Monday, December 31, 2007

This Should be of Interest

"Progressing Backwards
The political and social foreground

"We’re told that men and women are the same. Or, rather, some of the time we’re told this. At other times we’re told that men and women are essentially and irrevocably different. We’re further told that although men and women are different, this is really just something to do with the way we are at the moment, albeit that we have been that way for a long time, living in the sort of society we do. In time, we keep being reminded, all will revert to how supposedly it should be and how it used to be in times of yore: i.e. men and women are the same after all. Even so, it’s then insisted that actually, in the end, no matter what we do, men will never get to be truly the same as women: men and women are forever and totally different (except when it’s more convenient to regard them as exactly the same).

"We’re also told that women are disadvantaged, and that they’ve got this way because of oppression by men. We’re never told how or why this could be. We’re not told why—especially if men and women are supposedly the same — there would be any point in one sex oppressing the other. We’re not told how it can be — if indeed men are different to women and oppress them — that by most measures it is not women who are disadvantaged but men (or, at least, a large sub-group or even the majority of men). Nobody tells us why men are maligned as if they’re at one with the very few at the top of the pile, whereas all women are championed irrespective of who they are, what they have done, or how they have lived their lives. Confused? You certainly should be. The notion that males and females — or some essence of what is male or female — are the same or different, oppressed or actually advantaged, is like a juggler with two balls up in the air. He never gets hold of either of them but is constantly palming each upwards and across the path of the other. Eventually the whole spectacle has to come crashing to the ground. That’s what is about to happen to what we currently think about men and women. . . ."

Copyright © Steve Moxon 2007

The above is excerpted from a recently published book. Go here to learn more:

When you get there you will notice a list of links leading to PDF files which offer samples similar to the one I have quoted. Good reading to keep you busy for a while. . .

Also pertinent, is this.

Oh. . . to draw things into focus, let me say it again:


Friday, December 28, 2007

Rob and Steal

Ampersand the collaborationist, a.k.a. Berry Deutsch of Portland , Oregon, has posted a thread of some interest on his blog. You know, a blog called "Alas. . . !"

Among other things, Ampersand says this:
"One of the odd things about MRAs is that we forget how much variance there is within the MRM. From the perspective of most “Alas” readers, someone like Glenn Sacks seems pretty far “out there” — and justifiably so. Nonetheless, within the spectrum of MRAs, Glenn is actually very far left, since he objects to misogyny on occasion . . ."
Ampersand implies that "objecting to misogyny" is "very far left". And does he mean politically left—as in "leaning toward socialism"? Is that what he means by "left"? But apart from that, what the hell is Ampersand really driving at? Is he hinting that so-called "conservatives" as a rule have no objection to misogyny? Or that "misogyny" is a structurally conservative trait? It certainly sounds like Ampersand is suggesting something along this line.

However, that aside, what Ampersand doesn't appear to capisch is the harsh objective reality of present-day gender politics. He appears to take for granted that MRAs, or even men generally, have some kind of a sacred duty to "object to misogyny". But that is a misconception. That is an illusion. There is no such duty, and Amp errs in supposing that there is.

Go and review the Seven Point Counter-Feminist Platform. Pay particular mind to items 1 and 4.

Let's see if I can make this clear: There is a WAR going on—all right, a grim political battle if you prefer—and it is simply not fitting for enemies to lecture enemies about their "duties." I mean, if nothing else, it's just plain ironic as hell! Sorry Amp, but it is really, truly, honestly NOT my job as the Counter-Feminist to "object to misogyny". Nor is it the job of any MRA, or any male person whatsoever, to do so!! That is, not unless they feel like it, and not unless they choose to do so freely out of the authentic, uncoerced goodness of their nature—for which, if it happens, gratitude would not go amiss!

But that aside, there are further reasons to find this particular blog post interesting—especially in the comment section. Go now:

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

i COMMAND You to Read These Articles!!

"These studies, together with the data contradicting patriarchal theories of etiology of partner intimate violence, and emerging research on personality factors among violent men and contextual variables such as self-defense, cannot be ignored. A convincing body of evidence had established that women (1) initiate physical violence as often as, or more often than, men; (2) rarely assault strictly in self-defense, but rather, like their male counterparts, are driven by a variety of motives; (3) engage in comparable levels of emotionally abusive and controlling behaviors as men, with the exception of rape and physical intimidation; and (4) generally participate as active agents in abuse dynamics, rather than react passively.

"Although the patriarchal paradigm has continued to inform the making of public policy, its theoretical foundations are beginning to fall apart and the way is being paved for radically new perspectives on the causes and treatment of intimate partner abuse, among them the author's gender-inclusive conception (Hamel, 2005). In this first decade of the new millennium, amidst continuing debate and controversy, it is becoming more and more evident that IPV is truly a human problem, and not simply one of gender."
Very well. Go now and devour the entire article (by John Hamel) from which the above is excerpted. It is a long article, and trust me, it is WELL worth reading!

It is HERE:

Next. . . a "teaser" from a FINE piece by Donald Dutton - a kind of bird's eye overview summary of various IPV studies:
"Research data contradicting the feminist view of intimate partner violence (IPV)--exclusively male perpetrators and female victims--have been available since 1980. Stets and Straus (1992) reported data from the 1985 United States National Survey on the incidence of abuse showing that 45 percent of abuse reports were bilateral (corrected for level of severity) and, of the rest, women were three times as likely as males to use severe violence against a non-violent or minimally violent partner. Dutton (1994) reviewed data patterns inconsistent with feminist theory, including higher rates of IPV in lesbian relationships compared to heterosexual relationships, the absence of a direct relationship between power and violence in couples, and a small number of men who used severe violence unilaterally.

"As new incidence data were collected, they became more troubling for feminist theory (Dutton 2006; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). These included data from the United States National Surveys of 1975 and 1985 showing women to be as violent as males. However, female violence rates have been portrayed as indications of self-defensive behavior, as less serious, or as a result of reporting differences. In fact, they are equivalent or exceed males' rates, they include female violence against non-violent males, and they have serious consequences for males."

Yes, absolutely! Glut yourself on this one too, HERE:

Oh, and did I mention: Keep copies for yourselves, and share the links with interested others ?? The more the merrier! :))

Ripping the lid off of feminism's DV shenanigans is, in my opinion, the best possible "Femi-gate" we can aspire to.

Want to pound the nails in feminism's coffin?
This is the way to do it!

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Just For Today - Dec 25, 2007


Just for today, I am going to hang up my counter-feminist hat, and be a regular normal guy who enjoys innocent things like going out in the woods to take pictures. Yes, earlier today, I was crouching over my text editor composing a somber, end-of-the-world diatribe. Of a sudden, the flicker of descending snowflakes caught my eye through the hairline gaps in the venetian blinds. Yes: a white Christmas! Does that give you a warm fuzzy feeling, eh?

So, I pulled on my big thick coat and grabbed my digital camera and headed out. Above, you see a sample of the takings. It's a thicket of alder trees with nary a spruce, Douglas fir, bigleaf maple or madrona anywhere in sight. The area is carpeted with blackberry brambles - a mat of choking vegetation! And a swampy little creek meanders through it, broadening at the lower end into a small, frog-infested pond. At the outflow of the pond, the creek continues on its way into a dark, majestic forest of evergreens.

All sorts of critters live hereabouts. In addition to the two-legged kind we are too familiar with, you will meet up with raccoon, possum, deer. . . and upon my word I once saw a fox crossing the road in the early morn. Or perhaps it was a coyote - hard to tell.

You go way deep in the woods and you'll even find lynx and black bear! And of course, you'll hear the owls who-who-whoooo-ing in the night. ;)

Snow is comparatively uncommon around these parts, but it does occur now and again - as you can see. By the time I took this photo, it was already turning into slush on the ground. I'm pretty sure it will melt away by tomorrow, which is good! I don't want to drive in it.

Anyway, be merry if you feel like it! ;)

Monday, December 24, 2007

On the Battle Front Far From the Blogosphere

The following is from an e-mail which I received today:

Happy and Safe Holidays from A Child's Right!
We are asking everyone to please place January 4th, 2008 in your schedule book so that you can attend the 1st Annual Fatherhood Summit in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Please help us spread the word about this historic event by forwarding this newsletter to anyone that may be interested. You can easily forward this newsletter by using the forward email link at the bottom left corner of this newsletter. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!
It is very important to note that this Fatherhood Summit is a National event and NOT exclusive to just Michigan. This is the first event leading up to the 2nd Annual Family Preservation Festival which is to take place on August 15th-17th 2008 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The Fatherhood Summit will bring together husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and grandparents in an effort to begin the New Year recognizing the need for repair of fatherhood nationwide.
So...why should you attend?
This event is packed with an incredible list of speakers, elected officials and family preservation experts!

And a long list of speakers follows, together with more information about the event—but I will omit that here because I would like to keep this post neat, compact and not unduly bloated. However, you can learn more by following the link provided below:

To excogitate upon the title of this post: we bloggers, all by ourselves, are not the Movement! We are just a piece of it; just a chunk of it. We are only one school of fish in the lake. We are not as big as we think we are! Perversely, we give ourselves too much credit of the wrong kind, and yet not enough of the right kind! But that is a subject I will crack open some other day.

For now, know that a mighty host is assembling upon the plain. Multifarious armies under multifarious banners are converging from every point of the compass, whilst in the heavens the brooding storm clouds are seen to gather, and to tower angrily, and to send flickering tongues of lightning back and forth! So foul a sky clears not without a storm. . .

Oh, very well! In more prosaic terms, the Movement is a motley agglomeration of sub-movements (or independent dukedoms and fiefdoms) whose mutual awareness or sense of allegiance varies greatly. But the gathering storm-clouds are real enough, for there is plenty of raw anger floating around and accumulating to critical levels. This anger needs to be informed and channeled and directed toward a fitting target, as the bursting of pent-up waters through an underground aqueduct! But that too, is a subject for another day.

For now, know that a growing number of political orgs and activist pods are chewing away at different sectors of feminism's pervasive socio-political empire, or what I compactly call the femplex. These folk are guided by their feelings, their instincts, their vital interests, the immediate reality of their lives. They operate in varied and fragmentary fashion. Obviously, they don't know what the word "femplex" means, and "MRA" is likewise unknown to many of them. But plenty of them do know, if only dimly, that they are attacking something bigger than just the particular issue which agitates them. And yes, quite a few have connected the dots far enough to realize that feminism forms part of the picture. I say quite a few—but not yet all. Still, the fact that they are attacking even some portion of what feminism has created, is good for our side and bad for feminism.

Naturally, it were better for our side if ALL had a well-developed and fully integrated counter-feminist political consciousness. But take this one day at a time, since it is clearly an open field for what you might call missionary work.

At any rate, I have today featured a message from one of those activist pods on the front line, far from this distributed cyberspace think-tank we call the MRA blogosphere. I share the word about this political event in Michigan because I wish to be of help in any way I can. By publishing such information here, more people will be duly informed of what is happening. And a few of them might even feel inspired to make that long drive to Michigan—you never can tell!

So, do spread the word! The First Annual Fatherhood Summit, and the sum total of political energy surrounding it, points like a dagger at the heart of feminism's political power structure. The rubbishing of fathers, the garbaging of generations, the undermining of marriage, the breaking-apart of the traditional family unit—these are all very rude things, and we ought to feel very angry that such things were hoisted on us without our permission. If I personally believed that these were good things and apt to have good consequences, then very likely I would be a feminist myself. But I don't, so I'm not.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Woman Puts Her Son in the Garbage

"LANCASTER, Ohio, Dec. 14 (UPI) -- An Ohio woman was sentenced Friday to nine years in prison for leaving her toddler in a trash bin and closing the lid.

"Tonja Janelle Morin of Lancaster, Ohio, said she never meant to harm her son, Tyler, who was 2 at the time of the incident. She said she was trying to get the attention of her husband that 95-degree summer day, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. . . ."

Hmmm! So. . . the judge ended up putting HER in the bin and closing the lid!

Anyway, read the full story here:

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Have a Punching Bag Handy....

. . . so you won't smash your monitor in a rage while you are reading the rotten anti-male filth that follows. This dreck is copied from a pdf file available at the website. One way to get the concentrated effect is to scroll somewhat faster than you would normally read, and focus mainly on the orange-highlighted text for a rapid impressionistic overview:
"Men Stopping Violence long ago shifted its focus to community-accountability work by integrating the concept into our intervention component, called the Men’s Education Program, and by creating other initiatives that seek to engage male allies outside of the classroom. . . .
Projecting from a National Family Violence Survey and BIP enrollments in a major city, it’s estimated that less than 2 percent of men who had pushed, shoved, slapped, or hit their partners – or done worse – ended up in a Batterers’ Intervention Program. So what are we doing with 98 percent of those men, who don’t get anywhere near a batterers’ class or group? And, for those men who do attend a class for two hours a week, for 24, 36, or 52 weeks, how many of them will internalize meaningful, lasting change? For most of their lives, for the remaining 168 hours in their week, these men are receiving and sending powerful
messages about the importance of controlling others, particularly women. In the context of a culture whose messages about domination masculinity are as endemic as the air we breathe, what does it mean to focus our solutions on BIPs? One thing it means is that we are avoiding opportunities to change the misogynist culture that produces men who batter.
In the early eighties, some of the leading advocates in the Battered Women’s Movement questioned the purpose and efficacy of BIPs. Their questions were provocative and instructive. Those advocates questioned our strategies to change men’s minds and behaviors, one man or one men’s group at a time, instead of focusing our efforts on the culture that shapes the attitudes and beliefs of all men, whether they’re in a batterers’ program or not. For instance, “when Martin Luther King, Jr., went to confront racial injustice,” they said, “he didn’t mobilize or institute white people’s encounter groups.”
These challenges raised the fundamental question: Should we be focusing on the few men who got caught or on the men who could stop them?
Over time we speculated that there is no either/or answer to that question. At the same time, we also felt and heard implicit and explicit messages from community agencies and the general public that we should be focusing our resources on the men who got caught. Were we getting that message because, if you send the “bad” guys to BIPs, the rest of the community is relieved of dealing with them? Or was it because resisting a culture that condones violence against women is just too daunting?
Including or Requiring Community-Based Responses
Men Stopping Violence’s response has been to create interventions with batterers that include or require community-based responses. Their function is to demystify and de-privatize the change process. For example, men first come to learn about the 24-week Mens Education Program at a public orientation attended by community volunteers as well as candidates for the program. Once in the room we welcome the men as potential allies to work with us to end violence against women. Having deconstructed the problem of men’s violence against women, we challenge the men, as volunteers or as candidates, to enroll in our classes to join us in stopping the violence against women. Then, one of the men from our Community Restoration Program (CRP) describes his worst incident of violence against a woman. In so doing he publicly models accountability for his violence. CRP is for men who have completed our 24-week program and who have consistently demonstrated a willingness to challenge themselves and other men to change. They must show that they understand the need to restore to the community what they destroyed when they abused their partner. . . .
Another way that Men Stopping Violence works to de-privatize men’s violence thru public accountability is to require men in our 24-week program to bring men from their community into the classroom to witness their work at the mid- and end- point of their class. Similar to Rhea Almeidas’ Cultural Context Model, in which men bring sponsors into their groups to support them by challenging their abusive behaviors and coaching them to consider their affects on others, men in our classes bring men who have influence in their lives. These men, such as clergy or uncles or co-workers, practice challenging the men in class to change and they pledge to hold them accountable once they have completed the course. One purpose of bringing witnesses into the class is to demystify the change process. We do this by increasing the number of men who can see that the issues men struggle with in a batterers’ class are the same issues with which most men struggle. They witness men in the class taking responsibility for behaviors that many men use but do not generally think of as controlling or abusive. They leave the class
understanding that all men and not just the men in class can benefit from working changing the beliefs and attitudes that promote violence against women.
We invite the community to observe our classes, both to make transparent the purpose and the process of the work, and to model the concept of the community holding men, including our facilitators, accountable. We constantly invite feedback from our community partners.
On several occasions we have held our classes in public arenas, including at our national trainings and as part of undergraduate seminars. We noticed that the men who volunteered to participate were as willing to get real with their work in public settings (acknowledging abuse, and confronting and supporting each other) as they were in the confines of our classroom. They saw these experiences as opportunities to educate the public on how men can work to hold men accountable.
We think the tipping point for men who are seeking change is when they understand that it’s lifelong work and that they will have to enlist community support to sustain it.
Our Internship and Mentor Training programs provide opportunities for young men to engage with peers in school and community settings to prevent dating violence.
Strategies for ending violence against women are unlimited when we allow ourselves to think beyond the boundaries of BIPs. We are part of a growing network of men, including but in no way limited to, A Call to Men, Men’s Resources International, and Men Can Stop Rape, who are relentlessly moving those boundaries. It’s about time."

Ahhh. . . yes! Repeat after me: Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem!!

You can download the PDF file here if you are so-inclined.

But now. . . you are prepared to to be fully caught up in the spirit of THIS - and I recommend that you go there now.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Ahhh yes....the Gentler Sex!

From: The Guardian - UK
Examples of Samina Malik's poetry were read to the jury during her trial at the Old Bailey.

One poem, called The Living Martyrs, said: "For the living martyrs are awakening/ And kuffars [non-believers] world soon to be shaking."

Another line ran: "Let us make jihad/ Move to the front line/ To chop chop head of kuffar swine."

A second poem was called How to Behead. "It's not as messy or as hard as some may think/ It's all about the flow of the wrist," it read.

Another section said: "No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream/ But ignore the donkey's ass/ And continue to slice back and forth/ You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe/ But don't stop/ Continue with all your might."

Read more HERE. . . and HERE.

Here We Grow Again - Another Blog!

This from an Aussie by the name of Barnoz. My thanks to Rob at One Man's Kingdom for posting the link that made me aware of this:

Barnoz seems to be talking about "male revitalization" as opposed to taking feminism's shit apart. Well. . . that sounds like a refreshing new approach!


Monday, December 17, 2007

Twenty Famous Sexual Harassment Cases

The following was e-mailed to me by an editor at the HR World website. Out of the blue again. Okay, so it must be karma! Yes, were MEANT to read this article at You will do as you are told, little grasshoppers!:
Hi Fidel:We just posted an article " The Top 20 Sexual-Harassment Cases of All Time " (
top-20-sexual-harassment-cases-121307/ ). I thought I'd bring it to your attention just in case you think your readers would find it interesting. . .Either way, thanks for your time!

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Out of the Blue!

The following is from an e-mail which I got today literally "out of the blue": the author used a blue typeface! Anyway, I enjoyed it and wanted to share it:
Hello Fidelbogen!! I happened across your short diatribe on feminism as such (I too have read Nietzsche, lots and lots of Nietzsche actually) while scouring the internet for memes. I would just like to tell you how happy I am to have come across your site. . . . . . Your content analysis of Valerie Solanas' Scum Manifesto was not lost on me. I also have a cherished copy of that not-so-well received work of Norman Mailer's THE PRISONER OF SEX!

Feminism is a theory, albeit poor theory. And like all theories, it's just a another way of interpreting the world around us. Only in the case of feminism, it is a way of interpreting everything that women find untenable about the nature of the relations between men and women in terms of its being men's fault. In this way, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can blame men for their relative lack of status and achievement while at the same time absolving themselves of any fundamental responsibility for their own miserable existence. I've always thought feminism short for feminine chauvinism... a portmanteau too..

Feminism is an ideology. In this case, ideology takes the form of religion. Men are convicted, they feel guilt, shame, remorse, they confess, then repent, and ultimately they are reformed.. As with religion, the work is never done and it's evangelical to boot!

We've all heard the call...All the criticism, the complaining, the fault finding, the self-righteous moralistic drivel about men's attitudes, the sick blaming, the myopic theories about male dominance and patriarchy, (synonym for original sin) all the effeminate whining about being degraded, used, abused, treated like slaves, sex objects, second class citizens, mere pieces of property.

One can hear them accuse. How they love to accuse! The resentful and pious attitudes characteristic of women today will not permit themselves any rest until they have forged men and things in such a way that these attitudes may be vented on them.

"Ridicule is often the only weapon remaining to conscious inferiority."

The comparison of feminism to religion is not lost on me. And the author makes 'patriarchy' to be a stand-in for 'original sin' - which is certainly an interesting take! Personally, I have always taken patriarchy as equivalent to 'the devil'. But they both seem valid interpretations - no need to bedevil ourselves with the distinction, eh?

Oh, I should add that the author seems to overestimate the amount of Nietzsche that I have read! ;-)

Friday, December 14, 2007

A Word From Masculist Man

Masculist Man, of the Men's Rights Blog has left a comment on my recent post entitled "A Detective Story of Sorts", as follows:
Masculist Man said...

Good detective work,Fidel. Yes I copied it word for word without any alterations so it is an exact quote. Whatever is in blue or green is a quote. Whatever is in black are my comments.

7:19 PM
As you may recall, MM was one of two dramatis personae in that little narrative. And what he has shared here serves by way of confirmation. On his own testimony, he did not tamper with the original words of Biron Sleete in any way.
The original context for all of this can be found in the original post:


This post has been updated. I have corrected certain omissions and made edits for clarity and style.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Is There Life After Duke-LAX?

Yes indeed, for Reade Seligmann!

Seligmann, now attending Brown University in Rhode Island, has become involved with the Innocence Project.
"With his personal story, Seligmann would be a natural spokesman on campus for the Innocence Project, even though the organization did not personally help him during the Duke case. But Seligmann was quick to deflect credit for organizing the event, saying that it was really his coaches who put in the grunt work to get the event together.

" 'Just having gone through what I went through really opened my eyes to the injustices' of the court system, Seligmann said. 'The Innocence Project right now is the most legitimate program trying to change the wrongs of the criminal system.'

"Seligmann became involved with the organization after being invited to its first banquet in April, shortly after he was declared innocent. At the banquet, he met other wrongly accused people, some of whom had spent years in jail for crimes they didn't commit.

" 'It was one of the most incredible experiences that I ever had,' Seligmann said. 'Getting a chance to meet some of these people really puts a face on some of these issues. To see what these people went though is mind-boggling. Getting a chance to talk about what they went through and how the justice system treated them really inspired me to make a difference.' "
Read the full article from the Brown Daily Herald here:

I am grateful to MensCollegeActivist.Org for sending me the link to this story.

Monday, December 10, 2007

A Detective Story of Sorts

To my esteemed fellow laborers in the vineyard: Greetings. Today I wish to share something with you. I wish to tell you a tale. Or rather, to set forth the elements of a tale, in such fashion that the yarn will spin itself. "He who hath an ear to hear, let him hear."

This concerns a certain web personality who, true to a certain policy, I will introduce to you as Biron Sleete.

Having made this introduction, I will now cut to the chase.

To begin, I would like you to study the text cited below, which comes from a website called Men's Rights Blog. This website is authored by one who employs the name of Masculist Man . I shall abbreviate his moniker as "MM".

Please attend closely: the text given below is not purported to be of MM's authorship. MM represents it as a citation from a different website - a citation which he exhibits to his readers in order to illustrate a point. We are given to understand the MM did not himself write this passage. Bear that in mind.

Here is the text in question. I shall refer to it henceforth as Text A. The reason for the variable font treatments will be explained further along:

"IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!

"The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against women!

"The time has come for women of all races, faiths and nationalities to join together as one!

"We are smarter.

"We are focused.

"We have the power.

"And we are seizing control.

"IMBRA was just the beginning.

"The time has come.

"The future is ours.

"Support your sisters!

"Defeat the Cretins!"

Text A may be found on Men's Rights Blog, as part of a post entitled "She Heil". Below, I have provided the URL for this exact post. Please take a jog over there right quick, to see for yourself and briefly confirm what we have discussed so far. Then come straight back.

You'll have noted that MM provides a brief introduction in the form of a single sentence. This sentence reads: "Something else from Cuntlips:" As the underlining is meant to suggest, the word "cuntlips" (on MM's blog post) is hyperlinked to a different website. If you click upon "cuntlips" in MM's blog post, it will take you what MM understands or represents to be the original source of Text A. But don't go there yet! Just for now, follow along with my presentation.

Before we proceed any further, I want to acquaint you with the next wrinkle in the plot, which is this: the owner of the website which MM has hyperlinked to "cuntlips", is none other than the very Biron Sleete whom I introduced earlier. In fact, Cuntlips is a scurrilous nickname which MM has given to Biron Sleete.

Biron Sleete, then, is purportedly (
by the purport of MM) the author of Text A .

Very well! I would like you to journey once again to MM's website by clicking on the URL which I provide once again below. When you get there, immediately click on that magical word "cuntlips" and it will take you to Biron Sleete's website. As you will note, this lands you on a blog post entitled "A Call for Peace". But first, here is a sneak preview of what you will find there. We shall refer to the following passage as Text B:

"A Call for Peace!

"The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against men & women!

"The time has come for women of all races, faiths and nationalities to join together as one!

"We are smarter.

"We are focused.

"We have the power.

"And we are seizing control.

"The future is ours.

"Support Peace!

"Defeat Violence!"

Again, the font treatments are significant - as I will explain in due course. But look, here is the URL. Go, follow the link progression I have described, and confirm the state of Text B at Biron Sleete's website with your own eyes. Then hurry back:

All right, you're back. Hopefully no editing changes have occurred between the time I will publish this post and the time you might read it!

I'd like to discuss a couple of things. First, make note of the present blog post TITLE at Biron Sleete's website. It reads: ""A Call for Peace!" You'll find it in darkish, purplish letters directly beneath the blog post DATE, - which by the way is:

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

All right! I am rubbing my hands together now, because I am about to reveal the smoking gun! Those among you who have blogged on Blogger will understand how the post editing system works. The TITLE for a blog post is entered in a separate field above the main text body! Correct?

All right, so far so good! But here is something that you may not have noticed about the Blogger system. Once you have published a blog post with a particular title, the Blogger system generates a URL for that post's unique HTML page. And the TITLE which you first selected gets incorporated into the URL which appears in the location bar of your browser.

It will say something like:


All right, the thing you may not have noticed is that once you publish a post under a particular title, you are stuck with that title forever! It's called a permalink.

Oh sure, you can enter a new title in the TITLE field on your editing page, and this will appear in the blog post itself. No doubt! Likewise, you can edit the main body of the post to your heart's abundant satisfaction!

BUT.... the post title as incorporated in the URL will not change! Thus, you can rewrite that title as "apples", or "oranges", or "plums", or "pears" or howsoever you damn please, and the unique URL for that post, found in the location bar of your browser, will still read as:


I'm sorry, but you'll never get away from hanky-panky-pants-on-fire! And that's the breaks, Jake!

But let's get back to our little tale, shall we?

Go back AGAIN (sorry!) to the URL, and navigate via 'cuntlips' to Biron Sleete's website. I know it's a tortuous navigation routine, but I have my reasons. When you get there, take a look at the web address given in your location bar. It will be the standard Blogger formula, and in the HTML title section it will say: "imbra-was-just-beginning_31.html"

Go there. Observe. Scrutinize. Archive a copy of the page! Then come right back. Here's the URL:

All right, now that you're back let's talk about that URL title:


YES. That was the ORIGINAL TITLE OF THE POST when the post was first published on 31 Oct 2007.


The current title of the post is : "A Call for Peace." You have already seen this on TEXT B at Biron Sleete's website. So manifestly, the post title has been altered since the 31 Oct 2006 publication date.

Let's dig deeper. Look at TEXT A, and what do you see in the title spot? It says: "IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!" This is the version that MM copied verbatim (we are to suppose) from Biron Sleete, directly into his 'She Heil' blog post of 2 Nov 2007 - only two days after Biron Sleete published "IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!" - which we know for a fact was the original title, because the tell-tale URL tells us so!

In fact, it occupies the exact same spot which "A Call for Peace" occupies in Text B: it occupies the title spot. You can see it both here and on Biron Sleete's blog.

The original title of Biron Sleete's blog post was "IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!" But then Biron Sleete changed it. I find this odd. If you know anything at all about IMBRA and the controversy surrounding it, you will know that such a title is suitable for Text A while being wildly out of place for Text B -- which is the version presently existing on Biron Sleete's website! But Text B has nothing at all to do with IMBRA, and this makes it improbable that Text B is the version that was first published on 31 Oct 2007.

Granted, we are free to speculate that MM altered Biron Sleete's original passage to create the writing presently seen on his 'She Heil' blog post of 2 Nov - the version we call TEXT A . And it is conceivable that Biron Sleete would assert (or somehow imply) that something of this nature had in fact occurred.

But honestly, where do the PROBABILITIES lie? What could possibly motivate MM to commit such a fabrication?

And not only do I fail to detect a plausible motive, but I would need to take MM for a double-dipped fool if he had fabricated Text A in order to pass it off as Biron Sleete's writing while providing a hyperlink to the original version so that anybody who took the trouble would immediately learn of the deception.

Ought we suppose that MM fabricated Text A under pretense of its being Biron Sleete's original writing, yet nonetheless furnished a link to the actual writing (Text B)? And ought we further suppose that Biron Sleete had (in theory) initially published Text B under the implausible title of "IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!", only to modify that title to "A Call for Peace", when it would make far more sense to give Text B the second title in the first place?

OR . . . does it make more sense that Biron Sleete originally posted Text A under the title given, then edited this to read as TEXT B some time after 2 Nov 2007, in response to MM's 'She Heil' blog post?

It is also curious that the message of Text A - concerning IMBRA - is entirely out of character with the political part that Biron Sleete presently claims to be acting.

Text B, as it presently appears on its native website, is followed by three reader comments - the first two of which I give below:
Masculist Man said...


Anonymous said...

Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
I hope you like the living Hell you helped to create.

MM's 'She Heil' blog post was published on 2 Nov 2007 at 11:05 PM. The first comment above, also by MM and containing the phrase 'SHE HEIL' thrice-repeated, was entered on the same day at 11:23 PM - a difference of 18 minutes. Evidently MM saw Biron Sleete's post first, then returned to his own blog to create his post containing the Text A material copied-and-pasted from Biron Sleete. Finally, 18 minutes after publishing his own blog post, MM returned to Biron Sleete's in order to compose his reader comment as seen above.

Some time later - whether hours or days I know not - Biron Sleete was inspired to modify and re-title Text A (then posted) to make it read as Text B (currently posted). Observe that both MM's comment and the one which follows are completely unsuited in reply to Text B, while they make perfect sense in reply to Text A .

SO . . . it is clear to me that Biron Sleete willfully modified the inflammatory Text A into the pacific Text B with the premeditated intention of making the two commenters look deranged and stupid.

Biron Sleete might claim that MM modified Text B into Text A with fraudulent designs, but I would not find such a claim creditable to uphold in light of the available evidence. What fraudulence may be found in the present case would seem to lie rather on the side of Biron Sleete.

I would like to end this article with some comparative observations about the two texts here considered.

In both Text A and Text B as given above, you will note that certain bits are highlighted. This was done for your convenience so that you can see at a glance the parts that were either added, deleted or substantially modified in order to create Text B.

In order to create Text A from Text B:
  • "Support your sisters!" and "Defeat the Cretins!" were both dropped, and replaced by "Support Peace!" and "Defeat Violence!".
  • "The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against women!" was modified to read: "The time has come to end the predatory use of the Internet to perpetuate violence against men & women!"
  • The phrase "The time has come" was omitted from Text B.
  • The phrase "IMBRA was just the beginning" - which duplicated the title of Text A within the body of Text A - was omitted from Text B.
  • Finally, the title was changed from "IMBRA Was Just the Beginning!" to "A Call for Peace".

You may also note that
in paragraph number two of both versions I have given boldface treatment to the phrase "women of all races". The fact that this phrase is identical in both versions smacks of hasty editing, since consistency would require that "women of all races" be modified in Text B to read "men & women of all races" in order to reflect the modified usage in paragraph number one of that text.

In conclusion, it seems that we have here to do with a shallow, fickle con artist. A manipulator. A chameleon to be sure, but one who changes backqrounds a mite fast and sometimes hangs fire on the ol' switcheroo!

What has been revealed in the microcosm of the present discussion speaks volumes - and entire libraries - about the macrocosm of the world and about certain classes of people who inhabit that macrcosm, and whom we are likely to encounter in the future.



A Google Cache copy of Biron Sleete's website version of Text B can be found here:

I recommend that you archive it, along with MM's "She Heil" post and the present "Call for Peace" post at Biron Sleete's.

Monday, December 03, 2007

The Pragmatic Evolution of Terminologies

I propose to all members of our movement, in whatsoever light they may view their participation, that we should gradually phase out nearly all official use of the term Men's Rights Movement - commonly acronymized as 'MRM'.

In place of the aforesaid 'MRM' usage, I propose that we substitute the phrase Non-feminist Movement. This may be acronymized as 'NFM', or more informally referred to as 'the Movement' - a practice which I have already undertaken on my own initiative and put to work in my preaching.

The purpose of this change is emphatically NOT to downplay the idea of men's rights, but rather to integrate the idea into a more holistic vision, in a manner that will make subversion, hijacking or co-opting of the idea more difficult. As we move into more complex times, the utility of such a policy will quickly become evident..

This phrase - Non-feminist Movement - is deceptively bland. In marked contrast to 'men's rights movement', it presents a smooth, slippery surface with no readily apparent handholds. This blandness, smoothness, slickness and want of grappling points, offers a number of advantages - both tactically and strategically.

It will be seen that that this phrase represents a paradigm shift of sorts. The concept of male grievance has been transferred backstage, as has the appearance of any combative stance toward feminism. All of this serves a purpose.

Yes, for beneath that insipid semantical surface blanket of ricotta cheese, the seething and tumultuous march of the broader movement will continue. The NFM is a big tent, and beneath this tent ALL manner of operations are and will be under way. The best and the worst. The exemplary and the deplorable. ALL manner of operations, provided only that they may honestly describe themselves as not feminist!

Non-feminist, on the face of it, does not appear to attack feminism. By contrast, counter-feminist arguably does, and anti-feminist most assuredly does. Yet given the manichean character of feminism itself, non-feminist is as much a dagger as the other two - nay, more! Feminism, you see, is formulated in terms of an antagonistic polarity: "Who is not for me is against me!" Feminism's purpose is to make the entire world into an extension of feminist discourse. So, by simply declaring a certain sector to be "other" in relation to feminism, you make it clear to anybody who is paying attention that feminism is not the world.

And that is a bitter pill, because feminism SO much wants to "be the world"! Which is ironic when you consider that feminism has so little succeeded, as of yet, in becoming its own world!

But look - we place them on an awkward spot! Non-feminism does not "attack" feminism any more than my neighbor attacks me merely by not being me! And somewhere deep in the back storage room of their vestigial conscience, the feminists know this! Or if they don't know it, they feel it. And it afflicts them.

AND: in the long run it puts us in a position of greater strength!

We must understand that whatever so much as relativizes feminism, threatens it every bit as much as something that attacks it outright. We must understand also that whatever is bad for feminism is good for men.

And vice-versa.

So in the end, the true test of any so-called men's rights movement - the a priori gold standard, you might say - is whether it weakens feminism, both as an ideology and as a movement. The MRM (so-called) must conform to the tenets of non-feminism as established by means of a counter-feminist analysis - whose standards are exacting.

But I have a word to say to all of you hotspurs and firebrands. Although I realize that non-feminist movement can't possibly compare to men's rights movement as a rallying banner, I hope you will understand that nobody, least of all the present writer, wants to take away your fire or your spurs! For I too have been known to wear those spurs and hurl those brands - and do you honestly believe that I would forgo the pleasure when the time was right? However, in addition to being a firebrand I am a man of the old school - which means that I understand classical restraint. Yes, and my preaching and writing is the better for it.

Trust me, classical restraint is good stuff! It can keep you out of trouble, it can gain you victory, it can bestow grace, it can even save your life. Nowadays, the world wants you to be "spontaneous", to "release your inhibitions", to "let it all hang out", to "be in touch with your feelings" or your "inner child" - but most of that flim-fangle is foisted on you by groups and forces that would much rather control you than let you control yourself. So don't let them get away with it, all right?

Think of it this way: when you distance yourself from visceral immediacy of response, you achieve a greater radius, and greater radius multiplies torque. Not only for you individually, but for the cause generally.

Depend upon it that the men's rights movement will carry on. And yes, the very phrase itself too, will at times dance upon our tongues! For we all understand what 'non-feminist' means, don't we? It simply means anything that is not feminist. That is a BIG umbrella, and we can ALL walk under that umbrella, can't we? Even if we disagree on many things! And the feminists will hate this, but they won't know what in blazes to do about it!

They may passionately desire to shoot us, but let them try and see how far they get! They would need to shoot the rest of the world beyond themselves, and that would be a big job!

Saturday, December 01, 2007

More Good Brain Food!

Posting snippets of other people's writing sure beats doing the work myself! Not that it matters: my mission here is simply to transmit material which might prove useful:

"The Right has been captured by the Big Business lobby representing transnational companies; the Left has been captured by the so-called New Class, middle-class people with a Marxist view of history, who became radicalised in a mass change of consciousness during the anti-Vietnam rebellion, and who have now spread into the Black, Green, Feminist and Gay causes. They expect that destroying the Anglo-American empire from the inside, by the Culture of Complaint, infiltration of the bureaucracy, and Legislative Reform, will lead to "the end of empire" once and for all, to one world government, equality and peace . . . The New Class deconstructs cultures it dislikes but overlooks that all cultures can be deconstructed, including its own. . . .

"The Right by-and-large controls the Means of Production, including ownership and editorial control of the mass media. The Left otherwise controls the Means of the Transmission of Culture (the arts, education, journalism), because "New Class" activists, who were entering the workforce 20 years ago, are now key players in this domain. Both sides, believing that the end justifies the means, use guerilla tactics to maintain their hold and control the limits of discourse in the mass media. Each side admits its own viewpoint only, so that only the correct Left or correct Right line gets a go, unless the author is already famous. People who fall between Left and Right rarely get published, regardless of quality. Both sides prey on the Centre: the Right's Revolt of the Rich has sacrificed the real economy for the financiers' paper economy . . . . The Left's Welfare now consumes the country's wealth while the foreign debt compounds. The Left protests but does not accept responsibility. . . . The sense of belonging to a social whole, cultivated in the Confucian societies, is lacking. We do not say 'we'.

"Each side works to maintain the status quo; as a result, no evidence seems sufficient to elicit a reversal of policy. Each side has "faith", in the religious sense, in its view. Faith is impervious to evidence; converts hold true to their faith more reliably than born believers. This adherence to creeds is far more pervasive in our universities than we would like to think, especially in the humanities but also in the sciences (the entrenched Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit and is suspiciously close to Genesis chapter 1). The various schools of thought have their similarities to the priesthoods of ancient Egypt, each dedicated to its own particular god. We are much less "rational" than we acknowlege.

"The Left's Internationalism has Marxist roots: it is based on the Marxist schema of History. In Marx's version of history, the millenia-long class-war is about to end with the proletarian revolution, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat and then the classless society. When there are no social classes, there will be no conflict and everyone will live happily ever after, with communal property and free love - a return to "primitive communism" but in an urban, industrial society.

"Common to both moderate and far Left is the notion that their "Internationalism" is pro-peace. However it seeks to replace war between countries with war between classes - in this case, the war of workers against bosses; in the case of the "radical feminist" variant of Marxism, the war of women against men. In other words, the front lines would be within societies rather than between societies: horizontal rather than vertical. . . .

"How realistic is the Marxist view of history? Firstly, it is fundamentalist: based on the Christian view of Eden followed by millenia of sin followed by the defeat of Satan and the Second Coming, after which, sinners destroyed, the good would live happily ever after. Marx' version is equally fundamentalist in a secular way.

"Secondly, it is utopian. Among the social animals - bees, fowls, whales, apes etc. - there is role division and inequality of power. The same is typically true of hunter-gatherer societies; intra-group class war of the Marxist or Radical Feminist type does not seem to occur naturally. The very thought of a "utopian society" among bees or baboons, with no role division and where every member has equal power, is ludicrous, yet that is what is being proposed for humans. Such dreams have cost the lives of tens of millions of people this century. . . . The Western media has covered the atrocities of Hitler and Pol Pot, but not those of Mao, hero of the 1970s Western student movement, today's elite.

"Thirdly, it is hypocritical. Marxists reject inequality of power, but often seek and occupy positions of power themselves, as the guardians of correctness; dogmatism and intolerance of heresy is quite common amongst them. The anarchist Bakunin pointed out that communism would mean "the rule of the great masses of the people by a privileged minority". . . Marx chose not to reply. Many socialists, feminists and greens are comfortable middle-class people, who find working-class philistinism and "ockerism" quite distasteful, and do not feel guilty about their relative privileges, or the debt being left to the next generation.

"Nearly all of Marx' vast writings are critiques of actual societies; the utopia he envisaged is barely mentioned. Much blood has been expended for such an unexamined and uncertain goal . . . . The Christian Heaven and the Radical Feminist Lesbian/Separatist Paradise are also vague. When one wishes to create a myth to motivate people, one must leave it vague; exploring the details may lead to disbelief. . . . . .

"The point is not that the status quo should be preserved, but that there is no utopia; and therefore, we should be careful not to judge social realities with a utopian yardstick. We must often choose between options each of which is imperfect. Further, as Catholic tradition taught, we all have our sins, and deserve some forgiveness; the Marxist and Radical Feminist tradition is more Calvinist, in being hard-hearted, denying its own "sin" while pointing the finger mercilessly at the despised class. Giving up the Marxist view of history means abandoning the notion that it is governed by a law which determines its outcome; and abandoning the notion that there are stages of economic and social development that societies progress through unilinearly, and some sort of culmination: the TELEOLOGY and ESCHATOLOGY of Marxism. . . . .

"Since the French Revolution, Europeans have been trying to find the PERFECT social structure, as the key to creating a utopia or "heaven on earth". This quest was rooted in the Christian debate over "the Problem of Evil". Given a good omnipotent God, how can evil arise? The Answer was that individual people choose to commit sin, by accepting temptations emanating from Satan, the Devil. The Enlightenment eliminated this Answer, but retained the Question. It answered that Evil arises not from individual persons, who are inherently good, but from an Evil Social Structure. If this can be overthrown and the Right structure imposed, then we can have the Perfect Society.

"For Marxists, the Evil Structure is the Class System; for Nazis, the evil Jewish presence ; for Radical Feminists, Patriarchy. In each case, the offending group must be eliminated . One might argue instead that structure or form, on its own, does not guarantee quality or content. That one might have a good Monarchy or a bad one, a good or bad Republic, a good or bad Communist society. Revolution-borne experiments to create the perfect society, whether Stalin's, Hitler's, or the push for Matriarchy, are destructive and typically fail.

"The Marxist view of history is a blend of Christian Salvation History and Social Evolution. In the Christian version, human history begins with an innocent paradise, descends into sinfulness and the battle between Good and Evil (God and Devil), and ends with the destruction of the evil forces. In the Marxist version, the innocent paradise is the primitive communist society of communal property and communal marriage. This then descends into the era of private property and marriage as a property relationship, with the class war between rulers and ruled. History culminates in our own era with the revolution in which the Proletariat (the Good) destroy the Ruling Class (Evil) and classless equality is restored. The Radical Feminist position saw the two classes of history not as economic classes (owners and workers) but as Male (the Evil oppressor) and Female (the Good and helpless victim). It switched the sexual polarities presented by Christianity, making Male Power and Violence the origin and cause of Evil in the world. As in the other two cases, such a vision prepared the "Good" class for a struggle against the Evil one: Women's Studies Courses train feminist warriors to battle the patriarchy. . . . .

"Since the Enlightenment, a variety of secular fundamentalisms - Marxist, Nazi, Radical Feminist - have preoccupied the European mind, unobserved because fundamentalism was defined as necessarily religious. A fundamentalist world-view is one based on the antagonistic polarity concept: (a) social forces are seen as divided into two sides, one good, one evil (b) the good side is totally good and the other totally evil; there are no "shades of grey" in between. There is a denial that even the good have their faults, and even the evil have their good points. (c) they are at war; each aims for the destruction of the other (d) the goal is a "monopole", self-existent in the sense of not needing the other pole (e) in religious fundamentalism, the goal is an other-worldly utopia (but in Christendom, the Kingdom of God was identified to some extent with the rule of the Church) (f) in secular fundamentalism, the goal is a this-worldly utopia: the Communist Paradise; the 1000-year Reich; the Lesbian community, separate and uncontaminated by men, etc. (g) such this-worldly utopias turn into nightmares, shattering the faith of the adherents (h) once a person learns to think in terms of antagonistic polarities, other oppositions can be slotted in. Thus many Christians have envisaged an opposition (war) between spirit and matter, heaven and earth, male and female (the female seen, in the person of Eve, as introducing Evil into the world, and contaminated by her identification with the powers of Nature) (i) the antagonistic polarity concept is a powerful motivator of mass movements. . . . "

All right, enough samples. Get the full platter here: