Monday, March 30, 2009

What? Man-hating is a Myth You Say?

The indefatigable Archivist, of The False Rape Society, has posted an especially poignant item on his blog — which sounds like a pointless statement, since I can't honestly recollect anything ever posted on that blog that wasn't poignant!

But this one has something extra special about it. It concerns a young man whose ex-girlfriend stabbed him in the penis with a kitchen knife, in a "hell hath no fury like woman scorned" scenario. Fury indeed! She wanted sex with HIM, you understand, but he rebuffed her. What makes this even "better" is that she also made a false allegation of sexual assault in order to exonerate herself from her bloody crime: 

If this makes you think of the Bobbitt case, then your mind is working as it properly should. Archivist naturally draws attention to the parallel, and offers a quick recap of the infamous episode followed by this observation:

Lorena was treated as a feminist hero. . . . You read that right: a feminist hero. In fact, before a single fact was adjudicated, before a scrap of evidence was admitted at trial, serious publications covered the story as if the dismemberment was in some manner justified. It was called "a cautionary tale" for men.

Yes, and dredging my own memory of that time, I can still see the news photos of street demonstrations, and I can still hear the "you go girl!" rhetoric complete with all of the foaming spittle that accompanied this! Similarly, I can't help thinking of the Duke lacrosse case, where the trial-by-media ran upon an identical track. Oh the irony; heaps and heaps of it, mounting up to the firmament!

Archivist continues:
Fast forward to 2009 and the case of another knife-wielding woman. This time, there is no indication that the man wronged her. The man was not charged with sexually abusing her, as Mr. Bobbitt was. Her apparently criminal overreaction to her ex-boyfriend's rebuffs is not embraced by feminists or the news media. In fact, she's probably an embarrassment to the feminists.

In short, the case doesn't represent some larger "truth" about male predatory behavior or female victimization. In fact, never are the words "domestic violence" used in the news reports, as they surely would be if the genders were reversed . . . .
It's just a story about a man apparently falsely accused of sexual assault whose penis was attacked by a knife-wielding woman.

Nothing to get excited about.

"Nothing to get excited about." That statement certainly doesn't waste any words, does it? ;)

Now, for an extra treat, here is somebody who goes to great lengths to inform us that man-hating is a myth: me say that again: he goes to great lengths. Need I say more?

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Strike Strikes Again

Note: The link in this post is now dead, but I will leave the post up for historical preservation purposes.

ere is a quick follow-up to the immediately prior 'Global Strike' post. I got a brief e-mail from the strike mastermind, which I share below:
Thanks for the write up , I was talking to one other guy involved from Denmark, he has an interview with a local paper. Every bit helps. If you could get other top notch 5 star internet bloggers involved, that would greatly help.
Have a great day
So, attention all 5-star bloggers: get involved if, in your considered opinion, this sounds like something worth getting involved in! It would greatly help.

Post Scriptum: The Global Strike Mastermind (GSM) has posted a new blog HERE:

I reckon that must be the space to watch for future developments, so keep your eyes on that space.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Global Strike

I have corresponded recently with a citizen of the Non-Feminist Sector, a person who has proposed an interesting project which enters upon the realm of active politics. Read about it HERE:

The power of this project lies in its capacity for expansion over time. . .

Imagine the busy little statistic gnomes, gazing at their printouts and noticing a curious blip, and upon further investigation, observing this blip to have grown steadily over the course of several years. So evidently, it might take a while for the gnomes to first become aware of this, but you've got to begin somewhere, right?

And that, friends, is the bedrock strength of the men's movement. It knows that it must begin somewhere, anywhere . . so long as it makes a start of any kind! It's the thought that counts. EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A BEGINNING, however humble and unpretending, however buried in obscurity. Every motion must have a point in time, however unheralded, when it first starts rolling. Future historians will be the heralds, and as we know, whoever prevails writes history. So the honor and glory will arrive later; for the present, there is work to be done.

Therefore, it is odd that on 9 September of this year, you are asked NOT to work, but rather. . . to NOT WORK! That is how the "work" begins. Do you see how that works? Funny, isn't it? In order to make this business of not-working "work", we need to get a lot of people working on it. . . or rather not working on it! The more the merrier. And behold, 9 September 2009 is the day! Mark it on your calendar and plan for it.

The purpose of the Global Strike is to send a message: men exist, and men matter! Pretty damned simple and basic, you would say. A tiny yet symbolically important pinch to the global economic nerve is just the kind of statement that would hit the human race where it lives. We all know that MEN (not women) are the primary work force which keeps the wheels of civilization rolling, and that lacking our blood, sweat, tears, muscles and neurons, it would all come crashing down with a mighty roar. Yes, we are Atlas, and we balance the world upon our brawny shoulders. Talk about beasts of burden!

And I believe that a pesky little reminder of this would be a first-rate medicine for all concerned. My correspondent is sending the word out to whoever, and however. Most intriguingly of all, he is looking into the possibility of radio promotion. Ahhh. . . now that is what I call taking the bit in your teeth!

So it starts small, and if all goes well, it gets bigger. It snowballs year by year. And how many years, before the gnomes detect it on their printouts. . . .? Well, as I said, you've got to begin somewhere.

But the thought is what counts! What I especially like is the grassroots character of this. Any revolution worth its wages should be from the grassroots. It should be from the street. It should appear to enter the world from "nowhere" — or at least nowhere cool and famous! Of what use is any so-called power shift if it originates from a place where power
exists already? In other words, if it originates from any so-called "establishment"? Not much use, I would say. . .

The more extreme and unexpected the power shift, the better. The most powerful of all, is to make power appear where there was none before. I call this "making power flow uphill". It has been said that "nothing big happens until something big happens", and that is a clever way of saying that most people are waiting for some kind of an impressive "signal" to rouse them to action. But still. . . somebody must make THAT happen, in the first place! And in order to accomplish that, they must rouse themselves to action. The buck must
eventually stop somewhere.

Yes. . . the world will always have work for initiators and originators in one form or another. Or "self-starters", to use a trendy expression.

Now, you may already be aware of an idea called International Men's Day, which has been bandied for some years now by various chartered organizations, and even gotten a bit of support from the UN and UNESCO. I think International Men's Day is a great idea, and I support it—after all, the arch-collaborationist Michael Flood of Australia hates it, which is a mighty testimonial in its favor! However. . . . some might contend that IMD may become tainted by an aura of establishment credibility, (or "cred") should higher powers weave it into their political spin plan—which might just be a necessary bargain to put it over the top, in the byzantine world where such sausages are manufactured!

Mind you, establishment cred has its points. It has its uses. It can boost you powerfully! But by the end of the day, street cred is where it's at man! Street cred is the real McCoy; street cred cannot be co-opted, for the instant that happens, it is no longer street cred. And any time you boost your revolution over the top on the shoulders of street cred, then you have built a revolution indeed! Such laws in the chemistry of social occurrence are worth noting.

Street cred equals grassroots cred, which brings us back to where the discussion started. Yes, it would please me greatly to see a thing like the Global Strike take root and grow—it has a distinctly more radical aura, because it goes for the jugular without assuming any compromising gloss of "do-gooder" rhetoric. And that is why I am blogging about it. By doing so, I am ensuring that at least a couple thousand more people hear about it—including YOU, whoever you are, in front of your computer right this very instant!

So as long as you're in front of your computer, why not e-mail somebody about this, right NOW. . . ?

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Political Ecology of the NF Sector

The great game we are embarked upon is elegantly simple. It is a game between feminism and the rest of the universe. This statement is both alpha and omega, the first and the last thing that you need to know. It all starts with this and it all comes back to this in the end.

However, between alpha and omega lies a complex zone of operation which should on no account be glossed over, even if it taxes our brains to get the bearing of it. For the incoherent muddle which has dominated the thinking of our so-called movement for many years, taxes our brains ten times worse than that: it fritters away our energy, it leads us round and round the mulberry bush, and worst of all, it empowers our enemies.

Yes, we stand in need of an efficient political world-view—one that will organize our thinking, formulate our speaking, discipline our rhetoric, position us to advantage, set the other side at a disadvantage, and lay our plans upon a practical foundation. All of which is projected here.

What then, is the non-feminist sector? It is the universe exclusive of feminism; it is the rest of the universe—the zone of reality that is not, and never will be, feminism. I could liken the non-feminist sector to a wide-open prairie which extends for thousands of miles in all directions—as far as the eye can see and as far as the mind can represent.

Feminism, by contrast, I could liken to a rathole in a corner. It is categorically not the world: it is only a bundle of abstractions and emotional reflexes that certain people carry around in their brains. However, it has so far proven to be a powerful bundle, with adverse consequentiality—and that is what concerns us.

The non-feminist sector: call it the NF sector for short, and if you'd like to be even shorter than that, speak of it knowingly as "the sector".

Our sector is fluid, relational, non-binary, protoplasmic. It is not a bit hierarchical—which ought to please the feminists. And our sector contains many, many things—for example, human beings. It also contains plants and animals, stars and galaxies, physical and spiritual laws, and more cosmic dust than you can hope to imagine. But we'll save such glories for a future conversation, after we have celebrated our victory. For now, bear in mind that this is politics and that human beings are political animals. And being such, they and their doings make the proper grist for our mill.

And so, within the human grist of the non-feminist prairie you will find every form of non-feminist political, cultural, ideological or intellectual life conceivable. In short, the sector is a political ecosystem—and you can make no generalizations about it, apart from the non-feminism of it all.

Above all, no moral generalizations about the NF sector are possible, for the sector embraces every shade of good and evil that the human race itself contains. The NF sector is not a moral monolith: any campaign to critique or discredit the sector from the standpoint of so-called "morality" is misbegotten, and will implode by the force of its irrelevance. You might as well critique the morality of the universe itself, that is how meaningless such an exercise would be! As a non-feminist, I freely acknowledge the moral variety of the non-feminist sector—and that is more than the average feminist will do vis à vis feminism! And I can only suggest that if you don't like the bad parts of the non-feminist sector, then seek the good parts—the same advice I would give you about life, or the world at large.

The non-feminist sector is not a "movement". Rather, it is both a container of movement, and the lump sum of the movement which the container contains. Nor is it an ideology. Rather, it is both a parchment on which many ideologies may register themselves, and the lump sum of these ideologies. In fine, the sector is both a substrate for all of the forces and factors now arising (or likely to arise) in opposition to feminism, and the lump sum of those forces and factors.

For example, you'll have heard of something called "the men's movement" (alternately the "men's rights movement" or MRM). Well this so-called "movement" is just one among countless cultural life-forms upon the non-feminist prairie. By name, it places the accent upon "men" rather than upon feminism, and that is why we single it out as merely one among many forms of non-feminist energy.

You'll have likewise heard of something called MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). That too is a non-feminist cultural life-form—to be exact, an ideological subgroup of the men's movement whose membership stubbornly defies categorization. After all, they are going their own ways—and those ways are many!

And then there is a thing called the Ghost Nation, a shadow civilization of alienated self-reliance in action, pushing the MGTOW envelope to the limit of the known political universe!

The term MRA (Men's Rights Actuator) is by now familiar to many feminists. It too signifies a kind of "prairie" (or rather a sub-prairie) on which a diverse array of non-feminist critters are known to wander. This term is only a generic descriptor that gives an objective summation of a present social trend, namely, the growing number of people—men and women both—who believe that men and boys are getting a dirty deal in the realm of fundamental human dignity and equity under the law. 'MRA', like 'NF sector', transcends moral generalization.

Many reform movements, organized around one or more particular issues, exist within the NF sector. The family law reform movement, the divorce reform movement, the fathers' rights movement, the anti-paternity fraud movement, the anti-IMBRA movement, the "Fix VAWA" movement, are a few examples. And such movements will often spring to life as separate versions in separate locales, in conjunction with chartered organizations whose degree of liaison with one another varies considerably.

I cannot hope to list all of the ideologies, movements and organizations which are now active, either directly or indirectly, against feminism or the manifold consequences of feminism's innovations. I cannot hope to trace the tangled spaghetti of their interconnections, or to chart the intricate and ambiguous ways in which they overlap. Luckily, I don't need to do any of those things. I need only to impress upon the reader the dynamism and diversity of it all, and its essentially fluid, protean, organic state of being.

So far I have dealt with the "political", but I should also touch upon the "personal". Individual life and private existence may be considered the 'dark matter' of the sociopolitical universe—and for our purpose that means the non-feminist sector. The primordial will to oppose feminism (like feminism itself) takes many forms, but at bottom it is simply that: a will. A volition. And a will or volition is as likely to be manifested in the individual, and his pertaining microcosm, as anywhere else. As a sum total, this accounts for a lot of territory and a lot of social gravity—a considerable lot, albeit mostly silent. Yet in the end, the zone of the private, the personal, the individual, is the mother-lode of power for the entire non-feminist sector. It is of this zone that we mainly speak, when we speak of the activation of the sector. Such activation has already occurred in a tentative way, but most of the zone still lies dormant; inert; fallow. The future portends interesting developments, and truly, we shall live in interesting times.

But again, the dizzying multiplexity of the non-feminist sector—with its illimitable permutation and nuance, with its interminable crossing and re-crossing—quite surpasses my poor power of description. Therefore, I will cut this short. It is not given to us brief mortals to speak fully of certain things, but only to SEE these things, as a bird would see them, from an altitude. . . .

I turn now to discuss the division between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector, and more to the point, the mechanism which generates this division. From the standpoint of culture and politics, the sectors are differentiated, while at the primordial base level of the universe they flow and meld together—as do all other things. But our talk pertains to the nitty-gritty world of human affairs, and to that line we shall adhere.

What offsets feminism from its host surroundings, is the essential simplicity of feminism itself. Feminism merely spawns complexity in order to conceal its underlying mindset and to camouflage its intentions, but the unifying equation which underlies the complexity may be tersely stated: Feminism = Female Supremacism. However, this equation must not be nakedly stated, for it would be socially unpalatable and politically indiscreet to appear to advocate female supremacy. What's needed, is deniability. Accordingly, feminism as a sociopolitical organism must undertake a number of covert and distributed operations, in order to move forward circumspectly along the multiple pathways of its intentions.

Accordingly, feminism exploits every inherent tendency in the world that might accelerate the world toward a feminist—read female supremacist—state of existence. To put that another way, feminism harnesses these tendencies: horses roaming at liberty in a pasture will not pull your wagon—you must harness them.

So in the end, the critical question is not "who exactly is or isn't a feminist?", or even "what exactly is or isn't feminism?", but rather "who or what, directly or indirectly, accelerates the worldly agenda of female supremacism?". "Feminism" is best identified by the totality of its operations, and by its "fruits". Look for anything that either directly or indirectly strengthens women at the expense of men.

I don't mean to suggest that people or things correctly identifiable as feminists, or as feminism, don't exist. What I do mean is, that feminism as a cultural phenomenon is greater than the sum of its parts or of its conscious membership, and that the separation between feminism and the rest of the world is like a duotone rather than a boundary. As I have stated elsewhere , feminism has fuzzy borders. In the vernacular of postmodernism, feminism is imbricated. There are many people or things which mightn't be purely feminist in themselves, yet they accelerate the feminist agenda all the same, because they transmit or validate feminist memes.

Feminism thrives and grows because it taps the immense reservoir of human venality, cupidity, fear, conformity and other psychic crud—especially the female half of this reservoir! Without access to this reservoir, feminism as a movement and as an ideology would crumble and blow away in the wind.

Now, the feminist sociopolitical organism couldn't keep existing solely on the back of such naive and passive support as I have suggested. In order to get going (and to keep going), it needed (and continues to need) an active cadre of self-identified indoctrinated believers—preferably in seats of influence. The organism cannot live without a brain—and a brain needs administrative capacity, otherwise, what's the point?

And so the indoctrinated operators (identifiable as feminists) find ample work, whatever their vocational standing. And their work. . . is what? It is, to drip-feed the memes of female supremacism into the collective mind through channels large or small. Briefly, to plant suggestions. For although a suggestion is not the same as a command, there is at least a chance it will be taken up. Or, which is equally good, propagated by word-of-mouth!

And when suggestive indoctrinations trickle down the chain from voice to voice, they shade by degrees into enculturations, and therefore into unconsciousness. For culture, as we know, is propagated in naive oblivion. The original composition of a compost is discernible only in the uppermost layers. . .

To recapitulate: feminism as a sociopolitical organism is set in motion, and kept in motion, only because indoctrinated operators work to make this happen. The world has gotten poisonous for men only because these pioneering activists and ideologues have set about to make it that way, blazing a trail which others have followed, and made into a broad highway by the trampling of more numerous feet. Were it not for the existence of the pioneering operators, there would be no operation. Their collective presence in the world has the virtue of a magnet, which generates a field in excess of its own dimension. The field, in turn, activates anything of a ferrous nature within its range. This field would neither spring into existence, nor continue to exist, were it not for the existence of the magnet. And while it is literally true that the field is not the magnet, it is beyond dispute that both field and magnet are jointly comprehended under the rubric of magnetology—together they compose a unitary phenomenon.

This metaphor of the magnet roughly illustrates the principle that there is "more to feminism than feminism". The point is this: that the indoctrinated operators are feeding certain elemental, organizing ideas into the world—propagating them in all directions. And these organizing ideas are all implicative or supportive of the occult dogma of feminism— to wit, female supremacism.

The idea of patriarchy is the skeletal framework that holds the entire slamboozle together because, one way or another, everything hangs upon this idea. Patriarchy "theory" runs all through feminism (albeit more commonly implied or assumed than openly stated), and without such a doctrine feminism wouldn't amount to much.

Female supremacism implies moral license for women, because it implies that women are quintessentially more "right" than men, and therefore entitled not only to the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but to extra perks and pamperings as well. But female supremacism by itself is merely an "attitude", and insofar, has need of an "analysis" to back it up. Patriarchy theory provides that analysis.

Patriarchy theory is the harness, the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow, a galvanizing narrative unity. . .

Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight. The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.

The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life. (The recompense in question being, of course, a restitution of some abstractly-understood thing which "patriarchy" has originally stolen—or so theory would have it.) Under such a scenario, individual lives, essences, motivations and reflexes are negated, and subsumed by an ideological requirement, and women are converted into moral robots in the service of a zero-sum game.

Yes, the innate (inborn) proclivity of feminism, is to bestow moral robot-hood on women. And the shimmering, razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the line that divides the NF sector from the entire feminist zone of influence. That bright line, precisely, is the boundary. The day that feminism commences to preaching that bright line, robustly and full-bloodedly, is the day that the femplex goes into remission. But feminist preachers instead smear that line all over the landscape and make it a fuzzy duotone, because the last thing they ever want to see, is the dawning of that day.

For feminism, you understand, has amazingly little to say about ethical behavior toward men. Hear their silence roar! Their sparse words upon that subject are perfunctory and pro forma—rhetorical trinkets at best. In theory, feminism makes moral robots of all women, for it would have women believe that immoral behavior toward men is precluded from the realm of possibility. Were it otherwise women would, in theory, possess moral agency. And with moral agency would come responsibility—to wit, the primordial possibility of transgression.

But the sequestered intention of feminism (read female supremacism) is to endow women with power minus responsibility. For if women were to assume the burden of ethical behavior toward men, they would ipso-facto relinquish feminist power over men, by which I mean the power to deal with men arbitrarily—and female supremacism, in the form of perpetual revolution, could advance no further.

I, the present writer, am pro-choice, meaning that I believe in choice for women: ethical choice. I further believe, as a general thing, that choices have consequences, and that women should not be shielded from the consequentiality of their choices. For to experience the consequentiality of one's choices is an element of freedom not to be neglected and, which is more, indispensable to spiritual evolution. And I believe that women should undergo as much freedom as men would undergo, for I wish to see an efflorescence of their spiritual evolution. Can't we all benefit from such blossomings?

Note: This is a very long essay, so I've chosen to break it into several parts, to be dealt out gradually in future postings.

Labels: ,

Friday, March 20, 2009

Anti-Male Politics as Usual

The following is from an e-mail recieved not long ago from Veterans Abroad:
"Happy 2009 and greetings from overseas. I haven’t written in awhile, but here is a hot item: buried in the USD 800 Billion Stimulus Bill where Obama is taking USD 9000 from you and giving it to his friends, is yet another USD 300 Million for radical feminist groups.

"The NOW sneaked things past some of our watchdogs by deliberately not using the abbreviation VAWA, but instead spelling out Violence Against Women Act. Thus, a search for VAWA won’t find the following on Page 43 and 46 of the Stimulus Bill but the USD 300 Million is listed right there:

"VAWA is filled with unconstitutional elements like IMBRA which force American men to be background checked just to be able to say hello to a foreign woman. IMBRA also makes it impossible to contact a woman who does not have email or who does not understand the need to sign onto a website to “approve potential criminals” and thus never approves of meeting anyone by default. I know many foreign women who have been listed on American marriage agency websites for years and nobody has ever contacted them (because they had only given their home address info to the agencies and IMBRA made it illegal 3 years ago to give out that information despite the wishes of the women to receive post cards and other snail mail). VAWA otherwise makes men guilty until proven innocent in any marital or divorce conflict.

"The NOW just sent me a newsletter crowing about how they forced the Democrat Senators not to compromise on the VAWA funding and how the Republican Senators caved in negotiations on the issue. At least 37 Republican senators, however, just voted no to the entire Stimulus Bill. That might have saved their party from extinction."

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Another Voice for Feminism's Demise

The following speech was left as a comment on an ancient CF post, and true to my custom I will post it here to give it a spotlight because I don't want it to languish in the archives unknown and unappreciated. Although the author wrote this as one continuous scroll, I will take the liberty to break it into paragraphs:
"Yes, I agree that so much of what has gone through history has been orchestrated by those eternally waiting in the wings for an opportunity to profit from mistrust. Of late my thoughts have evolved to more meta analyzing of modern feminism and I now agree that endless analyses, no matter how insightful, are more or less useless. When there is money to be swindled or power to be usurped, someone will always be there to start a 'movement' to get it.

"And, let's not fool ourselves, this is a woman's game as much as it a man's. Does anyone think that Oprah Winfrey, Benezir Bhutto, or Indira Gandhi (no actual relation to the real Gandhi) were/are anything more than power mad people? There quite simply are the Christs, Mohammeds, Ghandhis, and Mother Teresas, and then there are the rest of us. The only way to control radical feminism or radical anything is to have a balance of power--a balance of terror, if you will.

"When you work in the adult world for long enough you notice an interesting thing about power and victimization: When there is a rule preventing an abuse of power those in power simply wait for another opportunity. And for this I give feminists and the race movement great credit, even if they ended up taking it too far. They helped shape rules and laws to protect people that had many spinoff benefits for others--even men. So, in the small picture men must stand up for themselves in courtrooms and leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of self-actualization through education of themselves and their children.

"The other counter-force to the Nazi-like advance of feminism is that our children will sooner or later see what a miserable existence feminist culture has not only created for them, but also solipsistically and arrogantly expected them to unquestioningly follow. Young females attack and harshly criticize men in order to prove that women don't really need men to live up to their potential. I agree that families and men mostly tend to hold women back, but then women have to face up to the fact that they are making choices that they themselves have to be responsible for.

"In a more general sense, no one deals with the fact that if we had chosen to have a fair culture, we'd have it. Part of this choosing not to choose is that women refuse to face their deep insecurity about having power. Women feel so guilty about possibly making mistakes, and then mistakenly (or conveniently) blame men for this insecurity.

"Is this me just being afraid of 'strong' women. No, it is not. That fact is that if women really believed in such radical politics there would be no need to have everyone 'agree'. I personally can't imagine a more boring existence than to be married to a woman who isn't her own person, but being her own person need not come at the sacrifice of my dignity or our children's happy childhoods.

"We have now had more than 20 years of the 'utopia' of women increasingly in power. As a result of radical feminists' rapacious quest for power and their indoctrination of other sectors of society to follow suit, our culture has morally and socially collapsed. Yes, they were helped by the increasingly docile US male population and used by super powerful magnates who look at the world as one economy which they manipulate at will.

"Radical feminism will die out because, at some point, feminists will have no one to blame but themselves and try as they might, the problems that they have created will simply be too big to rationalize, or sweep under the rug. The superpower thugs will sink back into the darkness and wait for the next opportunity, which will no doubt appear shortly."

I agree that radical feminism (ALL feminism!) will "die out", but. . . not without a fight! Expect a ton of hissing, snarling and spitting. And some extremely dirty tricks.

I would need to quibble with the statement that "men and children mostly tend to hold women back." I suppose that is true in an absolute sense, but only in the way that ANY choice or commitment "holds back" a person in some manner, since it is the nature of ANY commitment to entail preclusions.

What the commenter says about "endless analyses" is spot on. I think he means argument by tit-for-tat fisking, which has been a traditional MRA sport for quite a few years. That sort of thing was good for its time, and it served its purpose—which was mainly to sharpen our intellectual claws. But we need to shift into a new phase of operations now (and I've been saying this for quite a while). We must learn to think in terms of sheer power and sheer psychology; we need to focus our attention on the "big picture", and specifically the Big Chessboard. Remember what you are doing in a game of chess: you are not "arguing", you are simply moving mass around according to a set of rules, dictated by the requirements of strategy. That is all.

The good news is, that the activation of the non-feminist sector is under way. There is a grassroots groundswell occurring, and when this gets up to speed it's gonna be a doozy! So the game is to harness this, according to a set of political guidelines. The time is coming when we won't even need to "argue" with the enemy any more. If they are not YET in the mood to negotiate, I can assure you they'll see the light eventually . . .

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Pervasive Anti-Male Bias

Today, while I was driving from point A. to point B., I swung by the bank to transact some business. As I pulled into the parking lot and headed toward my habitual spot, I noticed something.

I noticed a cool, shiny black, snazzy-looking "ride" parked in the vicinity at a cockeyed, nearly perpendicular angle, directly athwart TWO parking spaces. A small matter you would say, considering the lot was nearly empty. And yet, the sight of this made me a shade irritated.

"Huh!", I thought to myself. "Hotshot dude deliberately parks his hot car in a jackass way! Talk about 'making a statement'!"

You should understand that in my daily behavior, I am . . . well . . . a tad bit correct and stodgy. And somewhat aloof. Not laying it on thick, mind you, but I do have a streak of that in my personality. I am certainly not prone to flamboyant gestures as a general thing, although I do have a touch of respectable eccentricity. What I eschew is vulgar display or swagger of any sort—I am refined and soft-spoken.

So that opens a window upon my default frame of mind, which is the mental filter through which I viewed the scene in the parking lot described above.

I piloted my weatherbeaten but respectable-looking Volvo directly into a parking stall—conscientiously and impeccably I did this! I am a very conscientious and impeccable driver.

I was directly alongside the shiny black car and, unseemly as it may appear, I sat for a few seconds thinking what a blast it would be to take that buggy for a righteous road trip through the Palouse country or the Horse Heaven Hills, or among the winding backroads of the Bitterroot Mountains. None of which diminished my snippy irritation with the vehicle's owner.

I was opening the door to get out of my car, when I saw somebody approaching whom I quickly realized could only be the owner of the sporty wheels in question. This individual was . . . a frail, skinny woman of late middle age.

To judge by her hairstyle and her manner of dress, she was clinging to her youth for as long as she could. Naturally, her car and her adolescent way of parking it lent further weight to that impression. Ahh . . . an old woman with a young car! Yes, and a free spirit, and a forlorn innocence that knew not what it did, or why. My irritation vanished in the air, and I felt sad. I smiled blandly at the woman as I walked by, while inwardly I shrugged my shoulders.

I completed my business at the bank, and as I was driving away certain thoughts occurred to me. I had simply assumed that the owner of that car was a young male, and I had made a harsh assessment on the strength of that assumption. And when I saw who the owner actually was, I dramatically overhauled my opinion. If the owner had in fact been some young dude then, in my own mind, I'd have tasked him with his immaturity. But the old woman; she got my pensive indulgence!

It occurred to me I should take stock of some inventory, so I parked the car and sat thinking for a while. Yes, I hearkened to the sage counsel of the sign in the shop window; I enquired within. Or as people like to say nowadays, I introspected!

If the owner of that shiny black car had been a young male, I'd have judged him harshly. If it had been a man in his prime, I'd have judged him about the same, although for slightly different reasons. If it had been an old man, my more lenient feelings would have been a complex mix that is hard to analyze, but I'd have deemed him something of a fool, possibly a figure of comedy.

Very well. If the owner had been a pert, sexy teenage girl, I would have judged her harshly, but not AS harshly as I would have judged the young male. My feelings toward her would have been tempered by something very like (dare I say it?) chivalry! I am being radically honest about this. And if the owner had been a woman in her prime, I'd have judged her harshly, but still not AS harshly as I'd have judged a man in his prime.

Finally, let's set the cases of the old man and the old woman side by side. Although I'd have judged both of them leniently, the woman STILL would have come off better because I'd be less inclined to see her in a "comical" light.

The thread that runs through all of these cases ought to be clear: for the selfsame trivial transgression, I would consistently, in my honest gut feelings, have come down harder on the male person.

We all know about the pervasive anti-male bias in society. And I, the celebrated Counter-Feminist, stand before you all today, and bow my head, and solemnly confess that I TOO, AM PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Sigh! I can see that I have plenty to learn before I can genuinely call myself a "sensitive male", eh?

It looks like I need to "get real with my work". . . .

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

A Sunbeam in a Forest Glade

Ahh. . . wisdom from the mouths of t-shirts!

Well all right, so it wasn't literally a t-shirt. It was a sweatshirt.

I was wandering in the aisles of my local market today when I spotted this particular sweatshirt. A man was wearing it; a middle-aged man of quite unthreatening appearance—portly, bald-headed, bespectacled. And across his chest, in a maroon-colored serif font, this quick rhetorical query:
"If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman
is there to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Upon my word, that little snippet gave me quite a turn of thinking. . .!

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Knowledge: Scoop It Up!

A couple of posts ago I talked about Sage Publications, and how they run freebie specials from time to time. Well lo and behold, another good one arrived in my in-box today. For the entire month of March, I have free access to their online academic reference encyclopedias—and you can have this too! A wealth of introductory knowledge in capsule form, upon a plethora of subjects!

This plethora encompasses, as you might anticipate, a quite generous range of feminist theory and the like—just the sort of raw material that we counter-feminists find most pertinent to our craft!

Okay, here's what you do: click on the link below and it will take you to an online registration form where you fill out a few data fields. Not much. It asks for your "occupation"; check "other". It asks for your "organization"; write CFAN if you feel like it! ;) Then push the button and you will arrive at a page with a three-step process, including a link at item no. 1. Click on that link, and on the next page follow the link at upper right which says 'Enter Sage eReference'.

And then, wah-la! You're in town! From there, follow your nose. You'll probably want to sniff around in The Encyclopedia of Gender and Society.

Have fun digging. No doubt you'll feel daunted by the dizzying height to which our enemy's Tower of Babel soars—this material offers a taste of it, a suggestion of it. They certainly stole one hell of a march upon us, during all those years when we were napping: they devised their plan early, they set their game afoot, they put their spin upon the issues, they decided what "reality" was. And then we awoke to find ourselves shackled to the bedposts! Heavens, we had NO idea what mischief they were brewing, did we? They took advantage of our good nature . . . and that is why we no longer have any good nature to bestow upon them! Our bad nature is the best they can expect now, and they have no right to complain about this.

But here, for what it may be worth, is a scrap of comfort: knowledge is power! And I mean that very literally and precisely. By "knowledge is power" I mean exactly THIS: that it is powerful to know! I am talking about the simple possession of information and nothing more. To know something is always more powerful than to not know something. Knowledge trumps ignorance every time, and you can take that to the bank, my friend!

Thus, it matters not whether you "do" anything with what you know: it is still better than not knowing. Oh certainly, if you put it to practical use, that is well and good. But even if you do nothing whatever with what you know, knowing is still better than not knowing! It is always better than not knowing.

Knowledge, even in the abstract, is power. I don't mean that it "empowers" power, I mean that it categorically IS power, purely on its own standing. And if you have knowledge stored away like grain in your silo, you will radiate power in a mysterious way that cannot be explained but only experienced and manifested.

I stated recently that the time for argument is past. You should take that saying to heart, and you should know in your heart that the opposition is not worthy to be argued with. In time of war, the supreme maxim is to know thine enemy — and such knowledge, such information, is rightly called intelligence. It is always better to know thine enemy than to not know thine enemy. And while it is true that your knowledge may guide you to DO something, it may equally guide you to NOT DO something—to do, in fact, nothing whatsoever when wisdom dictates that you should merely stand pat and count your blessings! For in this fashion you will attain the serpent's guile and lead your enemy into one trap after another. . .

To recline at ease in the knowledge of your enemy, free of the compulsion to engage your enemy at every prompting, is transcendental disengagement—which is the proper mood of the sage, the philosopher, the superior man.

All knowledge is power, and a particular knowledge of your enemy is powerful against your enemy in particular. But once again, all knowledge is power, and all power is power against your enemy because power is a universal thing—and your enemy cannot escape the universe! So don't sweat it, man! He cannot escape the universe, and therefore he cannot escape you. Through transcendental disengagement, together with an elemental understanding of power, you drag the carpet that your enemy walks upon—straight out from under him if that suits your plans!

This is highly metaphysical . . . is it not? ;)

When you are rifling that storehouse of information to which I have linked you, do bear in mind that general knowledge about the world is general power against your enemy, and that particular knowledge about your enemy is particular power against your enemy. But whatever the degree of particularity, bear in mind that it's all good!

You may already be aware, that the quest for knowledge can trigger psychic indigestion if you overdo it. Well, this happens NOT because you "eat" too much . No, to be more accurate, it happens because you fear that you haven't learned the right stuff yet— the sine qua non stuff. You are racing against the clock of your own mortality in order to process enough information that the "big secret" will finally click into place somehow. Or at least, that is what you are unconsciously hoping.

And that is where the psychic indigestion originates. It is not the sheer quantity of data forced through the hopper that makes you dyspeptic, but rather the simple fact that you view your "quest for knowledge" as some kind of a grail quest, and that you periodically feel stymied by the futility of what you have undertaken—which makes you burn out.

Rather than viewing your pursuit of knowledge as a "quest" of any sort, think of it as a journey—a road with many turnings that runs unimaginably far through a series of continually evolving landscapes and vistas. You should enjoy it and soak it up—or as much of it as you are comfortably able—and let the memories accumulate like sedimentary accretion layers in a geomorphic stratum. That sediment, my friend, is wealth. And power too, as noted earlier.

So once more, when you are rifling that storehouse of information, bear in mind that it's all good. Then relax and let the sediment accumulate. And recall that the time for argument is past. Bear this saying in mind whenever you feel you must devise an ensemble of intellectual rejoinders to ALL of the points you will encounter. Whenever this mood overtakes you, you are already mentally arguing with the enemy—even when the enemy is nowhere in sight! So stop it! Remind yourself that you are not conducting research for some mythical 'Big Book of Antifeminism' that will decisively refute every point they ever made and shut them up forever. That is NOT the way to fight this war, and certainly not the way to win it. It won't work because they are systemically impervious to any such line of attack—and by now we all should know this, for if we have still not learned this after years of arguing with feminists, then we have learned precious little indeed! (Just for the record, the way to fight this war is through demographic galvanization, coalition-building, and rhetorical attrition. A witty translation for all of the above would be: staring them down. But this is by-the-by.)

Seriously, if we intend to dismantle the feminist universe, then we ought to understand how the feminist universe is put together. And a large part of knowing that means understanding how the feminists see themselves and see the world. We seek this knowledge NOT with any plan to engage the feminists in debate, but merely on the principle that the better we are informed about them, the better we can anticipate them and thwart them, and the more effectively we can transgress that buffer zone of feminist subjectivism which (in order to fend off the encroachments of self-knowledge) they have constructed around themselves. Just imagine how intimidating it must be, to confront people everywhere you go who have "plucked out the heart of your mystery", and are feeling rather jaded about it all.

Bear in mind finally, that the power of the non-feminist sector is to define feminism from the outside. Such is the battle for feminism's soul. Feminism itself provides the least illuminating source of information about feminism as an embedded ecological phenomenon, and we who are not feminists can discern the truth about feminism just as well as anybody else.

And now, for an extra treat, here is something entirely unrelated to the rest of the post. First, a not-too-recent political article which I'm sure some of you will enjoy, especially if you've not yet read it:

Oh by the way, the commenters at Free Republic roasted Mr. Rosenbaum rather unkindly—which I didn't think was necessary!

Now, if you finished reading the entire article above, you might recall that the author mentions a certain Slavoj Zizek and his painfully idiotic apology for Stalinism. (Not as bad as Hitlerism it seems. And why? Well, it all ties in with the ideological character of Marxism for some reason—that is what redeems it!)

Anyway, just by chance, I stumbled across that very same Zizek article. Yes, purely by chance: I wasn't searching for it specifically. But here it is. Whatever you might think of the author's rationalizing zig-zaggery, it IS an intriguing read:

Labels: , ,