Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Activism Opportunity!

I am cross-posting the following from MensActivism.Org. It was originally posted by 'Matt' on that site. First, a couple of links. THIS is an announcement of the original story:

And THIS links to the original item which I have cross-posted below:

When you fire off your e-mails, I suggest that you include ALL of the recommended addresses, and any others you might come up with, in the CC header of your message. That way, you need only send the thing once, and even more importantly, it informs ALL of the recipients of the mass nature of the communication. (They will "all know that they all know".)

Remember that our concern at the moment is that the mainstream media (MSM) has been roaringly silent about this, even though it is at least as significant (you would think) as any man-attacks-woman story would be. Our issue is with the double standard (and the infamous "pussy pass") which prevails in such cases, and which saturates our entire culture at all levels. So at the present stage, I would stress that aspect of the matter rather than rushing to angry judgments about the nature of the case per se, or issuing diatribes against "the bitch", etc, etc. Let's put a brake on such rhetoric as that, and focus strictly upon the media double-standard which is on display.

But here is the cross-post:

"Is anyone else hearing so much as a peep out of the MSM or so-called DV advocacy groups about this story? Not a word.

"Well maybe I am just all fired up on coffee and OTC cold meds today but as far as I am concerned, this is not just going to slip by in the usual stream of news stories that bombards us daily. This is if nothing else THE example of the decade of how DV vs. men is utterly ignored by just about everyone who may (or may not) hear about it via the MSM or any other source. It's nymphotropism and cognitive dissonance in action x 1000. One day I imagine it will be a case-study that SOC101 students will be made to write essays about. (Well, a fellow can dream, can't he?)

"The MSM reflects what they believe (and all too often, get right) their viewers or readers want to see in the content they serve up. If there is some inconvenient truth that needs telling, they need to be informed to get on the stick and start telling it or else start losing their advertisers or subscribers.

"Let's start with TV contact information, then the (so-called) papers, then radio. Click 'Read more', as I will list contact information for as many MSM sources as I can think of. Also, I will write a sample letter for you to use. Let's roll on this, since if we cannot move on such an open, high-profile, and egregious example of the double-standards at work here, then we may as well hang it up.

"BTW, I am not asking only US residents to act on this. The entertainment industry is world-wide. People like Mary J. Blige jet-set all over the place holding parties and premiers. People in other countries have as much purchase on this issue and right to point out her behavior and their own countries' MSMs' negligence to them as those of us in the US do.

ABC News
CBS News
CNN News General
FOX News (pick "America's Newsroom")

Drudge Report (scroll down to "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE" and submit link to any page with this story covered on it, such as the one on the NY Post)
USA Today (looks like Letters to the Editor is the best way to go there)
NY Times (hope springs eternal; anyway, they need to know we're watching)
LA Times
Boston Globe
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Dallas News
Minneapolis Star-Tribune (this is the letters to the editor form)
SF Gate/Chronicle
Washington Post

"Radio shows:
" has a good list of nationally-syndicated radio shows here. Call, call in, or email.

"Feel free to add contact info in the comments for other news sources you think it would do us good to contact (and really, are there any that are not?)


"I will suggest text or commentary along these lines:

"I am perplexed that a recent report such as the one about entertainer Mary J. Blige (a woman known to stand up for victims of domestic violence) beating up her husband in public at a recent record opening has not appeared in the news reporting on your (site/radio show/etc.). The NY Post seems be one of only a few sources covering this story (see )

"This fact is all the more perplexing given that there are plenty of examples, regularly reported, of DV by men against women in the media, but despite private and US government studies showing the relative equality of assault incidents among heterosexual couples crossing gender lines (see, reports such as this one are un- or under-disseminated by mainstream media outlets. This creates a false impression regarding the nature and prevalence of domestic violence and hinders efforts to get a truly just measure of the problem, as well as a good chance at forging solutions that are effective.

"Please do your part as a (paper/radio show/etc.) to help repudiate this inequity. As a (reader/listener), I ask that you cover this story immediately and solicit input from DV specialists who recognize the true nature of DV as an "equal-opportunity" problem. I would also like to say that I make my (reading/listening/etc.) decisions for news and information based on how well I feel the facts regarding the world are being reported by a given source, even if those facts seem to be "inconvenient truths" by some people's measure.


"[Contact info]

Monday, December 28, 2009

Here We Go Again: BASIC STUFF Which They are 'Not Trying to Hear'

The following is a comment which I have swiped from a Men's News Daily post—and I have edited this somewhat to enhance the clarity and the "punch". The comment offers a good summary of some important points which plenty of people (you know who you are!) persist in pretending not to hear, or pretending not to understand. (Feminists, are you listening?)
"Author: Bizzman662
"Just something funny I noticed over the long holiday weekend:

"MTV 2 examples:

"Jersey Shore: a woman gets knocked out at a bar by a man (100% wrong, by the way), so they blacked out the punch. Right after the show a Public Service Announcement came on about an "Abuse Hotline" and how to contact someone if you're in an abusive relationship.

"Teen Moms: a 'teen mom' gets REALLY MAD at her man—punches him, slaps him, throws him against the wall, punches him again. No blacking out the scene, and no Public Service Announcement at the end of the show.

"Just a GLARING example of where we are, as men, in America today: DV used as an ATOM BOMB in divorce proceedings; child support set so high that if you lose your job, suspended driver's license and prison are right around the corner; contempt for past due child support but NO contempt for violation of visitation; fathers turned into "visitors" after divorce rather than keeping the title of FATHER.

"And the Media glorifies DV when it's a woman hitting a man. Watch the Bud Light 'Too Heavy Too Light' Ads. Nancy Grace makes me want to puke; Dr. Phil is run by feminists; Fox News says NOTHING about the destruction of FATHERS via DV "silver bullets" in Family Court which take the FATHER OUT (literally), and create FATHERLESS homes that are now at levels that should shame those in office who create these 'ball busting' laws in the first place.

"Think about it this way:

"1. Wife wants a divorce.

"2. Wife gets an attorney.

"3. Attorney tells her to cry DV so as to get full custody.

"4. Man charged with DV, normally with NO violence involved but just a word: 'afraid'.

"5. Now man gets higher CS/Alimony payments due to getting 'parenting time' two weekends a month, thus making him a 'visitor' and not a FATHER.

"6. Man finds it hard to get or keep gainful employment due the the DV situation.

"7. As a result, man falls behind on CS/Alimony.

"8. Mother violates the parenting time but the only solution for the man is about 10k for an attorney to enforce it—but he can't pay CS so how can he pay for that?

"9. Man is picked up, charged with contempt, thrown in prison, and his life as he knew it is over.

"10. Branded as a 'deadbeat': his children will not know him, and will grow to hate him out of the mothers spite.

"That, in a nutshell, is the 'Game' which the feminists and O.J. Simpson have created for us. It makes too much money for the state and is too ingrained in our legal system to change."

See all comments on this post here:

We MRAs and similar folk have been bending over backwards for YEARS making our position extremely clear about the things explained above—and about plenty of other issues too! Yes, we have striven mightily to reason with you people, and ours has been a Labor of Hercules! So if you are a feminist, a feminist sympathizer, or a fellow traveller of any kind, then verily you have no excuse! Did you hear me? I said there is no excuse for you any more: you are non-excusable! And that puts you in a bad position to dictate terms to US!

Honestly, how much longer will you go on pretending that you don't get it? How much longer before your rinky-dink charade collapses in a heap of dust and leaves you with only a shit-eating grin to cover your nakedness like a ratty little towel? Seriously now, who the hell do you people think you are fooling?

Feminism is either directly or indirectly to blame for the unconscionable state of affairs described above. Broadly speaking, you feminists are guilty in either one or both of two ways: you have either agitated for the passage of laws making such things possible in the first place. . . OR, you have upheld the continuation of such things through your acquiescence, through your complicity, and through your pigheaded opposition to reform. Whatever the case, you are implicated up to your teeth and you ought to give some serious thought to your future, because a lot of angry people are making plans for you!

Do you think I am full of shit? That I am WRONG about all of this? Then sister, I want you front and center, NOW! I want to hear, straightly and clearly, what the hell you've got to say for yourself! God damn you, answer the charges NOW, and look me squarely in the eye when you are speaking to me!! Mind your tone while you're about it, and don't give me any goddamned SASS!


Fellow workers in the vineyard, I have given you a demonstration of how we ought to deal with these punks. I am defining a collective moral posture and tonality. As I like to say: don't argue with feminists, tell them things!

Here is more about why we should not waste our time arguing with feminists:

Friday, December 25, 2009

Charming Feminism With
the Magic of a Switch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Curs'd be the man, the poorest wretch in life,
The crouching vassal to a tyrant wife!
Who has no will but by her high permission,
Who has not sixpence but in her possession;
Who must to her, his dear friend's secrets tell,
Who dreads a curtain lecture worse than hell.
Were such the wife had fallen to my part,
I'd break her spirit or I'd break her heart;
I'd charm her with the magic of a switch,
I'd kiss her maids, and kick the perverse bitch."
Anthony Sherna could have earned at least some measure of comparative heroic stature if he had taken a hint from Robert Burns. I say "some" and "comparative", because his final desperate act had no heroic stature at all, and so anything short of such an extremity would have had comparatively more. The perverse bitch would at least still be alive and—in theory anyway—able to benefit from the lesson. And Anthony would at least be somewhat of a "man" for taking some manly initiative early in the game.

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

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

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

Surprise, surprise!

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

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

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

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

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

Peace be with you.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Somewhere Along the Old Canyon Road. . .

. . . in eastern Washington state, USA. Between Ellensburg and the Selah Valley. God's country. Fidelbogen's too!

It is peaceful and restful to look upon, yes?

I trust that somewhere deep within you lives a wide-eyed little boy, full of the joy of life, who beholds a scene like this and exclaims: "Oooh, neat!!"

Truly, we males relish the visual-spatial feeling. It's a guy thing. . . ya know?

The presence of an artificially-added MGTOW road sign logo turns this personal feeling into something political, and makes the image iconic.

And of course. . . dear to the hearts of MRAs everywhere!

The following link will take you to a much larger version:

In fact, big enough (1500 pixels wide at full enlargement!) that you could print it onto a t-shirt. I would recommend using a black shirt for this purpose.

Monday, December 21, 2009

CF Podcast: The Fifth

This latest podcast is about the Redstockings Manifesto, a 1969 feminist document which summarizes in a few quick words nearly everything you need to know about the nitty-gritty of the feminist agenda. Nowadays there is a movement afoot among feminists to magically make feminism "outrun its own shadow", to sweep its feminazi legacy under the carpet, to disengage from its embarrassing past history, to reinvent or re-image feminism in light of what its post-Y2K leaders have publically stated.

But I'm afraid the Redstockings Manifesto is a shadow they'll find hopeless to outdistance! This mission statement called the shots YEARS in advance, and almost everything in it reads like a blueprint that was executed with amazing fidelity in the decades following its publication. Yes, the Redstockings Manifesto has echoed loudly down the corridors of time, and feminists everywhere echo it still today whether they care to admit this or not.

In brief, the Redstockings Manifesto is absolutely quintessential and foundational to the entire feminist enterprise. It is not the skin which the serpent may cast off: it is the serpent itself!

But here is the podcast:

This pod is intended as the first in a series that will deal with the Redstockings Manifesto in greater depth. I have dispensed with the music track, and I believe I'll stick to that policy in the future, for seems to me that the message travels more effectively in this spare and Spartan manner.

Saturday, December 19, 2009


Just so you'll know: I am feeling enormously burnt-out and exhausted—you know, as in "what's the use?". So I doubt if I'll be blogging much between now and the first of the year. And I know that a lot of you are active elsewhere during the holiday season, so it feels sensible for everybody to take a breather right about now. . eh?

I'll leave you with the following piece of shallow garbage written by a feminist journalist—one Rebecca Dana—in a hip, trendy online publication:

By now, we all know the drill: How would this play if the sexes were reversed? How if some MRA wrote a story about men fighting back?

But that is not what the Script calls for. Oh no, according to the Script (known as female narcissism) it's all about teh wimminz, and as we know teh wimminz are "teh special", and the whole wide world revolves around teh wimminz, and it's only teh wimminz who ever, ever, ever suffer any form of misery at the hands of the opposite sex! Ever!

But seriously, what the hell have women got to "fight back" against? Since they are now the Royal Sex, I suppose they might justifiably fear a peasant rebellion? Hmmm, yeah. . . for sure! Peasant rebellions can be nasty all right!

Anyhow: the Script also specifies that "men are the problem" in some large, shadowy, abstract way which evades analysis and apparently requires none. And even though it's a pretty fair bet that half of all the evil in the world springs from a female source, we are sternly forbidden to ever let that stinky diseased cat out of the bag . . . aren't we?

So what do you think, is it time for women to be The Problem for a change? Do you reckon that men have been The Problem long enough now, and the ladies ought to step up and take their turn at the whipping post for a spell, just to even the score?

How if a wave of damn-the-torpedoes female-bashing and ridiculing suddenly erupted in the media and all across society? Of course, we know exactly how the feminists would take this. . . but screw them!

I think it is bound to happen eventually. What goes around comes around, and I believe that barring some miraculous, anomalous overnight change across the entire culture, such a development is inevitable. And not only inevitable, but a healthy thing that ought to be positively welcomed as a sympton of social progress and a restoration of collective sanity.

If it happens, it happens—and I will personally neither participate nor wag my finger at anybody who does! No, I will grab a beer and relax and deliver a few choice remarks about chickens coming home to roost.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Dean Tong's Website

On the post before last, I got a brief note on the comment thread from Dean Tong, the widely-reputed forensic consultant and expert witness in child abuse cases. Mr. Tong's name is, I do not doubt, well known among MRAs and similar people, and since he left his website address I will share it with you here. If you would have need of Dean Tong's services, you will learn how to get ahold of him. But even if you don't, you may find a visit to his website to be interesting and educational:


On another subject, entirely unrelated, you might enjoy the following transcript of the closed trial (on 25 Dec 1989) of the Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu and his wife Elena. Those who wish to read the episode as a metaphor or a parable for something more immediate to our present world, are welcome to do so:

Saturday, December 12, 2009


Friday, December 11, 2009

The AAVR Website

AAVR, or African-Americans for VAWA Reform, is a lobbying organization which takes a harsh, severe and sternly unforgiving view of the feminist creation known as the Violence Against Women Act. And I make no doubt it's a view which onside readers of this blog will fervently agree with.

The AAVR website is HERE:

And the following is a sample from the site:
"What isn't working:

"* Mandatory arrests without a warrant, often based on hearsay
"* A standard under which the accused is guilty until proved innocent, and allegations suffice as "proof"
"* Citizens forced from their homes, with no pretense of due process
"* Searches of homes without a warrant
"* Seizure of property without redress
"* Defendants denied the assistance of counsel, the right to confront their accuser and obtain witnesses in their defense
"* Punishment and imprisonment before trial — or without one
"* Public censure and humiliation for crimes not committed"

"What we recommend:

"* Domestic violence laws must be gender-neutral in all respects and practice.
"* Domestic violence laws must not violate Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
"* False allegations of domestic violence and suborning perjury must be dealt with as criminal acts. Domestic violence laws must provide proper safeguards against wrongful prosecution.
"* Organizations receiving public funding for domestic violence programs must be fully accountable for all uses of this public money."
I think that wraps up most of what is wrong with this filthy corpus of feminist legislation. So. . . if you are a feminist who STILL cannot or will not "get it", then after reading the pithy summation given above, you can at least no longer pretend that "you never knew" or that nobody ever properly informed you of the basics. Granted, you may still beg to differ for intellectual reasons; that is your perfect right! However, now that you finally know where most MRAs are really coming from when they rail against VAWA, you can no longer walk around calling these people "misogynistic woman-haters" or any such imbecilic claptrap. And if you do, then you, my friend, are an asshat, to steal a word that feminists and their lefty cohorts are so fond of using. So upon that particular subject the future choice is entirely yours, to be an asshat or otherwise!

Seriously, what's not to get mad about? I goddamn sure don't blame MRAs, no not in the least, for feeling angry as hell about the things listed above, and I goddamn sure don't blame them for using strong, vigorous, even violent language to ennunciate their strong, vigorous, even violent emotions! Do you blame them? Well . . . DO you??

Tell me, what part of mandatory arrest without a warrant based on hearsay do YOU find acceptable or permissible? And does seizure of property without redress sound like something YOU can live with so long as it never happens to yourself. . . eh? What about public humiliation for crimes not committed: are you okay-fine with that, smartypants? Or does presumption of guilt, with "allegations" counting as evidence, strike you as a proper standard of criminal justice? What about getting forced from your own home without due process, or getting searched without a warrant, or suspension of habeas corpus—are you cool with all of those things? Are you?

Well, if you support VAWA as it is currently written, then you are as good as putting your name to all of the above! And what is more, the odds are better than even that you are a feminist! And why? Because every female feminist presumes, deep in the back of her mind, that only men are likely to be harmed by such things. And also because every male feminist presumes, deep in the back of his mind, that only MRAs and similar riffraff are likely to be harmed by such things—and who cares about those people . . . right?

Yes, the Violence Against Women Act was from first to last a feminist project,
as Andrea Dworkin made clear to us back in 1994! The feminists conceived it, gave birth to it, and lovingly nurtured it for all of these years. And to this very day the feminists stubbornly persist in seeing nothing wrong with VAWA because they are morally and intellectually incapable of such an understanding! They routinely use every trick in the book to duck the issue, and they overwhelmingly refuse to take responsibility for VAWA's dire consequences. I frankly hold no hope that they will EVER do this unless they are massively and publically shamed for their intransigence—which is the war effort I am contributing to right now!

So once again, here is that website URL. You'll find plenty to read, and plenty of links to additional good stuff. I wouldn't steer you wrong.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Men's Reality Website

Here is a very good (non-blog) MRA website whose existence has escaped my radar until about 20 minutes ago. It is chock full of Basic Information, and seems a likely place to send neophytes and proselytes for an introduction to "this men's rights stuff." I think you will find it worth a look:

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Update on the Kevin Driscoll Case

It has been a while since I have blogged about the case of Kevin Driscoll. We all know what happened. Kevin's trial for rape—in Deschutes County, Oregon, circuit court—ended on 19 Nov in a hung jury. That means that at LEAST one of the jurors disagreed with the rest about what the verdict should have been. The judge did not poll the jury, so we do not know the exact ratio of guilty versus not-guilty. We know only that at LEAST three of the jurors voted for acquittal—and it may have been quite a few more than that.

So then. . . who among the jury voted for conviction? Could it have been some person or persons who were sure that "something MUST have happened", or that "lack of evidence doesn't mean that nothing happened"? That method of thinking is undoubtedly widespread after years of feminist indoctrination in a culture that was already deferential toward women and inclined to anti-male bias.

Since the trial ended in a hung jury the case may, at the discretion of the prosecution, go into retrial. And behold: the prosecuting attorney, Jody Vaughan, has indeed made clear that she intends to pursue this option!

So Kevin Driscoll remains under house arrest, just as he has been since February. The fact that he was not found guilty has not made a dent upon this; the fact that the charges must be refiled has not made a dent upon this; the questionable morality (or legality) of imposing house arrest in the first place has not made a dent upon this; nothing has made a dent upon this! Kevin remains a prisoner in his own home. Granted, there are worse places to be a prisoner.

The first trial was a circus. A sham. A farce. The prosecution was afflicted with a kind of hubris that I surely can't hope to imagine. By the look of it, the same kind which afflicted Michael Nifong. An arrogance born of unreflecting certainty that they could get away with it unchallenged, so cocksure that they couldn't even be bothered to cover their tracks. And oh, did they ever get egg on their face—tubs of it! And now they want to give it another go. Manifestly, they don't know when to call it quits, so they are once more snarling after Kevin Driscoll with bared fangs and foaming spittle.

This time, mark my words, the prosecution will go about their work very, very methodically, and they will build their new case slowly and painstakingly. No preposterous, fourth-rate, cheesy-sounding witnesses called at the last minute—heavens no, not this time! On the contrary, they will construct the case in a very different way, a way that I wouldn't presume to second guess, knowing only that they will spare no trouble to nail it together solidly. Or at all events as solidly as they can manage, evidence and circumstance permitting. (And let's be honest, those factors have not improved since the first time around!)

In the meantime, Kevin Driscoll himself has descended into a cone of silence, a profoundly arctic deep-freeze incommunicado. On 23 Dec he will have a court hearing to ascertain whether his house arrest will be lifted, and the prosecution has made clear its displeasure at the wide exposure the case has recently garnered, and at the disgraceful light that was cast upon Jody Vaughan, Mike Dugan, the Redmond Police Department, and so on. Also made clear by the prosecution, was that Kevin had best not be "talking" if he wishes for a favorable outcome on the 23rd. Therefore, Kevin is not talking!

Our blitz of internet exposure arrived as a boulder landing in a quiet pond. Although it wasn't nearly so impressive as it might have been if we'd had months to pull it together instead of mere weeks, trust me, it did not go unnoticed! Why, it has even attracted academic scrutiny at the University of Oregon, where Professor Kyu Ho Youm, instructor in media law, characterized it as "extraordinary". And in the days following the hung verdict, I noticed a very large spike of visitor traffic arriving at the blog from Eugene, Oregon—where the University of Oregon is located! (Something tells me our little escapade will become a standard case study in future academic articles and textbooks!)

But again, Shefong and crew are very unhappy about this, so Kevin Driscoll stays in the icebox if he knows what is good for him. However, they cannot silence independent mouths like my own—and I will certainly not be bashful in voicing my personal opinion concerning these matters.

As you may recall, a news story appeared in the Bend Bulletin on 18 Nov, 2009. It was written by Cindy Powers, a reporter with that publication, and it concerned the Driscoll case. I talked on the telephone with Cindy Powers the day before the article was released, and informed her on a few subjects pertinent to what she was writing about. Cindy explained to me that she had no "side" in the Driscoll case, that her position was that of the neutral, objective media professional reporting the facts. She also explained that her article was not meant to be focussed on the Driscoll case as such, but rather the extraordinary worldwide attention which the case had gathered by way of cyberspace—a truly phenomenal thing!

But the article, when it came out, was indeed focussed on the case as such. Moreover, I cannot in good faith inform you that it lacked bias, for it was indeed partial to the side of the prosecution—and it put District Attorney Michael Dugan especially in a favorable light. And I say this from a place of knowledge, as one better informed of the back story than the average Bend Bulletin reader would be.

Curiously, there was more to Cindy Powers than met the eye, although I didn't learn of this until later. It turns out that before taking up journalism, Cindy was a legal professional who worked as a public prosecutor in Marion County, Oregon—where Salem, the state capital, is located. I learned of this from an article on the Oregon State Bar website, here:

The article is quite long and, I think, interesting. But I will cite the pertaining section for your convenience, as follows:
"In Bend, the local paper has addressed the "back story" problem by hiring Cindy Powers, a law school graduate and former Marion County prosecutor who now reports on legal and public safety issues. That, says Deschutes County District Attorney Michael Dugan, has made for better legal coverage.

"All too often, the news media assigns its least-experienced reporters to cover the legal stories in smaller communities," says Dugan. "These reporters know little about the procedure of the cases, let alone the actual legal basis for the charging decisions that are made. In many circumstances, the reporter is asking questions to which we think any person who took high school civics should know the answer. But our local daily paper has assigned an experienced, legally trained reporter to cover crime and some of the (court’s) civil cases. Doing this has made the coverage much more meaningful. The stories are much more accurate and the prosecutors aren’t confronted with non-relevant questions."

On Friday, 20 Nov, the Bend Bulletin printed another story by Cindy Powers, this time announcing, and commenting on, the final hung jury in the Driscoll trial. Here, CP expanded on some of the themes in her first article. In addition, she credits "the bloggers" for presenting evidence that was not admitted into court, but she also mentions that they said nothing about two restraining orders that were issued against Kevin in the past.

Since I am one of those bloggers whom Cindy Powers refers to, I reckon I should briefly set the record straight. Yes, it is true that Kevin Driscoll has two restraining orders in his past. The first of these was issued for trivial reasons by Kevin's ex-wife during a divorce, and soon withdrawn. The second was issued on a fraudulent pretext by a woman who was concocting an elaborate alibi for infidelity to a "significant other" whom Kevin didn't know about. And contrary to what the Bulletin article states, allegations of "rough sex" were NOT made by all three women, only by one of them—and since there has been some questionable record-keeping, it's questionable that she actually did make this allegation after all. None of these women had anything bad to say about Kevin.

No, I didn't mention any of this because, honestly, I had more important things to focus on. So I never quite got around to it. Furthermore, the judge knew just what he was about when he rejected this information as irrelevant and non-evidentiary.

The funny thing about restraining orders (although there really is nothing funny about them!) is how easily and commonly they get handed out. They are, in some sort, our present-day version of the lettres de cachet (issued under the king's seal) that were so prevalent in France prior to the French Revolution. Yes. I can't say it enough. Restraining orders are handed out almost as freely as dinner mints! So when you hear that "so-and-so had a restraining order against him", don't assume the worst. Pending further information, think "ahhh. . . somebody gave him a dinner mint!" And you know what else? I have EVEN heard that they now print restraining orders on rolls with perforations, for easy dispensing!

But seriously: Kevin Driscoll had no police record of any kind prior to his recent misfortune, whereas the plaintiff Melissa Leahy-Rossow has four counts of forgery to her name, along with a previous false rape allegation, and finally a DUI (that's Driving Under the Influence, for those outside the USA!). And in reference to the DUI, Melissa was very evidently both drinking in the bars and driving her car, even though she was forbidden to do both under terms of her probation.

In her news story, Cindy Powers supplies both inaccurate information, and information to which she could not have been privy unless she had an 'inside wire'. I say this because, yes, I am aware of the back story — in fact, more than I am now revealing, or have revealed in earlier blog writings. That's right: I know more than I am letting on! But now, this business about Kevin Driscoll's dinner mints has reached the public by way of the Bend Bulletin, even though it is inadmissible in court, and even though, in theory, the general public doesn't need to know about it.

There much more to write about, and I expect new developments to unfold. So I will post updates and further reflections on the Kevin Driscoll case from time to time as I deem fitting.


Saturday, December 05, 2009

Restraining Orders are Evil

I have happened upon a website that I wish to share. It is a commercial website because it is trying to sell you something—in this case, a book. But you ought to go there anyway, for it contains a heap of information about RESTRAINING ORDERS and how they are used to destroy the lives of innocent men.

Here, it talks mainly about restraining orders in connection with the divorce racket. But don't forget that divorce is NOT the only setting in which this legal lightning bolt gets thrown. IT CAN HAPPEN IN MANY SITUATIONS. . . and it happens mostly to men!

While you are exploring the site, be double and triple sure that you download the "kickass" 27-page free PDF which is on offer. Among other things, this PDF gives you an excellent and quite detailed introduction to VAWA, and what is wrong with it.

The website offers plenty more to read, and good links to additional good stuff.

Studying this material will put you in the correct frame of mind for resumed coverage of the Kevin Driscoll case, which will be happening shortly. . .

There He Grows Again!

The celebrated resource known as Martin Fiebert's bibliography gets bigger and bigger. Prof. Fiebert updated his list in early November, and it now contains a total of 271 items. The last time I checked (some time in July), the figure was 256.

Fiebert's bibliography, for those who don't know, is a profoundly deep diamond quarry of surveys, studies, and scholarly articles that give overwhelmingly reiterated and exhaustively nuanced evidence that women are, in general, just as likely as men to initiate violence in domestic and dating scenarios! And no, the reason is NOT "self-defense." (Sorry, feminists!)

I can remember when Fiebert's bibliography contained "only" 120 items. Truly, the list swells and swells! And I think that is swell. . .

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

"Classic" Terminology That Needs to Die

I am talking about the all-too-popular neologism mangina. That slangy goody has been around for several years, and I think it would be a wise idea to make it fade away or at least banish it from all but unpublic conversation in the offline world. It is high time for the MRA sector to grow an elite cadre of organic intellectuals who are willing to discourse in a more advanced lexicon! Don't you agree?

Please read the following. It will take you all of two minutes:

[Note: As of Feb. 2011, the originally-posted link is found to be dead.]

I have little to add, other than remark that the word mangina has popped up on the radar screen of none other than Jessica Valenti — who is both the publisher of, and a feminist birdbrain extraordinaire! And I mean that almost literally: Jessica's manner of expression puts me very much in mind of a twittering sparrow or a chattering rodent, and packs a comparable volume of substance. As for Jessi herself, she radiates all the spirituality and depth of soul you'd expect of any decent street puddle—and my assessment is subject to revision pending further wisdom from Mizzz Valenti. But I'm not holding my breath.

Anyhow, I once had a couple of hours to kill in a public library, and Jessica's book Full Frontal Feminism came to hand, so I read the thing pretty near cover-to-cover. (It's featherweight stuff meant for featherweight people, which is why I got through it so fast.)

And wouldn't you know it, the word mangina appeared! But Jessica Valenti had ZERO idea what the word really means. For although the word is vastly more political than sexual, the political nuance was lost upon her; she decreed that it meant "sissy" or some such, which is at best a remote approximation of what it means! But then Jessica has a masters degree in women's studies, and as our linked author informs us: "Once those who are not intellectually elite get ahold of it, its meaning will be skewed".

I would seriously recommend that we adopt, in place of mangina, the word COLLABORATIONIST. There is no way in hell to miss the political nuance in a word like that! Really now, if we intend to be taken seriously, then we must use serious words. And collaborationist is a deadly serious word indeed, a word that offers no semantic grappling points to our enemies. For the meaning of such terminology cannot, willfully or otherwise, be wrongly imputed; it is a word that means business, a word that comes down with ominous reverberation like a fist upon a tabletop, a word that makes morons gulp and sit up straight!

Toss mangina in the dustbin. I'm serious. We need to lose that word!

From the Transatlantic Wire

The following has arrived from our CF correspondent in London. The narrative begins rather abruptly, but he's talking about some brouhaha that is brewing in Parliament:
I.D.S has got his work cut out over the issue and the feminists inside the Labour Party and the media are already revealing their battle plans to scupper his initiatives on the family. It will take a lot of guts for see this issue through to the end but it will also take Cameron and the rest of the front bench to come out strongly and support him. The question is, do they have what it takes to face the storm of a carefully worked out left wing smear campaign which will undoubtedly come?

In this ( ) revealing interview Polly Toynbee, the feminist attack dog from the Guardian was probing for weaknesses in IDS's arguments while ducking the answers she does not like. It is what she ducks that IDS needs to focus on. Rest assured that the feminists fear this policy more than any other because it is very powerful. Expect the full gamut of red herrings, lies, distorted statistics, emotional clap trap, personal insult, straw man arguments, obfuscation, psychological projection and so on from them.

Watching Toynbee at work it was interesting to note that she was intent on pushing the idea that if the Tory party take on IDS's ideas they will be guilty of trying to interfere in peoples lives. This is clever because it is likely to go down well with Labour fools in the country and they can turn it into a mantra. However, it is also classical feminist projection. What she (and they) are doing with this tack is turning what THEY have done for fifty years on its head and then using it to accuse IDS. So, they created the divorce and tax/benefit laws that helped to create the anti marriage, anti family climate in the country. By doing this, they were systematically attacking marriage and the family as institutions and therefore, interfering in peoples lives, by creating the financial and social realities they will now claim support their arguments.

At the same time as they were doing this, they were getting their half witted lefty mates in the media and entertainment world to excoriate the very idea of marriage by constantly portraying it in a negative light. This, of course, was Critical Theory and Frankfurt School techniques being put into practice. Again, indirectly and directly interfering in peoples perceptions of marriage and family life. That, of course, is the same as interfering in their lives. That these practises are carried out is well documented but for a quick overview go here:

What IDS needs to do in these debates is point out that the left have been interfering in marriage and family life for over fifty years and to the detriment of both. This will shoot down this line of attack because it is virtually impossible for them to claim it is not true and the preponderance of evidence that it IS true is massive. Understanding feminist techniques in debate is going to be crucial to overcoming them. In doing so, it is possible to expose what the feminists have been doing and if there is one thing they hate it is having the lies and tricks exposed. I fear only that IDS is too polite with these people and that he needs the support of his colleagues.

The feminist attack on the family has taken many guises. Among them, the redefinition of what a "family" is. By promoting alternative views and practises of "family" life, they sought to so weaken the traditional marriage that it would fall apart. In this they have, at least partially, succeeded. However, that success has brought with it some serious re-thinking on the part of some feminists—notably, Germain Greer. Realising that what she helped to start has the potential to destroy our society altogether, she had done a long overdue U Turn on her earlier destructive views. Wendy McElroy makes this clear on her site here:

Quote: "Interestingly, another pioneer in woman's liberation has felt the need to publish a second book to defend the concept of 'family: namely, Germaine Greer. In the '70s, Greer, with her outrageous behavior and shocking language, declared a guerrilla war against dependency on men.

Greer called for the revolutionary breakdown of sex roles. She encouraged women to be promiscuous and otherwise sexually adventurous. She claimed that women have no idea of how much men hate them. Greer recounted stories of gang rape and brutality, and seemed to consider such violence to be the norm between men and women. Her solution: women should refuse to marry. If they do marry, they should refuse be monogamous or to accept the 'trappings' of marriage such as the husband's last name, a shared tax return, a wedding ring.... Equally, women should reject their role as consumers in a capitalist society.

Despite this gender rhetoric, however, Greer was not clear in her condemnation of the family. Nor was she unsympathetic to men, whom she considered to be fellow victims of the system. Instead, Greer wanted to replace the status quo with what she called an 'organic family'.

In a later book, however, Greer forthrightly defends a more traditional version of the family. She accepts the idea that a husband, wife and children constitute the basic familial unit."

All very good Germain, however, this should not let you off the hook for the damage you and your "sisters" did to us all to finally arrive at the truth that lay buried under your stupid and foolish communist/feminist rhetoric! Damage that will take a generation to repair.

As always with those who have communist leanings and sympathies, any who disagrees with their world view is labeled as mad. In the old Soviet Union this meant being packed off to mental homes. It is ironic (and deeply hypocritical) that one of the many feminist complaints about marriage was that the man had the power to sent his wife to a mad house.

"As for the women who wanted to become housewives, gender feminists made no effort to woo them toward a more liberated view. Quite the contrary. Such women were insulted as 'sexual spittoons' and their attachment to their families were seen as a sign of pathology."

For years, feminists have been stoking up an artificial rage in women against men and in particular, husbands. By focusing on tiny everyday annoyances and building these up into a big deal, they have created in many women the feeling that men hate them and are out to destroy them. They set out to create a hatred where none existed by being hypercritical of men AND women. Men for setting out to "enslave" women and women for letting men do it.

This astounding hate and sexism is apparently immune from prosecution because feminists have sold us the idea that sexism is a woman's problem imposed by men. They have been given immunity in other areas also. The Vagina Monologues, a truly bizarre spectacle, has been promoting the idea of female rape of children as normal. Yet, not one prosecution had occurred. This is a measure of how we have allowed feminism to warp our sense of right and wrong and justice for ALL of our people.

In short, feminism is a cancer in our society that MUST be cut out. It MUST be stopped and it MUST be stopped now! Women deserve better than than the madness feminism offers them and society deserves better than the madness feminism has brought. It is about time that feminism was exposed for what it really is and that taxpayers money was withdrawn from these sick individuals so that their perverse view of our relationships is wiped from history and we can all get back to sanity. Reestablishing marriage and the family is one step in that direction and although I am not convinced that IDS has fully grasped the nature of the beast he is about to come into conflict with, he is going to need huge support to achieve even that first step.

My contribution to the marriage debate here:

George Rolph

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Intellectual Rapists

In order not to leave my readers with nothing to read, I will link you to the following item of interest on Christian J's blog. I think you will enjoy it. In fact, I know my readers well enough to know damn well that you will:

Oh, hey. A little while ago I was looking through my web stats, and I noticed that somebody had arrived at the blog via the Google search phrase " 'poison in, poison out' fidelbogen", and also the phrase " 'prediction is not prescription' fidelbogen".

I must say, the mystery searcher cops the meat of the matter, and the bread and the butter! ;)