Sunday, August 30, 2009

The Plot Thickens and the Pace Quickens

I have gotten the following short memo from George Rolph in London— also cc'd to a few other people. I share this because I'd like you to hear such news from somebody in addition to little old me:
"Germaine Greer said on TV recently (The BBC of course) that "they (the men's movement) are really nasty people." Almost straight away a flurry of feminist activity took place in the media. All of it putting men down as usual. The same old fake statistics about domestic violence are being, and are about to be, rehashed in the press and on TV etc. This is just a part of the same old campaign tactics. Feminist web sites have been filling up with invective also. When the "sisters" get panicky this is what they do. The reason they are panicking is because we are having a real impact on public opinion around the world.

"We have radio and TV stations on the web that are reaching huge numbers of people. Viral videos that are being spread around. Sections within the media are speaking out. We just had our first (albeit a tiny one) "debate" about feminism in a national newspaper opinion page in the UK. The Church around the world is waking up fast and speaking out. Even some politicians are openly ridiculing feminists in Parliament. The young are starting to question the motives and aims of feminism around the world and all of this is freaking out the sisters. When the sisters freak out, they attack with the same old weapons they always use. Their problem is, people are wising up to it and recognising the techniques. As that awareness spreads, so feminism will weaken and die.

"There was a time, not very long ago, where if I had written and published on the Telegraph forum what I put out today, men and women would have slagged me into the floor, called me a dinosaur, a sexist pig and so on, and then demanded I be banned from the forum. Today I even get complimented and the attacks are slowing to a crawl. They still come now and then but they are getting rarer.

"See here:


So, Germaine Greer says that we are "really nasty people"? Well Germaine, behold the nasty which nasty created! But rather than nasty, I think it is more on point to say that MRAs are angry people. And well. . . you know . . . they are angry for a reason!

But seriously, who the hell is Germaine Greer to call anybody "nasty"? I think Germaine Greer is a nauseating hypocrite, with one hell of a nerve! But apparently she has still got the voice to rally the sisters—which tells you something about the sisters, eh?

All right. The wildfire growth of our movement has been evident to me for some time. And yet, life still "creeps in this petty pace from day to day", and some days you would even think the earth itself is frozen in space. I get tired, discouraged, bored, burnt-out, and far too often I feel like I am wandering in circles saying the same things over and over—which I may in fact be doing, incidentally! ;)

Wildfire is well and good, but the the world is a mighty big spread—so big that it feels like the fire is never spreading fast enough. One is never satisfied for long with the progress made to date, especially in view of the overwhelming expanse that still looms ahead.

And yet, it never fails: something always occurs to snap me from the narcosis of boredom, from the torpor of gazing abstractedly into a mentational fog. An e-mail, a news story, a new website, a comment posted on some obscure forum—it could be almost anything, and yet, it notifies me that the world has moved again, that the battlefront has advanced another mile or ten, that the landscape of power has shifted once more in a subtle but substantial way that only people like myself are equipped to read. I cherish those moments, especially when I consider that they will always come again, growing bigger and better with every round.

Feminists amuse me with their naïve, rodent-like chatter about "MRAs". And their astounding ignorance of the objective political situation truly knocks me over and sends me rolling! They are in deep trouble, yet nearly without exception they go on living in a dreamworld that never changes—a world constructed of little better than mildewed mantras, potbellied platitudes, shoddy statistics, pregnant barefoot women trapped in kitchens, and never-ending lies, lies, lies! It saddens me, really, that they would believe they are fooling anybody but themselves! That's the spoiler about being a chronic liar: you start believing your own lies, and then you can no longer give yourself a reality check. And when you can no longer do THAT job, people in the outside world (who see you clearly precisely because you cannot see yourself) will do the job for you. And their method can be very rude sometimes!

But confound all of this! Let the feminists chase shadows, and let them groove to the reverberation of their own querelous voices in those tightly sealed echo chambers and precious intellectual hothouses where it pleases them to congregate. Little do we care, and little thought do we spare them, for their fate is sealed—although I am certain they will put up one hell of a fight, a fight that will extend for many years! Yet surely this will not be easy for them, and I surely cannot envy them their slow, asphyxiating fate—a fate that I may liken to an unpitying but infinitely patient python coiling tighter and tighter around their shrinking universe.

Still I repeat: they will make one hell of a fight, for they are really nasty people! And don't forget that they have an enormous institutional power base at their disposal, that they are densely networked, that they are on the whole more academically educated than we are, and that the inertial deadweight of an indoctrinated public opinion leans heavily in their favor.

And what have WE got in our favor? Lightness, agility, flexibility, street sensibility, outrageously justified anger and, I am pleased to say, some brilliant minds at work in all corners of the world. And too, we have the energy and creative imagination of youth because, even though we include people of all ages, we are a young movement!

So that is how the forces are presently arrayed. And a threefold task confronts us: to continue beating the recruitment drum, to generate coalitions among more and more entities on the non-feminist prairie, and to strive for a critical consensus (shared across all co-movements) as regards the objective nature of the difficulty.

We have discovered feminism to be morally on a par with the Mafia. I say morally, and by that I refer to the inherent capacity for evil as evinced in a manifested determination to bring about evil consequences. In such analysis, we brush aside rhetorical doubletalk, redirection of attention, and similar devices meant to veil, obfuscate or bury something. Feminism, in its psychogenetic core of cores, packs the essential nature of criminality—combined with a superlative capacity to talk around this, or past this. Putting it more simply, feminism merely pretends to be nicer than the Mafia, generating evil consequences by infinitely more refined methods that stay almost entirely within the law.

If the Mafia became politically active, and secured passage of legislation that turned racketeering, drug-running and contract arson into lawful activities, this would be a crude analogy (at least in principle) to the way that feminism operates.

An important difference between the Mafia and feminism would be, that the Mafia merely preys upon society while leaving the social structure intact, whereas feminism tends to rot the essential fabric of society in a way that would do mortal damage. Accordingly, feminism projects damage on a grand scale—albeit under color of legality.

And not always under color of legality!
For feminists too, have occasionally been known to "take a walk on the wild side"—the wild side in this case being such endearing shenanigans as death threats, bomb threats, assault, extortion, fraud, libel and the like. In fact, I know somebody who might tell you a couple of things about a well-known pro-feminist "mangina" in Australia—not that this fellow would necessarily go to jail for his anti-MRA hijinks, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do his reputation a particle of credit! (Although I'm equally sure his peer group would find it in their hearts to forgive him. ;)

So what do you think, does inherent criminality ooze out under stress? Will desperation bring it out? Do adverse and threatening developments squeeze base impulses to the surface and kick such tendencies into overdrive? Or to put that another way, when you fuck with the Mafia, does the Mafia fuck you up?

Consider the ghastly, sickening, unspeakable Gang of 88, who wanted to hang the Duke lacrosse lads without a trial! And not just the Gang of 88, but also the uncountable legion of moral cockroaches everywhere who felt the same way! What ingrained criminal violence or vileness lurks within the souls of those rabid scumbags, and how might such base elements rise to the surface and display themselves in the face of adverse and threatening developments—say for example, a traumatic crisis of political faith?

We non-feminists and MRAs know perfectly well what manner of creatures the feminists are, and by now, the flimsy, fly-specked condition of their culture is abundantly clear to us. We have seen what desperate self-deceivers the feminists are, and we have seen what outrageous liars they are to others! We know them far better than we would honestly care to know them if we had any choice—better, even, than they know themselves—since we have scrutinized them with minute precision and exactitude for many years. Such is the fund of our collective wisdom.

And although we are certainly quite aware that no two feminists are exactly alike, it is their average underlying similarity which leaves, by far, the most overpowering impression upon our memory. Figuratively speaking, you might say that they all "smell" a certain way. In some the aroma is overpowering, in others it is quite faint, yet in nearly all cases it is present to some extent. The feminist psychic aroma is, needless to say, not pleasant. But more than that, it is, in every case, the emanation of an identical underlying psychic chemistry either weakly or strongly developed. Yes, feminism is monolithic that way!

In publishing the two foregoing paragraphs, I would not have it thought that I am, by implication, "licensing" the feminists to apply a mirror counterpart version of the same thinking to MRAs or to men as a group. That is not necessary, since the feminists have been refining such techniques at our expense for years. So it is accordingly they who have licensed us, in effect, to give them a taste of their own.

Now, to speak once again of feminism's inherent criminal nature, let us turn our thoughts to the present state of development in the non-feminist revolution. As said, the movement (or rather the agglomeration of co-movements) is growing and spreading quickly. And as I pointed out, the bulk of feminists are living in a time warp—or a frozen eternity, I'm not sure which! However, they aren't all living that way. In fact, a growing number are waking up and rubbing their eyes and seeing that they are in serious trouble, that the so-called men's movement is one hell of a lot more than ten or twelve flaky dudes trolling on feminist blogs—although we certainly have our share of those!

So the heat is on, and from our enemies the feminists we should expect not just "more of the same", but in fact "more of the same, only more so."

Indeed, a LOT more so. In short, dirty tricks galore, more and more of which will walk on the wrong side of the law! Some of these tricks will be downright thuggish and, if the principals be ratcheted to unbearable extremes of tension, even terroristic! Remember that a worldview fighting for its life is an extremely dangerous animal, so be prepared to lasso that critter!

The good news is, that if we keep our cool, the moral high ground will pass efficiently into our possession. Remember to play the boiling frog game, as I suggested long ago. Turn the heat up gradually, and watch, and see if they intend to suck it up like punks. And the minute they finally lose it and do something rash, be ready to collect the evidence. In the course of your dealings with the opposition, always take notes—mental or otherwise. And keep these in alphabetical order, if you catch my drift. ;)

My friends, I have given you a lot to read today. I trust that I have made it worth your while. You must be fatigued, although I hope that your brain is buzzing like a power grid with all of these concepts you have taken on board. But go now, and relax with a cold refreshing glass of cold refreshment—or maybe one of those magical green cigarettes, if you fancy such sport! ;)

Friday, August 21, 2009

An Evening at the Cinema

I share with you now a series of YouTube clips from one of my favorite movies ever: the 1966 Best Oscar winner, A Man for All Seasons. This is an old-school, thinking man's movie—the kind they don't make any more! That means: no sex, no "T and A", no car crashes, no special effects, and virtually no violence. But. . . high drama every step of the way! And dialogue—it's all about dialogue, dude!

This just might inspire somebody to rent or buy the DVD! :)

By the way, this is the kind of "patriarchal" stuff that feminists hate with a vengeance—and that alone is a powerful recommendation.

Paul Scofield (in the role of Sir Thomas More) is a wonderful, enchanting, amazing actoryou will enjoy his mastery of subtle expression and understated gesture. Orson Welles is memorable as Cardinal Wolsey. John Hurt, who portrays the perfidious Richard Rich, later went on to play Winston Smith in 1984, and more recently appeared as the diabolic Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta.

I have arranged the clips in correct sequence relative to the movie. You eagle-eyed ones will not fail to catch the symbolism of the lilac blossoms, which occurs in both the second and sixth of these segments.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Anti-Male Bigotry of the Women's Shelter Movement

A couple of days ago I got an e-mail from George Rolph in London. In his message, George included an item of interest which I'm sure you will enjoy reading.

It is an article written by a knowledgeable German academic at the University of Bremen, who calls out the moral hypocrisy and anti-male bigotry of the women's shelter movement, and advocates a more inclusive, gender-sensitive approach in dealing with the problem of domestic violence.

The following is an excerpt from the article:
"According to Gerhard Amendt, Professor of Gender and Generation Research at the University of Bremen, representatives of the supposedly weaker sex are every bit as violent as their partners. The researcher concludes that women's shelters foster a devaluation of masculinity and should therefore be replaced by family counseling centers.

"At the very moment when the operation of women's shelters in Germany has been subjected to scientific study for the first time, the German Bundestag’s Family Affairs Committee has decided to review the question of whether women's shelters should receive funding guarantees through the German federal government. Given the political ideology of women's shelters and the ramifications of such a step, this proposal should be taken under serious review. The answers to a number of questions are still outstanding. Have the services performed in women's shelters stood the test of time? Are the shelters operated in a professional manner, and have they moved on from an ideology that views men as the perpetrators of violence and women as nonviolent? Have women’s shelters developed a professional understanding of family conflicts that enables them to extend their efforts and include all members of a violent family?"
For your convenience in distributing, and so as not to bloat the blog, I have bundled the full article into a PDF for download, HERE:

And as a further convenience, here is the link to Professor Gerhard Amendt's website—whether you understand German or not! ;)

Well. Anybody who can't hear the appalling sexism inherent to phrases like "women's shelters", or "violence against women", is an obtuse moral thicko hardly worth talking to, and certainly not worth arguing with. But unfortunately, such people have all the power . . . and we don't!

Anyhow, I don't know if Prof. Gerhard Amendt of the University of Bremen counts himself among the "men's movement" (a subdivision of the Non-Feminist Revolution). Nor can I say if he counts himself part of the NFR at large. And I doubt if he has ever heard the term 'MRA', for that term is most likely confined to the anglosphere.

And yet pragmatically considered, in terms of pure effect, the work of Prof. Amendt (and others like him) inflicts a grievous injury upon feminism's political power base. Should the myth of "male violence" be seriously challenged at the legislative level, the feminists would be up to their ears in wild, frantic spin-control—and what sport it would be, to watch them scramble! If such a reform movement takes hold in Germany it will soon be all over continental Europe as well. And then it might jump the channel to England and gain a beachhead in the Anglosphere—which means it could finally, in the fullness of time, wash up on American shores!

The question is, how easily would such a thing jump from Continent to Anglosphere? Really, how much (cultural) resistance would the English Channel offer, so to speak?

But go now and enjoy the PDF. I offer it as a window, a glimpse into the large, though largely unheralded, happenings in mainland Europe. And trust me, things are moving over there!

Postscriptum: The following was left as a comment. I have moved it topside because it is pertinent and deserves exposure:

Oh, is he going to catch some backlash from this. He should REALLY talk to Erin Pizzey.

For those who don't know, Erin Pizzey opened the first shelter in the U.K. However, she didn't beat the Feminist drum, and insisted on services for men. She was ostracized, and to this day, on the site for the shelter she opened, her name is in no way mentioned.

Women’s shelters are incapable of providing this kind of professional intervention because of their ideology: they view a man as every woman’s enemy. For them, it is a foregone conclusion that women do not engage in violent acts. According to the ideology espoused in women’s shelters, this is always a given, and mutual talks between a woman and her partner are therefore superfluous. To this end, women are politically manipulated into a victim role and men are collectively denigrated.

This says it all. The DV/Rape industry has no actual interest in getting to the root cause of these things, as that would dry up the cash cow.

Thankfully, the general public is wising up to these things. A very good step was Marc Anglucci's success in California in winning in court to allow men into government funded shelters. That should be a mandatory requisite for any entity that gets government funding.

All the best,

E. Steven Berkimer

I should add that conditions in Europe are a bit different than what we know in the Anglosphere, and furthermore, the times they are a-changing. Prof. Amendt might not "catch it" quite so severely as we might think. Consider that pro-male sentiment in Europe is not only growing, but has attained a sophisticated organization and "reach" which we in the Anglosphere haven't got yet. They're not just a mob of angry peasants over there: they're looking more like an organized fighting force. And they're not just "on the street": they've begun to penetrate the establishment.

In other words, Prof. Amendt might have enough peer support and safety-in-numbers to weather the storm—although I don't doubt that there will be a storm.

But regardless, I believe it is better to "catch it" in a pitched battle, than to "catch it" on a daily basis under the regime of feminism—which is your lot anyway, if you are male. The former option has honor and dignity to recommend it, and points the way toward liberation. The latter points only toward deeper and deeper subjugation as time goes on—because, after all, they're not done with us yet!

Postscriptum 2: Another comment was left (by Julie), and it was a good one. So I am promoting it to topside. Hey, I just love it when other people write the blog for me! ;) Julie writes as follows:

It is not just Germany and it's not just a few countries that are fighting against the ideology feminists follow. This is a global movement and it starts among University professors. It includes those who have been in this work for decades and those who have tenure.

The problem comes when an army is made up and protesting for rights. This army like any other army is made up of people who are led to believe something.

As a ground person I know the majority of this army thinks somewhere in the political sphere there is balance. They don't understand nor can they fathom how radical feminism has created such a one-side-in-control machine. They are told through a carefully crafted education program that men are the enemy. But not men in general but an actual men's movement itself. They are given examples of the type of man that fits the profile of a man in the men's movement. He is a father who cares to speak up. No matter what complaint he makes for the benefit of his child, it wears an abusing tag and thus he is considered a bad man.

He is also the young male who questions. In fact he is any male who questions anything. If a man doesn't just nod as a good little boy, he is bad, he is abusive, he is racist, a wife beater and a rapist. All of these tags are given yet just one alone is needed to cross out a man's credibility.


I think the first thing all men and women need to understand is that there is no war between the sexes. I should repeat that ... "There is no war between the sexes".

The war happened in the 70's and 80's and even feminists admit they lost a generation. That means the majority of men and women are clueless to what is going on.

If ordinary people understood this and stopped taking a side between men and women all we would end up doing is passing on information as is our reality today as the information age.

Just think back to our army for feminists. They are in the dark; thinking the information they are given is correct. They don't have the time in their schedule to search for something they don't know exists. They can't know what is wrong with the information they are told when they don't know there is more than they receive out there.


What is happening is that on a global level University lecturers and researchers are building their army.

The ideological side is already in motion to counteract their proposals. It is an information war nowadays, don't forget.

What will be happening shortly and has started is a movement for the ground to receive the new information.

The ideology side already owns the information flow to the ground but the army for gender balance is starting its move to take over.

The ground (the ordinary people working in all fields) are oblivious to what is happening and they will be called upon to fight the new balanced research. They are already being prepared. And don't forget they are trained in hatred for men.

Sooooo, the new non-feminist movement needs to not only get organised but start their collection of information flowing through mainstream in preparation for the major fight that is right in front of us ... that is about to occur.

The non-feminist movement needs to lessen the feminist's army numbers. The only way to do that is to show the members of the army what is going on.

Thank you Jules! I think we are moving toward CRITICAL CONSENSUS in many areas.

And you are spot-on when you say that the feminists only want to smear the "men's movement". This has been painfully clear to us MRA types for many years. I mean, what else can you realistically expect from a corrupt regime? They always smear the opposition—and throw them in jail too, when they get a chance! No news here, folks. . .

Indeed, smearing politically-outspoken men is the only thing they ever COULD do. It's either that, or face the truth about themselves—which is something that humans hate to do in any case, but if the feminists did such a thing, that would spell the end of feminism itself! Kaput!

I think I have already explained why "non-feminist" is such a good name to use. . .

Anyway... I would say that the NF side needs above all to "rally the troops". And how? Well. . by showing them what is going on, as you say. And also, by inspiring their Morale. . .

But, "showing them what is going on" will be a complex task because, of course, complex things are going on. . .

So I believe the task will be, to simplify the task. And I would recommend doing that by starting with a 'simplified' version of the story that will grab hold quickly in people's minds, and afterwards feeding out the complicated details little by little. . .

The people on the ground are thirsting for something—in fact, for the truth—and even if they don't YET know what that is, they can still recognize the "ring" of truth quite clearly when they hear it. It's an instinct.

So give them that ring of truth, in order to capture their hearts and minds. Well, their attention anyway. After that, they will come back for more.

Anyway, let the global lecturers build their army, but their army is not the only one. Agitators such as myself are also mustering various armies just by the force of our agitation. Ahhh . . . God bless the internet; it beats the hell out of preaching on a street corner! Oh all right, I miss the old days of penning pamphlets, but I guess blogging is the new pamphleteering . . . ;)

Friday, August 14, 2009

Wanted: Feminists to Betray Feminism

Greetings from the Exalted Office of the Serene Imperial Pontifex Maximus of the Non-Feminist Revolution:

The Non-Feminist Revolution is now hiring!

Are you an erstwhile Radical Feminist, or feminist of any grade at all, who has undergone a dramatic conversion experience or paradigm-shift? Do you look back on your former life through a greasy, speckled lens of nausea—as on a binge of shameful intoxication from which you have finally awakened with a ghastly hangover? Are you now ready to say good riddance to all of that—to repudiate the cult of feminism altogether and turn your back upon it for the rest of eternity?

Well you've come to the right place my friend, because we're looking for people just like you! The non-feminist revolution is now recruiting qualified moles, rats, finks, rat-finks, renegades, double agents, infiltrators, provocateurs, fifth-columnists, snoops, snitches, spies and flies-on-the-wall!

That's right: traitors, turncoats, informants, and "sources" of every description.

There is no end to the services you may perform for the revolution, and no telling how far your career path may eventually take you.

But before you proclaim your apostasy to the world, think twice, and consider the advantages of your present situation. Then, consider keeping your mouth shut rather than burning your bridges. As long as you've got your insider's position of trust within your present peer group, why not milk it for all it's worth, for the benefit of your new peer group? Eh..? Does that sound like it would be a kick?

Remember that people do this sort of thing all the time. There is nothing irregular or scandalous about renouncing your loyalty to a peer group which you have outgrown: history furnishes example upon example in this field, and there is no reason why you shouldn't get a piece of that very same action yourself! Indeed, you should congratulate yourself for having a MIND, for seeing the truth of matters at long last, and for acting upon what your revitalized understanding has shown you to be the actual state of things.

Therefore count yourself lucky, count yourself blessed, that you had the good sense to turn your back upon that shit-hole cult, and to embrace once more a free and honest way of life! Lament not, that you have wasted so much of your life, but rather rejoice that you may now "recycle" that waste, and redeem it, and make it a source of strength, wisdom, and shrewdly informed policy in your new vocation.

So again I say, don't be in a too-big hurry to publicly bid adieu to the old lifeways. For, once you have made that open breach, once you have "outed" yourself to your soon-to-be former peers, the undercover trade will no longer be an option. So, consider not blowing your cover — at least for a while.

Of course, once having announced yourself, you may then be of service in a different but equally useful manner. By being an open renegade—flaunting this with passion and conviction—you bear witness, in the world's eye, to the reprobate character of what you have left behind. The impact of such a testimony upon the public mind (or a number of comparable testimonies) can be quite powerful, generating a moral updraft which emboldens more and more people to make a similar decision.

Whether you stay undercover or whether you break surface, either way, I could highly recommend that you take up blogging. This would be, for starters, an entirely logical and altogether natural pulpit for the cyber-age. It is also a way to get the best of both worlds, for you can blog anonymously and leave a narrative of your undercover activities, with suitable ellipsis, for the world to enjoy—and your so-called peer group will be none the wiser.

Once more, for those who desire the undercover trade, a number of creative options are available, to wit: moles, rats, finks, rat-finks, renegades, double agents, infiltrators, provocateurs, fifth-columnists, snoops, snitches, spies and flies-on-the-wall! So which would you rather be: a rat, a fink, or . . . a rat-fink? Or, would provocateur or fifth-columnist be more likely to hit the spot for you? Ahh. . . decisions, decisions! Makes you feel like a donkey starving between several bales of hay, doesn't it?

Most generic, and spanning of all categories, would be "Source". It is a simple occupation; all you must do is share information. And how easy is THAT? Well, consider the following:

It is called the Sacred E-mail Address. The 'earthling' part signals both our point of origin and the location of our feet—the latter, on the ground.

Fear not; don't be bashful; the Sacred E-mail Address will not bite.

All right. Maybe you have cocked your ear to the buzz in the faculty lounge. Or you might be hip to the jive over at the Feminist-Subjectivist Society, or the scuttlebutt down at the Wild Wimynz Navel-Gazing Co-op. (Man, the zeitgeist is everywhere—you never know where it might pop up next!)
Been to a conference lately? What did they really gab about in those breakaway groups? And how about those members-only feminist blogs and web forums—got access? Screenshots are delicious; PDFs are dandy! Got tenure in feminized academia? There must be academic articles floating around which the general public ain't supposed to know about! And memos? Don't even get me started!

You see, information—even critically useful information—sprouts in the most unforeseen crevices of the universe, and you should never underestimate the value of your own particular listening post. So get busy and support the Non-Feminist Revolution with those rich and varied intelligence reports that you have gathered like nectar from many blossoms. The revolutionary data-jaws are gaping wide to crunch down anything you shovel into them. And you know perfectly well how very badly you want to betray feminism, since you know all too well how badly feminism has betrayed YOU. . . don't you? Of course you do! ;)

So whoever you are, and whatever you are, do what you can to weaken their world—to rot it, to make it disintegrate, to make it crumble. And if you feel you are not the man or woman for the job, then kindly pass along a link to this post to anybody who, in your considered opinion, might benefit from reading it. (URL:

Go now, and serve the Revolution.

~Fidelbogen, SIPM-NFR~

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Women are Drinking More,
and Drunk While Driving More

This recently in from the Associated Press wire:
"NEW YORK — It seemed too horrendous even to imagine. But the case of the mother who caused a deadly wrong-way crash while drunk and stoned is part of a disturbing trend: Women in the U.S. are drinking more, and drunken-driving arrests among women are rising rapidly while falling among men. . . ."

Full story HERE:

Perhaps it is pressure from the patriarchy which is making this happen. . . . :-\. . .EH?

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

We Have an Admirer!

This is in reference to the previous post, which as you know consisted of naught but a link and a couple of sardonic phrases. The link pointed to a blog called PumaPAC, which purports to be feminist in some way, and seems to be populated by political junkies and gasbags pontificating on a dunghill. Boy, these people sure do know a bunch of stuff (in certain categories) which I do not! Anyhow, I posted the link casually, not thinking much of it, but knowing it would serve as illustration for certain points of discussion I sometimes bring up.

Lo and behold, Darragh Murphy (the blog owner) was gazing into her Wordpress admin stats, and saw the incoming traffic from my link! She quickly surfed over to CF, and what she found made an impression. That impression was non-trivial, and Murphy felt moved to "share the experience" by announcing it, as follows, on a comment thread:
admin 08.05.09 at 1:45 pm

heh. some blogger linked to my “All Women Are Feminists” post. Apparently he runs an utterly un-ironic blog dedicated to eradicating feminism. His post has 3 comments calling me a dumbass. Each one is special in its own delicious way, but I like this one the best by far:

” trent13 said…

yeah, she’s pretty much an idiot. I’m not one to call names, but that’s just a fact.

If one is saying that being a part of the female sex = feminism than it would go the same way for men and mysogony (right?) Whatever – I don’t really see how one would even be able to have a rational conversation with someone who decides to come up with things that are so far out in left field as to be entirely out of touch with objective reality.

Oh, and another thing, if she can’t appreciate Aristotle… well, like I already said, she’s an idiot.”

Now, I feel bound to raise an objection. I do not feel dedicated to "eradicating" feminism—neither ironically, un-ironically or otherwise. No! I would much prefer to cut feminism's legs off, and then mock it while it crawls around on bloody stumps! Do I make that clear enough? Can you picture it?

Something else: I wonder if Darragh Murphy is aware that Trent13 is a woman? From what I can gather, Darragh has no idea. Yet it would surely be a point of significance, or so you might assume. (Trent13 is also Catholic, which could explain the affinity toward Aristotle—by way of Thomistic philosophy, of course!)

So, according to Darragh Murphy, my commenters called her a "dumbass"— although none of them use that actual word. Now, whether Darragh Murphy veritably IS a dumbass, is a separate question. But Darragh very clearly stands accused—or thinks she does. This event, of being imputed a dumbass, was a point of some importance in her day or she wouldn't have brought it to her readers in quest of communal reinforcement. Surely, if it meant nothing to her, then her response would have been . . . nothing. Or at any rate, noblesse oblige. Also, 'dumbass' is rather a schoolyard choice of words, which observers of a psychological bent will not fail to consider—the kind of word that might pop out as a reversion to the primitive, under the duress of emotional agitation.

Interestingly, Murphy makes the following remark further along in the thread:
"that dinky little blog and its 3 comments just convinced me beyond a shred of doubt that i am so fucking right it’s not even funny.
Possibly it's my imagination, but something in the tone of this makes me wonder. Something profoundly hollow is happening here: can you feel it? Darragh Murphy wants very, very badly to be convinced or reassured of something, and in these words she reveals her conflicted state of mind with painful clarity for all the world to read. Again, note the agitated language. Clearly, the dinky little blog made more than a dinky impression or Darragh would have promptly forgotten all about it.

But here is a link to the original comment on PumaPAC:

As you read further along the thread, you'll find one or two short quips by some other people, one of whom takes exception to the photo gallery along the right side of this page, and pretends to find something irregular or "off" about the phrase "we males" which occurs in the caption. I am still trying to fathom the mentation behind that! Seriously, what IS that person on about?

Well, I don't know if Darragh wants the attention or not, but she's getting it anyway. You see how very thin-skinned these people are: thin enough that we can easily get under it! Something tells me it isn't easy to be Darragh Murphy, when more and more people like us are popping up everywhere, everyday!

You might wonder why I should be at the trouble of writing this. Well, I want to provide some entertainment for "onside" readers. And not just entertainment, but practical instruction and useful insight to boot. Other than that, I think it is a good idea to use your claws once in a while, just to keep them sharp.

If Darragh Murphy wants to do the adult thing, the "cool" thing, then she will simply ignore this little zinger which I have composed in her honor—and it's mild salsa; I could make it way the hell hotter! But yes, the grown-up response would be to ignore this, as it would have been to ignore my earlier post instead of making such an easy target of herself.

On the other hand, if Darragh Murphy wants to be an ignoramus and a jackass, and go another round or three, then she will get sucked straight into the vortex and pinned to the bottom like a gasping, drowning, flailing fool. What else can I say? ;)

Really Darragh, the wise plan is to tuck, and turn your back, and walk straight away from this dinky little blog, and carry on with your serious, important political business! ;)

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

All Women Are Feminists!!

Go and read THIS:

Tough love dearie! ;-)

You're a feminist, like it or not!!!!!!

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Notes: Toward a Counter-Feminist
Theory of the State

1. The State and the Social Contract—Their Purpose and Their Interdependency

The social contract is a covenant to abide by certain rules, which for convenience we may term "laws", and to relinquish what is called "sovereignty" to an entity known as "the state". The state, in theory, embodies the intention of the social contract, and adjudicates its operation in practice.

Sovereignty (when given to the state) means the power of the state to enforce the social contract, if necessary by violence. In practice, this means the power to issue final commands. Therefore, the state may be understood as the repository of the power to issue final commands in the service of the social contract.

Commands may either originate from the state, or be referred to the state for adjudication if there be any question (under law) of who can rightfully tell who to do what. But either way, the FINAL command issues from the state, as from a court of last resort.

The social contract and the state are formed together. They spring into existence at the same time by a necessity inherent to their case. They are vested in one another, they make a mutual fit with one another, and they cannot be understood apart from one another.

If the social contract is voided, then the state has neither reason nor justification to continue existing. If the state is voided, then the social contract has no objective foundation of authority. This demonstrates the interdependence of the social contract and the state: compromise either one, and you compromise both; invalidate either one, and you invalidate both. The arrow of corruption points in both directions.

If either the social contract or the state are voided then life reverts to what, for convenience, we may call the Hobbesian state of nature.

As matters historically stand, the legitimacy of the state may be called in question. I will discuss this further along.

And if the legitimacy of the state be thus problematized, so likewise the authority of the social contract. For the authority of the social contract must be objectively grounded in the state, and if the state is rotten, then the contract perforce rests upon a rotten foundation and therefore lacks objective basis.

This raises the question of political obligation. In practice, such obligation devolves to whatever social-contractual duty you would feel toward your "neighbor"—to wit, any imagined moral imperative to behave with other than complete rapacity. If the traditional social contract be fatally compromised, what basis can there possibly be for a social-contractual duty other than your own morally autarchic pledge to behave well, to be self-policing, to be a "state" in your own right and therefore sovereign?

In short, absent of a social contract and its accompanying state authority, what basis for political obligation could there be other than a MORAL LAW WITHIN YOURSELF?

That is where matters presently stand. None of this should be construed in the light of recommendation. Read it rather as a description of worldly forces and dilemmas which are growing, and gaining urgency.

2. The Extended Nature of the State

Feminist innovation has imposed upon the world a number of radically altered conditions. We, who work to bring about the neutralization of anti-male politics, are bound by the requirements of our craft to make note of such things.

Prominent among these altered conditions is THE NATURE OF THE STATE, and in consequence, the entire system of laws, customs, protocols, policies, public discourses, governing institutions and power relations which either directly or indirectly take their cue from the state.

In the aftermath of feminist innovation, the state has become feminized, by which I mean: critically infiltrated by the feminist worldview. In consequence, we may characterize the state as anti-male.

And what is the feminist worldview? Briefly: it is the radically-insinuated belief in a primordial male guilt which (according to said belief) coheres with a male-controlled power structure that is integral with the subjugation of women. This worldview is codified in the feminist intellectual construction known as patriarchy theory.

The feminist worldview is a subtext to the political drive toward female supremacy. In its totality, this worldview constitutes an organizing premise and a validating template for female supremacist action in both the microcosm and the macrocosm.

That the feminist worldview poses moral and epistemological difficulties is not lost upon the present writer. I seek, however, not to validate feminist thinking but only to explain how it operates.

The first thing to understand, is that feminism seeks moral sovereignty, meaning that the feminist system of moral evaluation would be given hegemonic privilege in all areas of life. In pursuit of that goal, the feminists have extended their revolution into every possible theatre of power—inserting their influence at the highest possible point in every conceivable chain of command, seeking to move still higher whenever the opportunity arises.

The feminist drive for power has been a twofold, forked affair. On the one side, there has been a slow, deliberate penetration of the culture at the grassroots level of everyday life, in order to capture the hearts and minds of the masses. On the other, there has been a steady infiltration into the political zone, with the design of grafting the feminist worldview onto the official apparatus of state by incremental modifications of law, public policy, and institutional structure.

The feminists have famously promoted the Orwellesque slogan that "the personal is the political". This path-breaking meme has conceptually extended the power of "the state" by making it unclear where the "personal" ends and where the "political" begins.

The "political", though variously understood in its implications, is properly the domain of the state. Specifically, it is the zone in which the state, if it has ANY right to meddle, may rightfully meddle. By contrast, the "personal" is off-limits—or so you might assume. It is the zone in which "the king and his officers care not to enter".

Enter feminism with its innovationary maxim that "the personal is the political". Think about what that means: it means radical annulment of the disjunction between the two zones. Personal life is now on a spectrum of operations indistinguishable from so-called politics, and from this it follows that the entire spectrum of human existence becomes the domain of the state...!

It is a fuzzy border trick. Being thuswise deprived of clarity, the boundary between the personal and the political becomes a nebulous, sponge-like membrane through which the political creeps, by capillary action, into the personal—which is to say that the STATE (and all that concerns it) bleeds into the zone of private existence and mingles with that zone, robbing it of its treasure, its subjectivity, its essential mystery, and most importantly its power to operate autonomously. This lays the foundation for a totalitarian social order.

Feminism is not alone in its drive to personalize the political, and politicize the personal. The political Left at large has also embraced the spirit of this maxim, and together with feminism forms a unified phalanx of intention upon this theme. The Left as a whole is marked by its hostility toward private space of any kind—of thought, of feeling, of action, or what you will.

Feminism has bootstrapped into its current position of political sovereignty in a paradoxical fashion—a kind of reverse-engineered catch-22. This has occurred in a two-stage sequence, firstly: by colonizing the state in order to make the state into a feminist (or "feminized") system, and secondly: by claiming (or implicitly assuming) moral supremacy by reason of the political fait accompli effected in the first stage.

And yet, barring its own repeated self-proclamations, feminism holds NO original patent on moral supremacy, NO officer's commission in the army of truth and virtue, and NO license to command our hearts and minds in ANY way! You wouldn't let some half-whacked preacher on a street corner tell you how to think and feel and how to organize your life, would you? But feminism has accomplished that very thing. It is running on sheer bluff, sheer baloney, brazen audacity, and the moral timidity of far too many people.

Feminism's infiltration of state apparatus on all levels, together with a simultaneous expansion of its cultural influence "on the street" (which powerfully reinforces penetration of formal state mechanisms) has brought about a condition tantamount to the annulment of church-state separation. Granted that feminism is not officially a church or a religion. But that is a mere technicality, for the actual fait accompli is materially equivalent to a theocracy cast in ideological terms—an "ideocracy", if you will.

This beach-head is now established, and the road lies open to penetration inland. And goddess theologies are in the preparation stage, destined for unveiling and wider dissemination when the time is right. Such religious formats may never penetrate the official machinery of government, but that won't be necessary. They'll need only to pervade the broader culture, whilst purely secular versions of feminism place a lockdown on laws and institutions. The two will operate efficiently in tandem, to uphold the illusion of church-state separation.

But the power of the state no longer stops at any clearly understood border. For a number of distinct fusions have occurred along with the church-state fusion lately mentioned: the political with the personal, for a prime example. Also, the feminist with the female, the feminist with the state, the secular with the spiritual, the ideological with the cultural, and others that could be cited. All of these examples interlink in a materially important way when you consider that they all directly involve, or make a potential conduit for, either feminism or state power. And these last two, as we have explained, have been so married to each other that wherever one goes the other is soon to follow.

The twofold colonization by the feminist worldview of such dualities as discussed above, must be understood in context with its colonization of the female collective. Feminism, as said, has introduced radically altered conditions into the world, and this pattern of change may be accounted as both an episteme and a legacy. The average female citizen leans against it, reclines upon it, naively quotes it, and writes checks against its presumptive moral capital in more ways than you can hope to imagine. Such female citizens are passive feminists, fish unaware of the water. The feminist worldview has saturated their existence to such a depth that they eat, drink, think, talk, transpire and excrete feminism with unfeigned innocence and complete oblivion to the source of what they are propagating.

Let us (somewhat) tie together these multifarious threads of the extended feminized state. Remember that according to feminist preaching, "the personal is the political". Consider therefore, that the state is contiguous with the political in nearly every sense, and that this inherent proximity is augmented both by feminist penetration of state apparatus AND by a closely adjoining feminist activism within the political sphere, and that given the overlapping personnel and frequent border crossings, these neighboring zones of kindred energy will quickly bridge what little gap may separate them, and merge into a seamless fabric of transmitted political effect—extending from all quarters to all quarters.

Thereafter, the political infiltrates the personal in accordance with feminist exhortation, and this is followed up closely by the pervasive spreading of the feminized state—which has only to flow in the channel that was dug for it. A feminized omni-locational superstate, or complex of feministical operations, thus colonizes all socio-political levels and reaches into a variety of cultural niches and micro-domains, seeking to extend itself ever more and more.

This feministical operations complex, which we have elsewhere written about, is given a conveniently abbreviated name: the femplex. And the nature of the femplex is totalitarian—a fact that will become more evident, and more difficult to oppose in practice, as time goes on.

This expanded "state", being feminized, is by its nature the ENEMY of all male citizens, and to lend it any moral support is to be a self-betrayer, complicit in your own oppression as a male citizen.

3. What This Means for Men

Reverting now to simpler terms of discussion, the case is this: feminism has wrapped itself in the mantle of the state, and of a variety of state-like institutions whose authority is difficult to contravene, in order to gain investiture in the sovereignty of the state, and by so doing secure its OWN sovereignty—thereby gaining gravitas and mana against those who might tend to disrespect it.

Now, the "sovereign", according to long-established understanding, must ground itself in the "legitimate". Such, traditionally, have been the rules of the road. But in the end, feminism has succeeded only in tainting the state, and de-legitimizing the state, and by that means cutting off the legs of any pretense to sovereignty that it (feminism) may wish to assert.

Thus feminism, in truth, stands only upon its original self-proclamation—which, of itself, can never boost feminism above the primeval mud of contenders. For the state, having been rendered illegitimate by feminism itself, cannot legitimately serve feminism as a booster seat. The state is no longer a thing apart from feminism, but rather a part of it.

Accordingly, any investiture of feminism in the purported sovereignty of the state adds up to a feminist sovereignty by self-investiture—which in the end means that the feminist world-view has no sovereignty whatever. It has no purchase, no traction, no inherent mindshare entitlement, no rightful hegemonic status in the realm of public discourse. And so we are in no way bound (legally, morally or otherwise) to endorse the feminist worldview, or acquiesce in it, any more than we are bound to convert to religion X or religion Y.

And the state, being critically infiltrated by the feminist worldview, now upholds its purported sovereignty solely by virtue of its assumed monopoly on violence—to wit, that persons, styled "officers of the law", are franchised by the state to make free with this monopoly under stated conditions, bidding you step entirely within a barred enclosure. Simply stated, the state, being destitute of legitimate authority, henceforth holds merely a de facto power to compel the perfunctory obedience of those (such as the present writer) who deem discretion the better part of valor. (No, I don't play macho games with cops—although I don't rule out the possibility of some day doing so!)

Given that the state is tainted by the feminist worldview and therefore hostile to men, it no longer has the moral authority (read: legitimacy) to command the respect of any male citizen, and any such citizen is free, at least in his sovereign heart and mind, to go his own way according to the dictates of his prudentiality—to wit, the Philosopher's Golden Highway of Not Getting Caught. I say this not prescriptively, but rather upon the foundation of simple, objective FACT. It is a fait accompli: love it or hate it, but this is now the way things ARE, and it would be fatuous to pretend otherwise.

If the state has no legitimacy, it has no sovereignty. And if it has no sovereignty it has no right to command me, but only the power to coerce me. Hence, the state has no legal or moral authority to make me act either legally or morally toward women—or for that matter, anybody else! Finally, the only sovereignty which governs me is the moral law within me—whatever shape, fair or foul, this may assume. Given the invalidation of the state, such a sovereignty constitutes (by default) the only possible basis for ANY social-contractual bond. I say "bond", for in the nature of the case it cannot properly be termed a duty.

Feminism has done away with the former system of life between the sexes, which was grounded in a social ecology of reciprocal obligation. By grafting itself onto the machinery of state, feminism has effectively voided this former system as a social contract, and replaced it with an advocacy system which seeks to secure the interests of women in a one-sided manner at best oblivious to the welfare of men, and at worst actively hostile to it. The feminist system, over the years, has accumulated certain consequences—a negative energy if you will, which cannot fail to be discharged eventually.

The division of male and female into separate political interest groups is now an historically objective reality. I am not proposing or recommending such a thing, and I am certainly not celebrating it. I am simply directing attention to the established factuality of it. It is here now and it is real, and to bury our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise would be sophomoric, not to say foolhardy.

In so asserting, I merely acknowledge the fait accompli of history. The apparatus of state being tainted by the feminist worldview, it follows that any social contract consistent with this tainted state is tainted in the same measure. And such a social contract, being the excrescence of a feminized state, can do naught other than to enforce female supremacism and anti-male politics. As a man you might submit to such a contract willingly, or you might live in the simpletonian illusion that some earlier contract still applies, but either way you would submit to a regime that treats men as a class of slaves or a class of dogs.

And to be a slave or a dog, means you are less than a citizen, or less than human. In both cases, you are less than a man. So tell me brotherman, do you feel bound to such a social contract? Or do you feel bound to rip it in pieces and toss it to the wind?

Think carefully about this. And know the terrible freedom that beckons you, and beckons us all.