Wednesday, September 30, 2009

CF Podcast: The Second

Casting the pod again!

This one ignores conventional podcrafting wisdom, for it is a bloated monster that runs nearly half an hour! And it sounds rather like a university lecture. . .

Conventional wisdom says: "keep it brief, punchy, and above all easy to follow". Well, this podcast is undoubtedly not those first two things, and arguably not the third, either—but I guess that depends on the listener. Oh all right, so this is aimed at a niche market! A market composed of 33rd-degree counter-feminist technicians and troublemakers, or random web-surfers who are potentially such people! ;)

Like most of the material posted on this blog, this is political dynamite—albeit slow motion dynamite, whose efficacy depends on putting it in the hands of people who not only know that it IS dynamite, but also WHY it is dynamite . . . and how to blow things up with it!

And so, I cast my pod upon the waters. . .

http://www.4shared.com/file/136952448/6997553/_2__CFtheoryOfState.html?


Future productions will follow the brief-punchy-easy formula, but right now, I need to get a few things out of my system! ;)

By the way, this podcast has some music on it, so I reckon that makes it a tad bit zesty at any rate, eh?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Article About Rape Trials
- From Sweden

Monday, September 21, 2009

Counter-Feminist Podcast: The First

I am making available for download an MP3 audio file which I have recently recorded. I can, with no reservations, call this my first podcast. Unlike a previous podcast which used my words but Amfortas's voice, this one is completely my own. Yes, that is me talking!

For a script, I have used article number two of the CF series—hence, "CF2".

http://www.4shared.com/file/134451238/74e1323f/CF2.html

All in all, I am rather pleased with my first essay in the craft. No doubt I will improve when I begin to master the fancy editing features in my recording software. I have found that writing for listeners is a different art than writing for readers: it calls for a certain adaptation of style. But I find that I enjoy this, and I am certain that I will get better with practice.

I am looking for a decent podhosting "solution", but so far, the ones I have looked into all SUCK! So, you will need to download the 13.6 megaybte audio file from the link I have given, and play it on your own system. I really wanted to embed a widget, but for now, this is how it rolls.

It goes without saying that you may go viral with this, and spread copies all over the known universe—or at least all over planet earth!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Question of Feminist Guilt:
It Will Not Go Away



So. . . did feminism make this happen?

That is an important question. And a hard question—meaning, a persistent question which demands an answer. However, let's scrutinize this from another direction. In light of your own study of feminist behavior over many years, how do you suppose the average feminist would react when confronted by a story of this nature? For example, are you aware of any feminist website that would embed such a video as this, and thereupon invite its feminist readers to a spirited discussion of the issue which the video raises?

I would say: fat chance! For I have seen that most feminists will completely blow off such pesky little embarrassments by filtering them out of their world altogether—out of sight, out of mind! It is a rare feminist indeed, who would introduce any such material for discussion among her peers—polite silence is the order of the day; a communal agreement to "not go there." Still, they will sometimes be forced to handle these issues, and when such a moment arrives, the interlopers who apply the force in question will be given a special name: "trolls".

A troll, incidentally, is any person who enters a feminist space and subverts the feminist worldview.

And the feminists, who are certainly no slouches in such matters, have a witty saying which they love to wheel out on occasions when they feel compelled to express any opinion whatsoever about such things:

"Oh, but. . .what about teh menz??"


The burden of this apothegm is double-barrelled. On the one side, it translates very effectively as "let them eat cake!" And on the other, it amounts to an across-the-board "fuck you", tossed flippantly in the general direction of half the human race. This filthy snot-rag of a saying will typically fly from a feminist tongue any time somebody has the moxie to suggest that men's problems are as serious as women's, and so must be regarded seriously if women's problems are likewise to be regarded seriously.

But the problem with taking men's problem's seriously, is that you can't TRULY take them seriously if you don't grapple with the equally serious question of feminism's role in either creating those problems, or perpetuating their existence. Or putting it simply: the question of feminism's guilt.

Yes, the hard question: Did feminism make this happen?

Surely, if I were a feminist who had any conscience whatsoever, I would be squirming like a toad on a hot-plate if I were compelled to spend time thinking or talking about such things. But then, if I were a feminist who had any conscience whatsoever, I wouldn't be a feminist. . . would I? And in that case, my conscience would be clear, and I wouldn't need to squirm like a toad. . . would I?

We must consider, that during the last forty-odd years life has gotten worse for men in a multitude of ways. And in so considering, we must equally consider that this thing called feminism took a considerable hand in the proceedings. And therefore it becomes critically important to ask, repeatedly and in connection with a multitude of difficulties, the hard question: Did feminism make this happen? It becomes critically important to ask this question a LOT, because frankly, a lot of things cry out for such an inquest.

Feminism is conspicuous for both its presence and its absence as regards anti-male developments of every sort. For instance, feminists were indisputably present at the inception of many worrisome social trends that nowadays plague us all—but plague men in particular. Sometimes they actively initiated such things, and demonstrably launched them into the world. Or perhaps they early spoke in favor of such things, in words foreshadowing such things— urging the necessity of such things and making the inclination of their sympathies abundantly clear in regard to such things.

Other times, the initial contribution of feminism is not so plainly seen, yet the absence of present-day feminist voices upon such matters—the peculiar silence, the denial, the trivialization, the rationalization, the self-serving reinterpretation, the conversational avoidance, and above all the glaring failure to manifest a seemly sense of moral urgency—speaks with overpowering eloquence. So that even if the feminists cannot be shown to have directly supported the matter in the beginning, they clearly do so now. And that even if they didn't clearly make it happen in the beginning, they clearly make it happen now, by making it clear that they don't want it to stop happening.

And so again, the hard question of feminist guilt: Did feminism make this happen?

And the feminist reply: "Oh. . . but what about teh menz?"

It is a magic-wand statement, and for them it makes the world disappear. For truly, nothing medicates a seasick conscience quite like striking a jaunty pose of devil-may-care defiance in the company of a supportive peer group. Why be a guilty, squirming toad when it feels so much better to be a fashionably nihilistic toad?

But now, my good friends of the non-feminist sector, go and watch the video again in order to burn it more deeply into your brains!
===============================================

Update: 1 Dec 2010:


Unfortunately, this video (by the notorious Thugtician) has been removed. It wouldn't surprise me if Thugtician has been banned altogether from YouTube -- he "told it like it is" rather strongly, and had plenty of enemies!

But briefly: the video told the story of a man in Dauphin county, Pennsylvania, who got hit with the most outrageous case of paternity fraud you can possibly imagine -- the kind that buggers belief! And. . . the various bureaucrats and agencies conspired and lied outrageously to keep this man in his condition of slavery. Tom Leykis reported on the story, and Thugtician included a clip of Leykis in his YouTube video.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

How the Feminist DV Industry
Politicizes the Personal

Trudy Schuett is an activist who is, let us say, not popular with the feminists.

All right . . . they hate her guts!

But you know what? I think Trudy Schuett is okay, because today she has made my life a little bit easier. You see, Trudy has written an excellent five-part article series, and I can send you to read it instead of writing something myself! That way, I needn't do any work on the blog—and I can catch up on some involved correspondence. (Well all right, that too is work! )

Here is a sample from part five of the series:

"So much damage has been done to people, their children and their lives because the system has intervened with bad solutions, in the belief it is protecting people from themselves, it is simply unconscionable.

"There is some hope this terrible system can be put right. There are whispers of change coming from many directions. In the UK, their government decided this year DV services must provide truly equal help for both men and women, or face de-funding. In San Diego County, The California Men's Center was instrumental in making changes to a training video, allowing law enforcement professionals to better comprehend the real nature of domestic violence. Also in California, a conference here. These are but a few of the encouraging things that are happening in the field now. was held in June featuring many of the best-known researchers, advocates and providers of aid discussing New Perspectives approaches. Cathy Young talks about it in the Boston Globe,

"More recently, Governor Schwarzenegger of California has eliminated state funding for DV services. Robert Franklin of Fathers and Families, said about the funding cut at Glenn Sacks.com, '[W]hatever the motivations behind the governor’s decision, remember that he’s a politician and, whatever else may be true, he considers it politically safe to cut 100% of state funding for DV shelters.' "


Part 1 of the series is HERE: http://tinyurl.com/naxd4j

. . . and you will find links to the other four parts.

I'm sure you'll want to savor every drop of this, as well as investigating the many external links, and downloading some of the interesting PDFs. It is all counter-feminist information of the first order, and I've no doubt you'll want to pass it along to others. Such is the mainstay of our campaign strategy: brute force "assault" upon the feminist worldview by prolonged and reiterated bombardment. The more we spread the alternative view of reality, the more numbers we will activate in our sector, and the more precarious their position will become as they expend greater and greater energy fending off the growing legion of doubting, challenging, heckling voices.

The time for argument is past. The time for shoving them to the wall is present. And in time, the opposing sector will understand that they must negotiate a framework of co-existence.
--------------------------


HERE is something unrelated, just for laughs:

http://tinyurl.com/mtuooe

(Please note that this was wrongly linked earlier, but I have now corrected it. )

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Feminism has a Pinocchio Nose!

But we've always known that, haven't we? ;)-----

Very well. Here is something I got from a correspondent in another part of the world. The grim news that women are as violent as men (at least domestically) has been slow to infiltrate the collective noggin — and certain people have done their damnedest to postpone that dawning realization. But new evidence keeps arriving, adding piles upon heaps upon mounds to the impressive stack of data we already possess.

Most MRAs that I know would be quite happy to "call it even", and say that men and women are equal across the board in all categories of reprobate household behavior. That is because most MRAs have no desire to "make women look bad", they just want the truth to be told. Feminists, by contrast, do indeed want to make men look badthe badder the better! And they've been hard at work on this project from the moment they first launched their movement back in the radical 1960s.

They started their domestic violence smear campaign some time in the mid-1970s, and they've been flailing away ever since, with no sign of slackening their pace. Yes, by now you'd think they would know better, and yet those lying sacks of shit are still at it today, like robots with no conscience or scruples, perpetual motion machines running the same loop over and over and over. . . . until somebody arrives with a sledgehammer and smashes the goddamned thing to flinders!

But look now, what an odd perversion of poetic justice it is, that our sector is getting more than it ever wanted in the realm of vindication. For there is now considerable evidence to hand, not merely that the sexes are equally violent or vile, but that within certain categories, women are (heaven help us) the front runners!

I feel quite ambivalent about announcing such things. I'd really rather that men and women should be "equal", as the feminists are fond of saying. And yet . . . the truth, in whatever shape it finally settles, must be exhibited to the world in a mode of strict impartiality. We owe ourselves no less.

And so I offer here a recent collection of such male-exonerative and female-inculpative statistics. The feminists will find, I make no doubt, a blessed comfort in knowing that men commit overwhelmingly more sexual abuse of children than do women—even if the total number who actually behave so, is miniscule when measured as a percentage of the male population.

As you will see, the study was made in WA. At first, I thought this was the abbreviation for my very own state of Washington in the USA. But no. It stands for 'Western Australia'. . .

FYI
This will upset the fems and the BBC. Each new study makes it harder for their lies to stand up. Please pass this far and wide.

Dads not the Demons

20 July 2009

Recent data from the Department of Child Protection in Western Australia (WA) has debunked a common misconception about fathers and violence. The data shows that natural mothers are far more likely to abuse children than their natural fathers, other than in sexual abuse, where mothers were responsible for only 13% of cases.

The past practice of lumping together de factos, live-in boyfriends and overnight male guests together with fathers as “male carers” has led to skewed beliefs about who abuses children. In releasing these recent figures that identify natural fathers separately, the DCP has provided a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children.

The figures - obtained under Freedom of Information provisions - provide a clearer picture of who is likely to abuse children in families. The data show that there were 1505 substantiations of child abuse in WA during 2007-8.

Natural parents were responsible for 37% of total cases. Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect or abuse in 73% of cases, including over 50% of cases of physical abuse. The accompanying graph shows the breakdown of parents responsible for each form of abuse.


Micheal Woods, an academic from the University of Western Sydney, said:

“The data is not surprising - it is in line with international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse. And the figures do undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children’s well-being”.

The release of this data is timely, and shows the need for solid evidence in developing legislation and policies affecting families. Recently, some radical groups have attacked the Family Court for its role in encouraging shared parenting after separation, claiming that this placed children at risk from violent fathers. Selected instances where fathers have harmed children were used to suggest that this is a common occurrence, and that shared parenting legislation placed children at increased risk.

However, this newly available information demonstrates that while there are some abusive fathers, there are in fact a larger proportion of violent and abusive mothers. This should not mean that children are automatically placed into the care of fathers to reduce risks of abuse, but rather that unrepresentative anecdotes of violent fathers should not influence legislation and policies designed to protect children.

The difficult task faced by the Family Court in trying to ensure the best interests of children should not be compounded by irrational fear-mongering, but rather by a considered examination of the evidence. Shared parenting may be inconvenient for one parent, or even unwanted, but with changing social roles many more men after separation want to be actively involved in their children’s lives. And in the vast majority of cases, their children will be very safe in their care.

---

View or Download this document or chart from http://www.fatherland.info/parenting/

http://www.fatherland.info/parenting/dads-not-the-demons.htm

http://www.fatherland.info/parenting/dads-not-the-demons.pdf

http://www.fatherland.info/parenting/dads-not-the-demons.doc

---

Also, please see the related article published on the weekend in PerthNow:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,25802810-2761,00.html
More reports of WA mothers mistreating children, by Nick Taylor

Monday, September 07, 2009

Redistribution: Or. . How They Spread the Manure

Ask nearly any feminist what feminism really wants, and you will be told something like: "equality between men and women".

Men's rights agitators have taken this under consideration, and have notoriously risen to the occasion by demanding FORMAL equality between men and women. The feminist reply is, that formal equality masks actual inequality, and that to achieve genuine equality we must create formal inequality by means of redistribution.

"Redistribution" is a feminist keyword. So what does this word mean? It means the politically engineered transfer, from men to women, of both the tangible and intangible goods of life. Redistribution is a literally accurate name for the process which is occurring, because such a term could technically apply to nearly any form of dispersion. A bank robber, for example, will cause cash to be dispersed from a teller drawer to a canvas bag—which is to say, that the robber will cause the cash to be redistributed.

Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand that if a woman sends you to prison on a false rape charge, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Superficial looks can be deceiving, as we see in this case.

Similarly, if a man is subjected to a predatory divorce where he is deprived of nearly all his property, his visitation rights with his children, and is legally placed under the burden of ruinous support and alimony payments which drive him to destitution and eventually into jail, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Once again, superficial looks can be deceiving.

Because you see, under patriarchy, "equitable treatment" or "equal protection under the law" were never truly equal in the first place. So in order to generate "equality", the "equity" needs to be redistributed. Which means that men appear to get "less" equity, and women "more"—but it isn't so bad because men were never really entitled to that "equity" in the first place. Do you see how that works? They had too much of it, and now women have gotten their fair share, so that things are at last EQUAL, and therefore men have no reason to complain. In the end, it turns out that feminism truly does work for equality as the feminists claim—just bear in mind that "equality" isn't necessarily the same thing as "equity". Anyway, now do you feel better about supporting feminism?

So long as any male citizen has anything that can remotely be described as "power", (the most fungible of the goods of life) some woman will potentially be thwarted in her fulfillment in some small way, and accordingly, that man's power will need to be "redistributed" so that the woman will have an "equal" opportunity to do whatever she was hindered from doing. And thus what superficially appears to be female supremacism, marches forward under the banner of what only seems like female narcissism.

Feminist "equality", in the end, comes to this: that by means of redistribution women will appear to hold an appreciably larger share, than do men, of the tangible and intangible goods of life. And if you take exception to the apparent disproportion, be assured that the seeming inequality is merely a formal inequality; that in a higher platonic heaven of redistributive justice, everything is in fact equal, given that men and women have been justly awarded their respective entitlements.

A
ll right! Now I am going to drop the ironic funnyman mask, and get serious as hell. I offer a quick-kill argument against "redistribution", as follows: how, in the concrete practice of daily living, can we infallibly differentiate a bona-fide case of redistribution from a case where the woman is merely "taking advantage"? Where do we draw the line? On what criteria do we base the distinction?

OR . . . can it be, that it is morally impossible for any woman, ever, to take advantage of any man, ever? Can it be, that historical injustice against women-as-a-class entitles any woman to compensatively "get her own back" in any particular episode, and that if any man should object to this, he is using male privilege?

Which is it? Do women get to gouge men at will with no manner of constraint? Or does a principle of moral law intervene to place an upper limit on such proceedings? If the feminists cannot provide an answer here, then we are not bound to take them seriously when they throw the word "redistribution" at us.

Very well. If I have gotten this "redistribution" thing wrong, then the opposing sector had better get back and explain it more carefully, else I will consider myself to have spoken the final word on that subject.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Think Hard About This


First:
Feminism sold its soul to the Devil.

Then:
the Devil sold it to Fidelbogen.
(He sold it cheap!)

And now, Fidelbogen is carving it up and handing out free slices! ;-)
.