminate the conversation on the spot, or so you might reasonably assume.

But chances are good that your interlocutor is a glutton for punishment. She'll reel off a string of lightning-fast accusations meant to shame you by making you appear stupid and insensitive: "What, you don't support equal pay? Equal rights? A woman's right to choose? A woman's right to leave an abusive relationship? The right to not wear makeup? The right to not shave her legs? The right to not get raped?". And so on and so on......

And your response? Amazingly simple. Just say, "Oh sure, of course I support those things (or most of those things), however, I do not support feminism!"

Chances are that she'll be caught short by this cleverly loaded, flippantly offbeat statement—the like of which she likely hasn't heard before. She'll stagger; she'll drop a stitch; she'll scan the words in multiple passes and still come up blank. If she's wise, she'll drop the subject. If she presses the point, then you've got her where you want her—in a zone of argument where she can't hope to win because you know the moves in advance!

And what have you accomplished by this little trick? You have very craftily insinuated that her a priori understanding of feminism is defective, or incomplete, or simply misses the point. For in fact, all she has done is to recite a list of rhetorical talking points. Yet she has overlooked the essential thing about feminism altogether—a lack which you, in your counter-feminist wisdom, could remedy. And you have effected your little coup, not by argument, but by categorically informing her of something, albeit through insidious indirection, by raking fire from an unseen quarter.

And that is the true heart of the game: You don't argue with feminists, you simply TELL them things.

This raises another point concerning the nature of argument in general—likely a point of confusion, so it is worthy of discussion. There are two distinct forms of argument to be understood here: argument with, and argument against. In the former, you are attempting to convert the opposition from their presently held position. In the latter, you are urging upon a neutral party the superior merit of your own position.

It is the second form of argument—argument against—that should henceforth become the mainstay of men's movement polemical and recruitment efforts. We know exactly how futile is the first form of argument, and what an energy sink it is—useful only for limited tactical purposes but worthless as a foundational strategy for our movement.

And what is the foundational strategy for our movement? It is to generate blocking energy—by which I mean anything that thwarts the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. And in most cases this is better accomplished by arguing against feminism rather than with it—although clever exceptions to this principle may be demonstrated on occasion.

To make it simple, anything which drains feminist energy in any way will thwart the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. Perpetual revolution needs to feed itself by eating the surrounding world—specifically by extracting energy through a process of entropic rearrangement. But when such energy cannot be extracted, perpetual revolution not only comes to a halt, it begins to run in reverse.

Perpetual revolution cannot remain static; it is either pushing outward, or it is running in reverse.

And any time you either waste feminism's energy, use feminism's energy against it, or attack feminism in a way which maximizes conservation of your own energy, you are thwarting the forward momentum of perpetual revolution—if only a tiny bit.

Arguing with feminism not only wastes your time and drains your energy, it does something far more insidious: it validates feminism's discourse, and thereby colonizes your inner space, which in turn contributes to the forward momentum of perpetual revolution. In effect, you are pouring your lifeblood into feminism's vortex and making that vortex fatter.

On the other hand, arguing against feminism cuts feminism out of the loop—for it operates within a region of preparation where independent forces are a-gathering, forces that will presently march against feminism in a massive wall of blocking energy! And the reason is this: when you are arguing against feminism you are standing apart from it and you are not contending with it. You are simply explaining something, or more to the point you are telling somebody something. The somebody in question may be a feminist, but is far more profitably a neutral party who may be drawn in a sympathetic direction. If the former, it blocks perpetual revolution within that particular moment and that particular microcosm. If the latter, it mobilizes the larger world efficaciously in a political manner. Either scenario is a winner, but as suggested, the latter is optimal.

I should additionally remark, that to trap a feminist in a funnel of structured questions leading toward a telling realization, is simply a roundabout way of telling that person something - albeit interrogatively framed.

This has been a brief sketch, whether it seems brief or otherwise. In conclusion, let it be said that counter-feminism has in addition to the various qualities here discussed, the quality of scalability. That is to say, nearly all of its stratagems will operate effectively in varying realms of hierarchical magnitude—the micro, the macro; the individual, the collective. And so on.

What I have given here operates like any other condensed information—just add water and cook it in the oven of your mind.


Follow the link below to read the NEXT installment in the 'CF' series of articles:

Follow the link below to read the PREVIOUS installment in the 'CF' series of articles: