Charming Feminism With the Magic of a Switch

The following unbelievable story came to my attention thanks to a link which The Female Misogynist posted on her blog about a month ago:

http://tinyurl.com/yb3eqrq

It's rather a long news article, but I think it will leave you staring bug-eyed at the wall. So if you enjoy staring bug-eyed at the wall, you'll certainly want to give it a read. Yet even if you don't enjoy staring bug-eyed at the wall, you'll want to give it a read anyway because it is so very revealing, and so very illustrative of so very many things.

As you'll have noted, it is the sad story of a man who was unlucky enough to have married a feminist. YES. . . I say she was a feminist! She was clearly a participant in feminism because she so perfectly conformed to the profile of feminism's occult purpose—and that, friends, could not plausibly make her anything other than a feminist! Furthermore, I the present writer am a non-feminist, which bestows upon me equal authority to say who or what is or isn't feminist, or is or isn't feminism. Yes, that is how it rolls ever since we busted feminism's self-definition monopoly.

And finally, I am Fidelbogen, so don't start with me!!

Susanne "Wild" was all that her name intoned—by which I mean she was not a product of civilization! And the same is true of feminism—it is not a product of civilization. Feminism is not civilized in the essential meaning of that word, by which I mean that feminism is unfit to be a part of civil society. You see, civil society requires a flex factor known as "give and take", but feminism is unbending and unyielding: give it an inch and it will take forty-seven miles every time! Feminism is greedy that way; it wants every inch and every mile there is, and nothing less than ALL will ever satisfy it!

And so, any female population under feminist tutelage will find itself empowered to give free license, under the banner of "you go girl", to any base impulse or any form of rapacity conceivable. For feminist preaching is, with very few exceptions, profoundly silent upon the idea that women have any duty to behave morally where men are concerned. No, feminism as an ideology and as a movement does not meaningfully hold women accountable; it has a convenient blind spot for the evil that women do, especially where such behavior is directed against men. So in the long run, how might you realistically expect men to cope with this? And how far might you reckon the collective male fuse extends?

It seems painfully clear that Anthony Sherna had a mighty long fuse. I would even say, too long for his own good. And judging by the eventual outcome, too long for her good as well. In short, too long for anybody's good.

Anthony Sherna is the very image of what men-as-a-group will become if feminism develops to its logical extreme within the culture at large. And Susanne Wild is the very image of what women-as-group will become under the same scenario. Briefly then, Anthony and Susanne reveal in microcosm the future that continued feminist innovation would logically create in macrocosm. The power relationship between Anthony and Susanne individually, is the same relationship that would develop between men and women collectively.

Do I mean that every woman would become a Susanne Wild, and every man an Anthony Sherna? Hardly. What I do mean, is that any woman would be empowered to become a Susanne if the impulse to do so grew within her, and that therefore any man would more likely become an Anthony against his will, and have significantly less recourse if this should befall him. That is the only way it could play out if women gain continually more power in proportion to men's power. More female power can only mean more power to do evil, and since feminism does not teach women to behave morally toward men, it can only mean more power for women to do evil to men in the absence of any social braking system to put a check upon this. And feminism will never provide such a braking system: it is morally, logically, psychologically, and even metaphysically incapable of doing so.

Remember, feminism will be satisfied with nothing less than ALL. And say what you will, but that rules out brakes.

Any feminist who wants to prove me wrong is welcome to make the attempt, but it will need to pass my rigorous canons of evaluation. Yes, I am a tough critic—and I've been at this game for a few years now!

As to Anthony and Susanne, they were clearly, both of them, shamefully defective human merchandise—and theirs was a match made in hell, a pas de deux choreographed by the devil himself. Poor duffer couldn't take a shit in his own home: one is buffeted by warring impulses, wanting to feel sorry for Anthony yet knowing it is ridiculous to do so. His final desperate act is, for me at least, devoid of moral content. That is, I find it impossible to judge him either one way or the other—and so, logically enough, his judicial fate is nothing to me. Certainly I don't make him a hero, or even a martyr. And I'll expend still less sympathy on that thing he dispatched from the world.

Are you familiar with a short poem by Robert Burns, from 1788, titled The Henpecked Husband? Well here it is:

"Curs'd be the man, the poorest wretch in life,
The crouching vassal to a tyrant wife!
Who has no will but by her high permission,
Who has not sixpence but in her possession;
Who must to her, his dear friend's secrets tell,
Who dreads a curtain lecture worse than hell.
Were such the wife had fallen to my part,
I'd break her spirit or I'd break her heart;
I'd charm her with the magic of a switch,
I'd kiss her maids, and kick the perverse bitch."

Anthony Sherna could have earned at least some measure of comparative heroic stature if he had taken a hint from Robert Burns. I say "some" and "comparative", because his final desperate act had no heroic stature at all, and so anything short of such an extremity would have had comparatively more. The perverse bitch would at least still be alive and—in theory anyway—able to benefit from the lesson. And Anthony would at least be somewhat of a "man" for taking some manly initiative early in the game.

Most manly of all would be, that he had never hooked up with such a horrid creature in the first place. However, it is plain to me that Anthony and Susanne were both damaged items from the start, and that is what brought them together. Unhealthy people don't seek healthy relationships—although I suspect that Susanne was not counting on what finally happened. Indeed it was an objectively terrible thing that Anthony did, but for all of its enormity I cannot gainsay that it sprang from an impulse that was essentially healthy and real, although belatedly and tragically so. Alas, it was paradoxical right through.

And those two, in their grotesque tableau, were the very image of what men and women collectively will become in any world where feminist innovation takes deep root and metastasizes through the cultural body. When I say this, I leave suspended in mid-air the ominously loaded question of how the allegory might play out in real-world terms. Seriously, how far does the collective male fuse extend?

Feminism, I make bold to say, has degraded men and women "equally", and has poisoned the well for everybody. We are ALL Anthony and Susanne, and if that is not yet glaringly obvious to ALL, it will become even less so as time passes, because the relentless rotting away of our mental and moral capacity will ensure that we are no longer able to see it!

Surprise, surprise!

Yes, Eris the goddess of Discord has descended to earth to strew her poison apples among us. Feminism, in other words, has divided ALL of us against each other in more ways than we can shake a cudgel at: men against women, women against women, and—most potentially violent of all—men against men! Yes, I say ALL of us, and once more I remind you that feminism will be satisfied with nothing less than ALL, as in "all or nothing". And the outcome of all this can only be human misery and random destruction. Is that what you want? Is that the kind of world you look forward to? Kindly give it some thought.

I believe that we must "charm feminism with the magic of a switch", that we must do this soon, and that we must proffer no mercy in our manner of proceeding. Needless to say, I speak in metaphor. I speak allegorically. Still, we must lay hold of that switch, and lay it on vigorously, unsparingly, even ruthlessly. In practice, the applied meaning of "breaking their spirit or breaking their heart" shall be social, cultural, political, psychological, or the like. And I am happy to report that we have been underway with this work for quite some time. But in order that our efforts be adequate to the scale of our endeavor, we need to ramp it up. The question is, how? I don't pretend to have all the answers or even very many of them, and least of all do I pretend to have the power to make anybody act upon my suggestions. Still, I am proceeding in the only way I know, which is: ramping up the rhetoric! I am doing that very thing right now, and I pray that my eloquence will count for something, and touch somebody, somehow, somewhere.

At any rate, women too must take an active part in the Great Work. Since feminism degrades men and women equally, it is only fitting that men and women would get equally mad about it, and raise equal hell about it. So ladies, be charmers and pick up that switch and make some magic! Feminism is your enemy as much as men's, and if you are a woman of conscience who damned well knows this, then don't be bashful about letting the world know that you know it!

Men and women must work together to kick the perverse bitch that is feminism! It MUST be done this way, and it cannot happen otherwise.

If we don't hang together, we WILL hang separately.

Peace be with you.