Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Random Scribblings From a
Forgotten Notebook

I unearthed an old notebook today while I was digging through a box of stuff, and I discovered the following within its pages. I brushed off the cobwebs and gave the material a quick shine, and I share it now with the fine, cool, intelligent readers of this, the most excellent of all possible web logs:

Eventually, it is bound to happen: some new edition of Lepine or Sodini will blow his stack and waste a few women, and leave behind a written record in which the term "MRA" features prominently. And what will this mean to us as MRAs? Personally, not much. Politically, quite a bit more—but in the long run, it need not sink us.

Personally, it oughtn't mean much at all to us if some violent, unstable person commandeers a mere LABEL, or holds that label in what seems to be a compromising proximity to himself. And as we ought to know by now, the Magical Reflex Acronym is merely a label. Or I should say, it is merely a word—and the word is not the thing!

Now, the feminists are so fixated on this quasi-mythical group of people, that they cannot grok the larger pattern of events and forces swirling into shape around them. They should realize that MRA-bashing will get them nowhere, but they don't appear to know what else to do with themselves. They cannot seem to address the objective state of the world intelligently or effectually, and that is to their misfortune because reality will overtake them.

I mean that feminist reaction to MRAs is mere Pavlovian drool. And the eventual effectuality of their reaction to the non-feminist revolution will be, predictably, on a par with drool. No, they cannot forestall their fate by drooling on it. Really now, what are they looking for, a "final solution" to the MRA question? Well I surely cannot doubt that they would love to find such a thing.

But even if every MRA on the planet, bar none, was a world-class scumbag, it would not in the least tarnish the pristine core idea that men have rights or ought to have rights. THAT idea must be challenged upon the merits or demerits contained WITHIN the idea itself, and not within a mere personality. The personal is not the political. So finally, all they are doing is ducking the issue.

"MRAs are asshats, therefore the core idea that men have rights is contemptible." That is what they appear to be saying.

Oh, let them slobber! But seriously: even allowing in theory that your rights have not been compromised, it is always possible that somewhere in the future they WILL be. Therefore you have the right before all other rights, as a non-voidable precondition to all other rights, to be eternally vigilant on behalf of your rights. To be a watchdog. If you lack THAT right before all the others, then all the others aren't worth a spit in a windstorm!

So: if you shuck the husk of their talk down to the nubbin of its essential message, the message is this: "Shut up! How dare you disagree with me, and how dare you challenge feminism!" Oddly, it seems that we must wait upon their high permission before we may speak our minds! But friends, that is not the stuff that revolutions are made of.

I wish to forestall the occurrence of future Lepines and Sodinis, principally by blocking the factors which fuel their growth. The feminists will cooperate if they are wise, but whichever road they take, they'll need to do some soul-searching. They're long overdue for this.

Any box they try to lock us into, we'll bust out of it sooner or later — and most likely sooner.

The fact that certain people alleged to be MRAs have on occasion said some stupid or even downright reprehensible things, in no way compromises the core bill of indictment against feminism, and in no way diminishes the force of counter-feminist analysis. The world is a big place which contains all kinds of people—and I do mean ALL. That may sound trite, but it bears repeating because some folks can't seem to process the full implications of it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

No MRA should give a damn about the judgement of an Outside Party (women, feminists, the feminist media, etc.) to begin with.

If these Outside Parties ever do mention "MRA" they only do so to disparage us, and tell us that male freedom should not in any circumstance be defended. They tell us it's Matriarchy or the highway.

2:51 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Ah...the Warrior is back! ;)

No, I don't personally give a damn about the lying judgment of all those entities you have listed, BUT. . . this is more than personal. It is political. In other words, it is politics.

And politics, my friend, is a GAME, and must be played a certain way. It is an affair of gestures, protocols, masks, duplicities, pragmatic alliances, balances of power, etc...

The picture you have sketched is only roughly accurate. It is accurate in broad outline, from a distance. A closer approach, however, reveals cracks, crevices, grappling points, exceptions to the rule, and variations of material composition.

Such variations are what interest me, and I believe that knowledge of these things is critical - even in a 'make or break' kind of way.

Anyhow: I see that you have left a string of comments on various posts. Later in the day I shall return and respond to them.

9:14 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...


"They tell us it's Matriarchy or the highway"

In their warped minds, the Matriarchy - which I believe exists - is what they call "absence of Patriarchy" - which I seriously believe never existed.

There is no way male-hatred could have gotten as far as it has - without some under-lying deeply-rooted contempt for men existing in our cultures - even beyond that of the 1960's...

Even in the 1800's, there were female doctors and dentists - there were no laws that prevented women from obtaining careers - women who got careers were not considered outcasts, they were not reprimanded, they were not looked down upon, and they were not persecuted in anyway.

The whole mythical "patriarchy" - is just that - a myth.

1:54 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"There is no way male-hatred could have gotten as far as it has - without some under-lying deeply-rooted contempt for men existing in our cultures - even beyond that of the 1960's..."

You are bang on the money! The Victorian era of the 1800s was positively festering with hatred of men and all things male. A popular genre of literature in those days was marketed to wives, harping on their sanctified moral status in the world, and advising them on how to manipulate hubby by not submitting to his "beastly desires". And Elizabeth Cady Stanton herself famously remarked that women were the superior sex, and expressed the wish that women should "control society" once certain reform measures had been passed.

Man-hating (paired with female supremacism) has been a deeply rooted constant down through the years. Like a virus, it flares up for a while, then goes into remission, then flares up again.

"The whole mythical "patriarchy" - is just that - a myth."

That depends on what precisely you mean by "patriarchy". This word, like almost every major item in the feminist lexicon, is simply a word trick.

The way a feminist word trick works, is by bundling a long list of unrelated or just loosely related data under the heading of a single term. Very different things, originating from different sources, not always organically linked to each other, and yet. . . superficially similar in some way. The purpose of this deceit is to gather as much territory as possible under the rubric of the key term, so the key term becomes so flexibly vague that it can mean anything you need it to mean in a given case. In this way, you induce a free-floating sensation of nameless 'guilt' that your victim cannot defend against because he cannot get a proper grip on what you are saying.

Feminist bastardization of language is, to use the correct term, EVIL.

"They tell us it's Matriarchy or the highway".

The "highway" part is what MGTOW is all about. :)

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen, have you visited the spearhead?

5:18 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Fidelbogen, have you visited the spearhead?"

I have.

5:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Counter-Feminist, The False Rape Society and, The Spearhead are my favorite sites to visit every night. The wealth of knowlege and useful information contained herein is awesome, to say the least.

12:39 AM  
Blogger Bwec said...

You say: "In their warped minds, the Matriarchy - which I believe exists"

One of the ways I like to measure the matriarchal State is to observe the number of families that are supported by an "isolated resource producing male" and government...

In other words the measure that men are no longer a part of the family.

One of the defining elements of a matriarchal construct is one in which men are not members of the family yet are forced to provide.

The premise of the matriarchy is to separate the male and his physical presence in the family from the means of production and the rights to the fruits of his working labor..The idea is to make men, husbands and fathers expendable and disposable..

It is also a construct in which females are able to increase their genetic fitness without limits..

The goal of feminism is to allow females to have as many marriages and families and children by as many different males as they want to while men can only have so many as they can afford..

The matriarchy wants to shift liabilities, responsibilities, to the male to enable female "liberation" and "choice" to increase her genetic fitness.

2:51 AM  
Blogger Bwec said...

Fidelbogen and Novaseeker at wordpress have been instrumental to my growth as a man. Bernard Chapin AKA Pinegrove33 on YouTube as well!!!

All three of these guys are more important than they may know. They've really done a lot for me and many men....The best thing I can do to honor what they've done for me is to pass on their knowledge to my fellow men....

A great awakening is beginning to occur among men..... THINGS ARE BEGINNING TO CHANGE FOR THE MALE GENDER....



3:00 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

". . more important than they may know."

Honestly, I have no exact idea. . .


Alas, I lack the necessary system requirements to view the webcast. Hopefully, digest versions of the proceedings will be posted post facto.

If this rolls as I (and many others) hope it will, it means that the men's rights sector will gain that critically important thing known as an institutional power base. A beachhead in that realm, at any rate.

Male Studies curricula on campus will open the door to all sorts of exciting things. It will spawn spinoffs in every direction, and turbo-boost the growth of MRA Attitude in society at large.

Yes, even if the initial venture is "not radical enough" for some of us. Not to worry; the 'radical enough' element will at last have a soil in which to take root and grow.

1:25 PM  
Blogger NotNOW said...

"A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence."


4:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The whole mythical "patrirchy" - is just that - a myth."

It's not actually a myth. We're men here - we like facts, we love truth.

Patriarchy (male power, male rule) existed. The male voice had precedence over the female voice (opposite to today's matriarchy where the female voice usurps and speaks for the male voice).

But let's deconstruct the issue here.

Feminism used patriarchy as a rallying point for the establishment of matriarchy ("equality", "women's rights", "female empowerment", "female suffrage", "equal rights" and other euphemisms). They used "patriarchy" as the Great Enemy, just like the rulers in patriarchal regimes did, to get their soldiers to fight into war. It's about the establishment of a singular mindset, a cohesive, powerful movement with clear objectives. You need a Common Enemy to do that.

Feminists (i.e. women) used "patriarchy" as a byword for men, which it is in a loose sense (patriarchy = rule by fathers/men).

As I said, men love truth and facts in contrast the female sex, and many men formulated the concept of "patriarchy" before women did. They acknowledged its existence, some defended it; others (Marx and others) opposed it. But they did acknowledge it as a working system. Indeed these men looked upon matriarchal societies such as those of the Amazon and elsewhere and noted that it was distinctly different from the patriarchal society from whence they came.

So let's go back to the facts here; and deconstruct female rhetoric against "patriarchy" for what it actually is.

Patriarchy is most certainly NOT a myth.

The idea that it is bad in a general sense, that it is bad for MEN (of all people) in particular - THAT is THE feminist myth. That is the specifically feminist/female myth.

9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no way male-hatred could have gotten as far as it has - without some under-lying deeply-rooted contempt for men existing in our cultures - even beyond that of the 1960's..."

Bingo my friend. Patriarchy kept women's underlying deep rooted hatred of men under wraps. It's only through restriction of female freedom and expression that you do not end up with screeds like "all men are rapists and that's all they are", because this is the thought process that is buried deep in the female psyche, just waiting to get out.

If a woman behaves in a respectful way towards men, it is because her choices and expression have been restricted. Lack of man-hating dogma throughout hating is because women were simply not allowed to engage in such behavior (because of patriarchy) NOT because they didn't instrinsically feel those things.

May I add that nothing "just happens" and in alluding towards this you are hitting on to something important. Female hate of men runs deep...

"Even in the 1800's, there were female doctors and dentists"

Yes but the numbers were tiny because the patriarchal society at the time felt that provision of male provider roles was more important than having women take up important posts in society. (One simple justification for this is that women will always have childrearing/motherhood as a fairly dignified role, not so for men.) Let women take over the (male founded) professions and occupations and (i) you have the collapse of the nuclear family (ii) you have the gradual erosion of dignified roles for men and (iii) you have the collapse of the patriarchal system itself which is made up of (i) and (ii).

I don't apologize for the patriarchal system excluding women from certain posts. Heaven knows, women love excluding men from certain institutions and the decision making process... It's not like they have a moral high ground, because they most certainly do not.

9:29 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"If a woman behaves in a respectful way towards men, it is because her choices and expression have been restricted. Lack of man-hating dogma throughout hating is because women were simply not allowed to engage in such behavior (because of patriarchy) NOT because they didn't instrinsically feel those things."

bwhahahahaha! Yes all women all of the time are collectively the devil incarnate, it has only been "the patriarchy," until recent times, which has kept the beast in control.

5:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home