Saturday, March 20, 2010

Have You Noticed that We are in a War?

WAR is certainly not a nice word, and not a word to be bandied flippantly to-and-fro like a frivolous frisbee. But I honestly don't know what else to call the state of reality that now confronts us as MEN in the United States of America and other Western nations—and spreading globally! It is a virtual saturation-bombing of targeted social and political aggression. WE, my brotherman, are under murderous attack from all quarters: physically, financially, legally, morally, intellectually, spiritually, psychologically. . . and the list goes on. It is hard to think of any dimension of human existence at all where some combination of personal and political energy is not hammering, chipping, whittling, grinding or worming away at every aspect of our wealth, health, happiness, power, sanity, good name, freedom and fundamental human dignity—with the manifest intention of depriving us, little by little as time goes on, of every last vestige of those things.

Yes, it is THAT BAD! And do I need to add that it's getting worse?

And as time goes on, I am getting meaner and meaner about this. In fact, meaner than a junkyard dog about this! And I am getting more and more inclined to knock the hell out of my way, with extreme prejudice, anybody — and males in particular— who would scoff at all of this, deny all of this, make excuses for all of this, or try to convince me that it's "all in my head".

And don't forget, I am one of those politically-awakened vanguard intellectuals who has an analysis to back up his attitude, and knows how to focus the foaming rage at a proper political target! So, if somebody like ME is getting this worked up about things, just imagine what is happening in the mind of a more benighted chap in the lower IQ range who merely feels that something is out of kilter, who merely feels the turbulent emotions boiling up inside, but cannot link cause-and-effect from the realm of the political, and cannot subordinate those emotions to the discipline of language. Oh yes: he is in touch with his feelings! So be afraid. Very afraid.

But forgive me. I assure you that I am not normally this way. So, let me share the following, which is a reader comment from an online article:
"I became good at the Family Court game. I owed over $30,000 in child support arrearages, had 5 warrants out for my arrest and beat every one of them. I filed federal petitions for removal, federal bankruptcy petitions (stops the enforcement, returns the driver's license and eliminates the warrant; does not stop support from accruing though), and petitions for writs of habeas corpus (in NJ your sent to the probation dept. to pay child support; I claimed I was not on probation because there was no charge, arraignment, trial, conviction or sentence. Federal judges liked my idea and kept me out of jail with these arguments by delaying rulings on these issues for upwards of a year). I thumbed my nose at the court's warrants and taunted them with letters to the editors in the local papers. I even was published in the main local northern NJ paper for suing the sheriff's dept. for $50 Million for false arrest, false imprisonment and taking my children from me without a court order (cited an 11th Cir. US Ct. of Appeals case that was identical to mine--Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1990)where sheriffs were sued (and they lost; had to pay over $125,000) for taking child from father on false allegations without any warrant or court order)."

"It became a game with me. I drove the courts and child support enforcement people nuts with constant publicity attacks and constant correspondence to them. I sued anyone and everyone who threatened me in either state court or federal court. They finally left me alone when it became evident I would fight them to the death."
Here, we have a man who notices that he is in a war, and conducts himself on a proper footing—and I don't mean pussyfooting! His situation may not be comparable to yours, but the spirit this passage transpires is one that we must all assimilate—morally, intellectually, metaphysically, or in whichever mode of operation your particular talent spreads its wings. It is not simply divorce-pirated dads who are under siege. We are all male, and we are ALL in the crosshairs, and the case pertains alike to each and all of us. We are in a WAR, and we should make it clear to the other side that we will fight them to the death.

No, WAR is not too strong of a word for the circumstance that now encompasses our lives. Let us meditate upon this until it becomes instinctive and second nature to us.

In the meantime, here is a link to the Stephen Baskerville article to which the above-cited reader comment was responding. What makes this article so very, very good is not only the wealth of information which it offers, but the fact that it refers continually to feminism and feminists, and makes explicit their connection to various legislative enactments and to the dire consequences of these enactments.

www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary


You really, really ought to read that article a hundred times, archive copies of it, and share it with others by, for example, burning it onto CDs, or e-mailing it as a PDF attachment. It is the sort of thing that gets people riled up, and that is what we need to make happen. I call it "making more enemies for the enemy."

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember posting the link to that article,over a year ago, to; The False Rape Society. I take no pride, as a ninja warrior against feminism and it's ilk/allies. I may not have a high IQ but, feminist and thier supporters ARE in for a very rude awakening! They shall reap what they have sown! I am a victim of feminism and I shall fight to the last breath! An innocent man's life has been ruined. I say; True justice is never satisfied by the suffering, blood or, death of the innocent! Feminism has placed ALL males in innocent exile! They have perverted fairness, human justice, humanity, truth, decency, morality, honesty and, honor with ideologies/theories that mask their true intent. They live by their swords, they shall die by their swords! They shall also be judged by their same standards ans their same measure(s)

NEVER underestimate the RAGE of an innocent man who's life has beedn ruined by feminist enabled liars.

10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, Steven Baskerville, along with other men of like mind, including Dr. Fidelbogen PHd., Are the men. I can only hope to acheive such wiseness. I humbly thank you all.

10:24 AM  
Blogger Joab said...

And how shall we carry out the war?

If we just get violent, they will sick the armed manginas on us and throw us in prison. If we form "clubs" they will just infiltrate us and sick the manginas on us when they can.

So, maybe, we need a code of behavior, and not just a code of spite. A code with clear steps and the stated goal of eventual world domination. Maybe I mean a constitution. I don't know. I've never thought about this before.

I can think of some starting points:

1) Never vote for a woman.
2) In everything you do, seek to undermine a woman's power and replace her with a man. I mean this specifically. Don't just think about how "women need to be put in their place". Put one in her place. In your work place, always side with a man, even if he is wrong (but not if he's a psycho or something)
3) Forgo any chivalrous behavior and explain why if asked.
4) Follow St. Paul's advice: if you are married, so be it. If not, stay that way. :-)

12:47 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"NEVER underestimate the RAGE of an innocent man who's life has beedn ruined by feminist enabled liars."

AHHH....I like your passion! And if I may presume to offer some advice (yet not wishing to sound presumptuous!) I would say: make use of your time to build yourself up any way you can. Got any undeveloped talents? Develop them! Go into Deep Study Mode. Read books that you never thought you would read, and make the whole living world itself your "library". Oh. . . and work on your writing. I see much aptness and strength of expression already; perhaps it is a diamond in the rough that wants only polishing! :)

". . .Dr. Fidelbogen PHd.,. . "

Dude! You honor me FAR too far! ;)

6:19 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Joab:

How shall we carry out the war? I would guess, guerrilla style.

And I do not recommend getting violent. I think it would be unnecessary and counterproductive.

I believe we are fighting this war in two principle ways:

1. Propagandistically and memetically.

2. By forming COALITIONS.


As for forming clubs: that is a complicated subject, however, i DO generally recommend such a policy.

"Clubs" simply means men clumping together in various ways.Hanging together as opposed to separately. As for infiltration, two thoughts:

1. A properly constructed "club" could be very difficult to infiltrate.

2. And when/if they did infiltrate, what the hell would they expect to find there, anyway? What if they found nothing "useful"? What if our revolution should require nothing of an inculpative nature for its success?

The non-feminist revolution is already underway on many fronts, and rapidly gaining strength. In my opinion, the best policy would be more and better AGITATION. (This has been successful so far. But we need more agitators, and I only wish I could open a training academy to ensure that they are properly "schooled". The lack of message discipline, along with 'loose cannon-mouth' syndrome, is slowing and damaging us. )

RE: the proposed 'starting points'.

Agreed, not to vote for a woman candidate unless the male candidate is unspeakably awful. This should occur in context with the formation of a very overt male voting bloc that would put pressure on politicians. (We saw the embryonic beginnings of this in the recent Martha Coakley scandal! :)

The phrase "put women in their place" is something that seriously ought not to be heard. Anti-woman rhetoric of any sort is poor policy. Furthermore, I do not believe it is necessary to do such things. I believe it is better to stand back and let women put themselves in their place, if that makes any sense. Our policy should be strictly laissez-faire. Hands off.

We SHOULD, however, favor men in various ways - but I would give this a positive phrasing. I would express this by saying that if your basket of blessings for the day is depleted but for a final item, and two equally worthy candidates present themselves (one male, the other female), then bestow your boon upon the man! :)

Getting back to the subject of favoring men in disputes and the like: such things will happen SPONTANEOUSLY among the more undisciplined male elements. Yes, when societal toxicity for men reaches critical mass, discrimination against women will occur as a natural response to intolerable conditions. So it is simply counter-productive from every possible angle of consideration for a vanguard movement to call for such a thing in a platform. A vanguard movement should occupy the high ground and present a skyline profile.

And there are cases where you would flat out not want to do this.E.G. if Phyllis Schlafly got into a dispute with Hugo Schwyzer, I know perfectly well who I would not support.

GOOD FEMALE ALLIES SHOULD BE GENEROUSLY REWARDED - probably at the expense of other women, and most certainly at the expense of feminist women.


Agreed on item no.3, but I would draw a distinction between chivalrous behavior and common courtesy.

Agreed on item no. 4.


Final thought: the possession of a root animus toward women AS women, is not a good idea. Strict impartial objectivity should be the desideratum. In this manner you ensure that women have no power over your mind. Your political judgment in vital matters thereby remains unclouded. This becomes a source of strength.

10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude! You honor me FAR too far! ;)

Hey, in my honest opinion, you have EARNED it! Who else is so knowlegable about countering feminism?

2:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing we counter-feminists, and students, need to wary of is the fact that some feminists are reverting (retreating) to, is calling themselves WRAs and members of the WRM. It is no big secret that feminism and the title of feminist have become profanities. Those women and men who support women's rights and the WRM are the easiest to fool and corrupt, as they were before. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

2:24 AM  
Blogger Snark said...

"Agreed on item no.3, but I would draw a distinction between chivalrous behavior and common courtesy."

There may be a distinction to be drawn, but there is no obligation on men to be courteous to women whatsoever.

Courtesy, if applied, comes only from a man's own judgement to be polite. But it's a decision he must take himself, and I would think no less of him for refusing it. The social contract has, after all, been voided, and men as men are regularly the recipients of the most vulgar and impolite language and behaviour from women.

6:20 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

@Joab & Fidelbogen:

What I have been "pondering" are all the "back doors" that we can infiltrate - without being criminalized.

That is, there are many things we can do that are not illegal or violent - and can actually sway public opinion, and do severe damage where it hurts the most - economically.

I have been trying to get a good list together - and put them onto my web-site - but - time is limited - and the list is quite big. (Brace yourself when I do post it - as you might think many of them are very very silly).

As for voting for women:

If I ever hear a woman politician say, "I am not a feminist, I despise feminism - there is no way I will support feminist agendas if elected"...

Should we not vote for such a woman - although it is hard to imagine such a woman?

10:14 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

". . . calling themselves WRAs and members of the WRM."

Well. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

12:50 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"Courtesy, if applied, comes only from a man's own judgement to be polite. But it's a decision he must take himself, and I would think no less of him for refusing it. The social contract has, after all, been voided . ."

Thank you, Snark, for adding that bit. It was neglectful of me to omit it in my own comment.

2:00 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

As for the chivalry/courtesy distinction, I would express it thuswise:

CHIVALRY means opening the door ceremoniously and extravagantly for a woman.

COMMON COURTESY means not callously letting it slam in her face. You would do no less for a man.


In the latter case (common courtesy), you merely hold the door stationary for a couple of seconds - long enough for the other person so get their grip on it.

I have never had any difficulty in negotiating situations of this kind. To me it seems perfectly natural, instinctive and spontaneous. So I am a bit puzzled when I hear certain people nattering and obsessing about such things.

2:12 PM  
Blogger Snark said...

Yes, I would make the same chivalry/courtesy distinction, though perhaps extend it further ... e.g. to WHO PAYS FOR WHAT.

Common courtesy is to pay your own share.

Chivalry would be paying hers too.

4:03 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"What I have been "pondering" are all the "back doors" that we can infiltrate - without being criminalized.

"That is, there are many things we can do that are not illegal or violent - and can actually sway public opinion, and do severe damage where it hurts the most - economically."


Excellent! I like your thinking! There are indeed many such back doors - and side windows, and chimneys, and tunnelings into the basement. The list goes on, and some of the possibilities are so arcane and subtle that the opposition couldn't do anything against it even if they COULD figure it out.

The thought occurs to me at the moment we need to build up communities of men working with men, and especially older men working with younger men. There are many ways to bring this about, but the underlying purpose is to grow a densely elaborated body of culture and referential knowledge (a foundational cognitive stratum, if you will) among members of the . . . brotherhood.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Joab said...

Fidelbogen,

I take your points. I still lose my cool and get a little hot-headed about the whole thing.

However:

-And when/if they did infiltrate, what the hell would they expect to find there, anyway?-

My fear is that, as future becomes present, the government will need less and less reason to break anything up. I guess I am trying to say that we need a club that doesn't need to meet, whose members recognize one another and cooperate without ever needing to speak. (Ninjas? LOL)

-men working with men, and especially older men working with younger men-

Yes! And we need to revive respect for our elders, hard as it may be, revive that cross-generational bond that disappeared.

5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fidelbogen said...
". . . calling themselves WRAs and members of the WRM."

Well. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

12:50 PM

Yes, it is.

10:50 PM  
Blogger trent13 said...

"And we need to revive respect for our elders, hard as it may be, revive that cross-generational bond that disappeared."

An impossibility when life is held so valueless that infanticide is carried out on a daily basis. It's the "me" culture, and the elderly are totally screwed.

2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home