Sunday, February 28, 2010

New Blog: "The Hatred of Women"

I have been informed of another male-friendly website that has lately sprung to life. It bears an interesting title: "The Hatred of Women". I say interesting because it is ambiguous; it is difficult to know who is doing the hating or, depending on how you parse it, who is getting the hating. In fact, this phrase is double-edged because the hate scenarios which it implies also imply each other—they feed each other, grow from each other, are part-and-parcel of each other.

So far, this blog looks like a showcase for the author's YouTube videos dealing with various aspects of feminism. Indeed, the blog is subtitled: "A YouTube home-education course in the monstrous crimes of feminism". You will find several videos embedded.

The author has been good enough to link to me, so I will add a return link to my own list in the near future. Meanwhile, I shall offer a link as follows:

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.

Monday, February 22, 2010

CF Podcast: The Seventh

I have taken the 'Olive Branch' post just prior to this, and turned it into a podcast. For the fun of it! The audio is just a bit over six minutes long, and the MP3 is available HERE:

http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxx (no longer available for download. Material is available on YouTube now.)
Now, I realize that I don't always write for a popular audience, but I was irked by the thick-witted kneejerking reaction which certain MRAs, elsewhere on the web, made to the Olive Branch post. Curse their pointy little heads, but they do not understand the larger game behind the words, nor do they understand irony when it is too subtle. And I don't feel like spelling it out. Our sector needs to up its intellectual game, and be quicker on the uptake all around. That is all I've got to say.

On a more refreshing note, I will topside the following fine comment (from Marty Lee) which appeared a couple of posts back:

"Anointing patriarchy with great powers of deception is an effective means of defending feminism against negative criticism. In the same way, women's power grabs and participation in acts of violence can be excused as "manipulation by negative masculine ideals."

"Feminists will not apologize as that would be backtracking, i.e., run contrary to their movements politico-moral purity and sexual politics. The contradiction made possible, and acceptable, by the "moral force" of feminist victimology is that, even while the exponents of women's victim status dwell on the powerlessness of women, these exponents are anything but lacking in political, intellectual, and ultimately institutional power.

"The political power in playing the victim is shored up by moralism, and the configuration is contradictory given that this moralism is in turn founded on claims of powerlessness."

Sunday, February 21, 2010

An Olive Branch for the Feminists

Is it possible to live with the feminists? Is it feasible to occupy the same universe with them? Is it workable to dwell upon the same planet with them? Is it asking too much, that we should do our own thing in our own corner while they do their thing in theirs and, thuswise occupied, pass peacefully down the corridor of centuries until that final day which sets a term to all human endeavor?

Simply stated: can we co-exist?

I ask this because I wish to clear the deck and clear the register. I extend this olive branch to the feminist sector as a gesture in good faith, and I leave it to them to make the next move. Are they, or are they not, willing to co-exist with the rest of the world?

I believe it is important to make such a gesture in order to give peace a chance. Therefore consider the gesture made. A quid pro quo from their side is next on the agenda, and even though I lean heavily toward cynicism, I would not yield entirely to that emotion until I have exhausted all the other possibilities. So I will bide my time anticipating their next move.

I'll not pretend that I wish to prevent war, for war indeed is what we presently have: we've had it for quite some time, and there is no longer any question of prevention. But although I cannot hope to prevent war, I might still hope to prevent the escalation of it. So much at least looks feasible, assuming that the other side is amenable.

War therefore shall not cease, nor the preparation of it, until the other side makes clear by word or gesture that they will cease their aggression against the non-feminist sector. On that day the olive branch will be delivered—but not sooner.

In the interim, we shall need to arrange a ceasefire—and negotiation is the customary way that such things are brought about. Negotiation, be it understood, is a dialogue between sovereign powers. And the sovereign powers presently in question, are the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector. We of the non-feminist sector will acknowledge the sovereignty of the feminist sector, and demand in return that our own sovereignty be acknowledged. Such are the preconditions necessary to negotiation.

Once the ceasefire has been established, further negotiations between our sovereign sectors will be necessary in order to secure the lasting peace of co-existence. In practical terms, co-existence would entail an unequivocal end to feminist triumphalism, and to any pretension, on the part of the feminists themselves, that feminism "is the world." Above all, co-existence would entail an end to all feminist aggression against the non-feminist sector.

What I have sketched in metaphoric language shall, I trust, be manifested in the fullness of time. Bear in mind however, that co-existence entails stasis, as against the dynamism of war, and that counter-feminist theory predicts that stasis will be to feminism what kryptonite is to Superman.

But the feminists are welcome to prove counter-feminist theory wrong if they believe they can do so by their exemplary future behavior. We grant them that opportunity. The only alternative is continued war, and the annihilation of either one side or the other.

We'll see how it rolls.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

You Ought To Hear About This

Crystal Gail Mangum, the rape liar in the Duke lacrosse false rape trial, has been arrested for domestic violence, attempted murder, arson, and one or two other things. I thank NotNOW for bringing this to my attention:

I have absolutely no sympathy for CGM, or anybody like her, and if all such people rot underneath a bus in hell, it probably won't begin happening soon enough for my liking.

On a closely related note: I am not aware of any feminist anywhere who has actually 'squared up' to the reality of the Duke lacrosse case. Nary a one of them, to my knowledge, has come right out and made any speech such as the following:

"The Duke lacrosse false rape trial was a social disaster. It was a monstrosity, a dark hour in our history, a blot upon our name and a stain upon our honor. We feminists, along with the Gang of 88 and all political fellow-travellers, must apologize in a heartfelt manner to the Duke defendants and their families for the hateful, poisonous agitation that we have made against them, and we must apologize to all ordinary decent people everywhere for the ugly fears, rancorous divisions, moral panics and other mental toxins that we have so wantonly spawned and spread throughout society for many years. Furthermore, we fully deserve to get our collective ass kicked for being moronic twits, pompous windbags, nauseating hypocrites and idiotic drama queens—as we so sickeningly are and have always been!! Again, we bow our heads in abject shame, sorrow, and critical self-loathing. There is no excuse for us!"

Do you suppose they will ever come to any such mea culpa? Or must they be made to grovel??

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

What is Abusegate?

To answer the question posed by the title, Abusegate is feminism's long overdue comeuppance. The term itself belongs to the grand old American tradition of denoting scandal by appending the suffix "-gate" to a word of choice, in mockery of Watergate.

Nothing, in my deeply-considered opinion, would damage feminism more traumatically than to have its entire rotten fabric of lies on the subject of Domestic Violence hauled into the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. And Abusegate is an activism campaign, by the growing men's lobby, to do exactly this very thing which I have suggested.

Well no, to be more accurate, Abusegate is not the campaign as such, but rather the scandal itself which the campaign is working to make widely known to the world—and to make the subject of a Congressional investigation.

What is at stake here is, immediately, VAWA—which is up for renewal in 2010. But in the long haul it is more than just VAWA. Abusegate, we hope, will cling to feminism as stubbornly as napalm or greek fire, and burn and burn and burn. . .

Nothing, in my deeply-considered opinion, has been more central to feminism's main political plans and purposes than the smear campaign against men and fathers which has been conducted under the banner of Domestic Violence. This has been, without a doubt, the principal tool in the feminist plan to destroy marriage and family as we have long known them, and to expedite the general transfer of wealth from men to women. Yes, the DV knot ties many strands together.

And somebody must pay for all of this. Heads must roll along the gutters, in angry rivers of blood. Unfortunately, we don't use the guillotine in the USA. And, malheureusement, I have heard that even in France they no longer employ that celebrated barber who shaved so close!

Anyhoo, for a quick introduction to Abusegate, see the following piece at Men's News Daily:

This will give you the basics fast. And on that page you will find links to a number of other MND articles on different aspects of the subject, and information on how to get activistically involved.

Good reading!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

A Call for Essays

I have just gotten a comment on an earlier post, from a certain 'Christine', who appears to be a feminist. I repost Christine's comment verbatim, as follows:
"Neither men nor women are "all good", each of the sexes has a dark side. The male shadow has been cast over women for ages. Women have been hurt, shamed and humiliated by men in public and private and many women have chosen, out of fear for themselves and/or others, not to assert themselves, use their voice and take their power back. Womens model for power is men, so now they they are behaving like men in trying to take their power back. Logical. Monkey see, monkey do. Men don't like it because it is a mirror for their own past or present behavior. To what extent men and women want to be conscious of the above is an individual choice. Can we come up with a better choice? A compassionate model of equal voice and equal respect and equal power between the sexes and begin to implement it on an individual level in all our relationships? If anyone knows of one, please leave a comment as I would be interested in learning about it."
Since the post in question has gone somewhat astern now, I know that not everybody will find this on their own hook—which is why I'm giving a little nudge and a pointer:

This will keep you ones busy for a while, so that I may concentrate on the big monstrosity I am writing. It is a wine I'll not be selling before its time!

Saturday, February 06, 2010

A Feminist Whopper Exposed

This is a bit of an oldy, as in "old hat", but I'm sure it is new to a lot of people. It concerns a big feminist fraud of the 1990s, namely, the Sorrows of the Suffering Schoolgirls.

Said myth was propagated largely by the academic feminist Carol Gilligan, who deserves to be sewn into the same bag with a couple of other big-name feminist liars: Lenore Weitzman (who lied about the female divorce experience and got some landmark anti-male legislation passed), and Lenore Walker (who authored a shameless propaganda tract in 1979 called "The Battered Woman", which almost singlehandedly kicked DV hysteria into overdrive and launched the DV industry as we know it today. )

The PDF to which I am directing you was written by a University of Alaska psychology professor, and it debunks a widely circulated report by the AAUW (a feminist group) that was promoting Gilligan's findings. The debunking happened in 1998, so it is old stuff. But feminist use of the Big Lie is timeless, and so a timely reminder of their methods is surely all to the good, since I really, really doubt that the feminist leopard has changed its spots.

A brief excerpt follows:
"Women's advocacy groups have waged an intense media campaign to promote the idea that the 'schools shortchange girls. ' Their goal is to intensify the image of women as 'victims' deserving special treatment and policy attention. Their sophisticated public relations campaign has succeeded. The idea that girls are victimized by the schools has become the common wisdom, what educated people just assume to be true. . . . .

"In this paper, I examine the charges made in a highly publicized report, How Schools Shortchange Girls, published by the American Association of University Women (1992). I show how the findings in this report are based on a selective review of the research and how findings contrary to the report's message were suppressed. These contrary findings indeed appear in studies the AAUW itself commissioned, but the AAUW not only did not include these findings in their media kits but made the data difficult to obtain."

Get the 28-page file HERE:

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs - Redux

Today I will brush the sparkling golden dust from a golden oldy which has lain long forgotten in the archives. This post, entitled Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs, first saw the light of day in June, 2007. After that, it was rapidly buried beneath post after post which followed. (Blog posts are funny that way; they go the way of all flesh and become psychic compost! )

I resurrect this essay now because it think it would add a useful element to the intellectual crystallization of the MRM and NF sector that is presently underway. Also, it is possibly more relevant and topical now than it was then:
I would like to undertake an interrogational scrutiny of feminism's motivational sequiturs.

As the word implies, sequiturs are things which "follow", logically and consequently, from one to the next, with a discernible nexus running through them all. Motivational sequiturs then, are sequiturs of motive—that is to say, stages along an operative sequence decipherable in terms of a unifying goal or ambition.

Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried beneath the seeming non-rationality and non-coherence of feminism's outward manifestations.These sequiturs operate at the occulted core of the women's movement. Among such sequiturs, we may discern the following tacit presumptions which embody the vector sum of feminism's seemingly non-rational and non-coherent outward manifestations:




If you allow the truth of certain presuppositions embedded in these items, you will see that the items entail each other logically enough in terms of sequence.

Feminism implicitly seeks revenge. Revenge may be named as a goal or ambition which operates, for feminism, as a motivator. But...revenge against WHOM? Revenge for WHAT? Answer: Against MEN, owing to something that "MEN" collectively have done to "WOMEN" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.

In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).

Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which presuppose individual identity and agency will necessarily suffer infringement. The actual extent of such infringement will vary to the same extent that collectivism has been embodied in the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning, what they can prudently get away with under the circumstances, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.

At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no PARTICULAR female can be held to account for her behavior—for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.

So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from particles which are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.

Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all—meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".

Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing cannot but be composed of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with its own terms, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not presently interrogating the actual truth or falsehood of that paradigm—only attempting to display its internal logic.

So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. Therefore, by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an INNOCENT moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.

Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass particles which are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt. So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Absurd as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.

Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody—men and women alike—of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if somewhere down the road this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?

However, I pass that by....

Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually striving beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation". Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is necessary is for each item to enhance the worldly advantages of women in some manner. When you strip away the truly contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement insofar as they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy—or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."

Feminism, for nearly a half-century, has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot declare openly their drive for female supremacy—that wouldn't sound very nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to admit this openly—but only a few. A larger number are willing to say incredible things that might seem to condemn men to the doghouse, yet they deploy all manner of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what they seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU somehow. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"

Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large—a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain—are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to say rash things more openly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a certain extent they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.

Even so, when the radfems periodically get ahead of the curve and become too intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing—which they tend to do—we can predict a general movement (on the part of the lessrads) to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement, in order to dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminism's occult machinations continue to creep in the night.

The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a baffling smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.

Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.

For example, during the Duke lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in all of its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold...........

Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.

Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar—which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.

In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.
I hope that proved illuminating. Now, in the interest of further intellectual crystallization on the non-feminist side, I will send you to the following items on a different blog. You will find them to be a worthy investment of your reading time:

Feminist readers should also visit the links given above. I understand that you might not wish to do so, and that you would find it distasteful to do so. Yet distasteful though it be, you really, really ought to visit those links. It is the "adult" thing to do, like eating your brussels sprouts! It will "build your character" and all of that good crap — know what I mean?

You undoubtedly don't want to think about the things that you will be made to think about when you read that material, but see, here's the deal: you will eventually be forced to think about such things anyway, when they finally force their way into the common ideosphere and even the less radical members of your very own peer group are flapping their yappers about it, damn them!

When that time comes, you will be sucked into a conversation about those things whether you like it or not, because it will so pervade the ambient intellectual "buzz" that you'll find you cannot afford to pretend not to know about it any more; your "pose" will be transparent to one and all.

So you might as well get a jump on the game, and start NOW, and fortify yourself for the assault. This will be to your advantage because forewarned is forearmed. So, you will be ready to face the onslaught from a position of strength because you will not be taken by surprise. Hey, isn't it cool when your enemy offers useful tips on how to fight your enemy? ;)

Now, I realize that you'd like us MRAs to believe that you are "not that into" us, and I am bound to admit that you maintain your elaborate charade fairly well most of the time. However, it is far from the truth. For in point of fact you are very much indeed "into" us; you are obsessed with us in much the same way that ancient Romans would be obsessed with a horde of Langobards or Visigoths marching toward the city gates. You are compulsively scrutinizing us, whether you purport to be doing so or otherwise. Yes, you are very very into us, because you fear our growing numbers and our growing power!

And don't forget that MRAs are only a small part of the picture; the non-feminist revolution is indescribably more vast and pervasive than little old MRA world could ever hope to be, and includes groups and forces that you can't even begin to imagine yet! And it surrounds you everywhere, fools!!

All right. Now get over there and spend a few hours studying what you will find behind those links. Go along!!

Monday, February 01, 2010

Herbert Marcuse Lecture at Stanford

While I am working on a more demanding project (an open letter to non-feminist women), I'll toss out a little something to keep readers entertained, and let them know I am still alive! ;)

The PDF I offer is a totalitarian political fairy tale and to my mind a smoking gun. In other words, it is a transcript of a lecture delivered by Herbert Marcuse at Stanford University in March, 1974. Remember, it is NOT the kind of thing you are required by any law (civil, moral, intellectual or otherwise) to believe or to let slip by without asking rude questions about it.

Who the hell do these people think they are? And what do they plan to do, throw you in jail? It doesn't matter if such preachers radiate authoritarian gravitas and charisma, or pull a huge string of academic letters after their names, or act like they are miles above you. You are not required to let one single particle of their preaching slide past you if it bears a suspicious odor. Where the hell do these people get this stuff, anyway?

Here is a sample:
"And here is my concluding personal statement. You may if you wish interpret it as a statement of surrender, or a statement of commitment. I believe that we men have to pay for the sins of a patriarchal civilization and its tyranny of power: women must become free to determine their own life, not as wife, not as mother, not as mistress, not as girl friend, but as an individual human being. This will be a struggle permeated with bitter conflicts, torment and suffering (mental and physical). . . . . . These erotic conflicts cannot be resolved in a facile, playful way, nor by being tough, nor by establishing exchange relationships. . . .Feminist socialism will have to develop its own morality, which will be more, and other, than the mere cancellation of bourgeois morality."
You can download the complete file here:

Addendum: My own response to the message of Marcuse is encompassed in the following:

And . . . is treated more expansively HERE: