Tuesday, March 30, 2010

A Statement of Note

The following was recently posted on a pro-male blog, and I would commend it to your attention:


A reader comment attached to this post offered special encouragement. Indeed, it could scarcely have appeared in a more timely manner:
"I don't think you are wasting your time. Until I came across various MRA sites, I could not really articulate an arguement against feminists very well. Now, thanks to sites such as yours, I can. So you are winning." - March 30, 2010 10:24 AM
Once you have studied the linked post, you will know just what the commenter is referring to. And for those who have walked the toilsome MRA road, there is spiritual bread in these words; there is rest and healing; there is blessed assurance. I have been told similar things from time to time, in the three-plus years of my blogging activity, and I am grateful to everybody who has taken a moment to offer me such a moment. Such moments mean more to me than you will ever know, because they make clear to me that I am not laboring in a vacuum—that I am making a difference. And THAT. . . makes ALL the difference!

So for us. . . Stage One is to KEEP TALKING; to multiply our voices; to augment the aggregate of counter-feminist idea-bubbles floating at large in the cultural mindscape. And if we (all of us) know that we are not wasting our time, this will infuse us with the needful will and purpose to keep plugging away in the face of all our doubts and doldrums! For truly, it is a despairing futility to cross the ocean in a tiny boat before the appearance of driftwood and seabirds signals the prospect of landfall.

Stage Two for us will roll into action when once we have achieved critical mass in Stage One. So what does "critical" mass mean? It means: the more the better. And yes, Stage Two is already in effect. If you have been scanning the horizon, monitoring the evidence of pro-male activism and lobbying which are springing to life in many countries, you will be quite aware of this.

Truly then, Stage One and Stage Two are happening at the same time! They are concurrent; they are part and parcel; they feed one another; they fuel the growth of one another—and they will continue so doing into the forseeable future.

As for Stages Three and Four. . . . stay tuned!

Monday, March 29, 2010

A Counter-Feminist Should Be
a Policy Wonk

From time to time it happens: Blazing Frank comes blazing into town!

Blazing Frank is the avatar of Spectacular Male Pathos who descends to earth in countless physical forms and generates headlines. He will make a terrible scene, often leave a corpse or three, and most times end as a corpse himself. Blazing Frank lives up to his monikker because he is frank and blazingly so, because he commits frankly blazing deeds, and because frankly, most times he goes out in a blaze!

You are doubtless familiar with some of Blazing Frank's incarnations: Marc Lepine, Darren Mack, Nicholas Bartha, Perry Manley, the Virginia Tech guy, the guy in the Amish Schoolhouse, and most recently George Sodini. That covers a few of the famous ones.

The feminists are madly in love with Blazing Frank—they can't get enough of him, they can't stop talking about him, and his periodic reincarnation infuses new vitality and purpose into their world. When Frank flares up, the feminists go into a frenzied huddle of hyperventilated jabber with the same object or range of objects invariably in view. Always, to amalgamate the personal with the political; always, to embed the episode into the body of patriarchy theory; always, to construct a morality tale about men or maleness in the abstract; always, to generate anti-male spin or shore up anti-male bias; always, to build a rationale for anti-male legislation or political initiative in some form; always, to validate the feminist worldview in one way or another.

But that is not the only thing the feminists do. They also swarm through cyberspace like bugs in great thick clouds and settle invisibly upon MRA websites, there to lurk and listen to the MRAs buzzing about Blazing Frank. Then they fly back to their own spaces and report what they have heard.

For you see, on the subject of Blazing Frank, many MRAs (or people taken for such) are pleased to speak their minds not wisely but too well—especially where the case involves women, or ugly divorce scenarios. And the feminists know this because they have seen the pattern replay itself over and over. What the feminists are looking for in their eavesdropping expeditions is "scandal" and "dirt", and far too often those men's rights loudmouths (or feminists posing as such) will indeed deliver the goods. They will say just what the feminists want them to say, just what the feminists need them to say, and this provides the feminist propaganda machine with the spin-fodder it needs for amplification and distortion operations.

But now, if you please, a few words about George Sodini, of late spectacular memory. The deceased Mr. Sodini left behind a considerable body of writing, and based on my examination of this writing, I conclude that he had a sick mind.

As a point of further interest, it appears that George Sodini was a murderer. For I am credibly informed that on 4 August, 2009, Mr. Sodini entered a physical fitness salon in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, and opened fire with a pair of semiautomatic pistols—killing 3 people and injuring 9 others. It would appear that the victims were all female. As a final act, George Sodini took his own life—with the proverbial last bullet, one is tempted to believe!

However, the exact mechanism of his psychopathology holds no overriding personal or political fascination for me. That said, I would politely decline to make this a subject of enquiry. For me, it is enough to know that George Sodini had a sick mind, and thus informed, leave Sodini himself to rot quietly in his grave. Requiescat In Pace!

Until now, I haven't weighed in on the subject of George Sodini. You might expect an opinionated blogger like myself to do that, but no, I confess the subject didn't catch my interest until rather later. I remember first hearing about Sodini and, like a true policy wonk, thinking "ahhh...there goes another one; we may anticipate these episodes from time to time; they are quite predictable!" But otherwise, I didn't give the matter much thought. That is, until more recently.

For it occurs to me that Sodini makes a good poster boy—the only question being, a poster boy for what? And for whom? But that carries me to my next point. Namely, that George Sodini, as a dramatic incarnation of Blazing Frank, set the MRAs abuzz all over cyberspace. This was very much true to form.

And again true to form, the feminists were listening. And on this occasion, they launched a purposeful and coordinated propaganda attack against the men's rights sector—one of their most purposeful to date. For the feminists are well aware of the growing societal disaffection toward feminism. It is worrisome to them, and in the simple-mindedness of their panic they believe that a fuzzy category of people, called MRAs, packs the sum and substance of all that threatens them.

But fuzzy or no, various people of the MRA sort gave the feminists just what they were looking for. Some ill-advised, indiscreet, and in a few cases downright shocking words were posted, and the feminists were there to scoop it up.

The problem is not that I necessarily disagree with everything these opinion warriors are saying—sometimes I disagree, sometimes I agree, and sometimes I agree only up to a point. No, the problem is that they are—please pardon the expression—shooting above the heads of a public which is all too likely to overhear them! And not just overhear them, but either miscomprehend or willfully misconstrue what they are actually saying.

It is not always easy for an outsider to savvy what disaffected, politically-awakened men are thundering about. The outsider's lack of cultural insight, simple want of factual knowledge, and oftentimes an indoctrinated mental preset, all generate a formidable set of filters. Far too much nuance gets lost in translation, an effect that is greatly compounded when the listener is unconsciously or half-consciously "not trying to hear" what is being said.

I am reminded of the episode where John Lennon notoriously remarked, "we're more popular than Jesus Christ." To Americans in the Bible Belt it was inflammatory language susceptible to only one interpretation. Regrettably, those Americans had a tin ear for Lennon's British humour! He was not being arrogantly sacrilegious. To those in the know, John Lennon was simply voicing his bewildered amazement through absurdist exaggeration.

I'll stop here, since I don't want to strain the comparison. But my illustration does underscore the potential for a certain kind of miscommunication whose difficulty is rendered many-fold more dicey when matters of a profound emotional charge are tossed into the mix. It can be dangerous stuff, apt to spit fire at both ends of the tube. Add to this an inherent prejudicial animus against certain people, along with an ideological lens designed to filter out certain holistic realizations, and the translation barriers become virtually insurmountable.

But none of this touches upon the chief point of interest in the present talk—it merely builds in that direction. The chief point of present interest is the question of policy within the field of rhetorical discipline, and within the subaltern field of message discipline.

All feminists are continually on the lookout for impeachable utterances by MRAs or persons alleged to be such. You might ask, "what defines impeachability?", and I would reply that the question is open to discussion. To a feminist, any time a man says something which ignores or disrespects the feminist worldview, it is at least potentially an impeachable utterance. However, most feminists understand that they must appeal to mainstream standards if they wish to gain any political traction; they are aware of an upper limit, in most cases, on how arcane they can sound without boring their broader constituency.

Therefore, the rhetorical court of appeal in most cases is the "common gaze standard", or the Court of Common Gaze if you will. Both MRAs and feminists want to expose each other's impeachable utterances to the common gaze of the average man or woman, as if to say, "look at what THEY said! Does that sound right to YOU?"

And so, when a load of anti-feminists, MRAs, PUAs, and suchlike fauna are seen to post impeachable utterances about Blazing Frank—meaning George Sodini in the present case—the feminists will rummage feverishly through their careless statements in search of anything that might violate the common gaze standard. Naturally, any suitable stuff they uncover becomes ammo in their propaganda war.

But it doesn't stop there. You see, feminists are cultic and parochial—and I guess you could even say ethnocentric. Yes, I consider feminism a quasi-ethnicity! And one of their quaint folkways—in common with the political left overall—is the practice of peer correction, as I will call it. This practice consists generally of "denouncing" or "calling out" words or behaviors deemed unacceptable. In theory this sounds laudable, although in practice it becomes petty and vindictive, even Stalinistic.

So when feminist lurkers are scanning the comment thread at, let us say, the Roissy website, and they find somebody voicing an egregious opinion about the nature of women or the heroic stature of Sodini, they are doing more than just adding that statement to their body of evidence. They are additionally holding the commenters on the thread accountable for not engaging in peer correction. They feel that those anti-feminist conversationalists have a duty to behave like good little lefties on a PC university campus, to rise up and collectively trounce the wrongful speaker the instant his words appear. Such is feminist parochialism.

And such too, briefly summarized, is the propaganda war which the feminists and their political cohorts are waging against people like MRAs. The core of their strategy is guilt by association, and they aim to gather as many of their enemies as possible under the MRA umbrella, in order to taint the entire lot with an imputation of "misogyny", or any other thought-crime which occurs to them.

The feminists are hoping to quell the non-feminist uprising by throwing lightning bolts at a quasi-mythical "MRA movement", in the mistaken belief that MRAs are the main threat—when in fact MRAs are simply one force among many.

I will now address the question of corrective remedies and future strategies.

For heaven's sake, let us not make Blazing Frank a poster boy in any way! Let us not make him politically iconic. And to make him a hero, to lionize him, is the highest pinnacle of stupidity I can imagine. It is a bad idea on its own account, but just as importantly, it is altogether unnecessary; it is psychic energy poorly budgeted. No, let the feminists make Blazing Frank a poster boy if they insist on doing so—and I will take up that theme again further along.

And not only is it a bad idea to make Blazing Frank a poster boy or a hero, it is additionally a waste of time to "analyze" Blazing Frank in hopes to make political hay out of him or his doings—for there are many ways to make political hay, and that is not one of the better ones. It is not cost-effective when you consider that nearly all such efforts will seem to smack of exoneration or be susceptible to such an imputation. Furthermore, such speculations are inherently sterile and productive of political stagnation. They are a mental backwater and, in a larger sense, they miss the point. They do not move the revolution forward either intellectually or propagandistically. Leave it to the PUAs and related specialists to converse privately in this vein—political MRAs and counter-feminists have very different fish to fry, and this does not include politicizing George Sodini's personal issues.

Very well. Bear in mind that counter-feminist theory predicts a statistical rise in dysfunctional male behavior due to feminist innovation. Dysfunctional male behavior includes a lot of things: violence is only the most spectacular, and the most likely to capture public attention, yet other forms of the malady bulk far greater in terms of actual occurrence.

Do not put Blazing Frank under a microscope. Do not try to extract a cause-and-effect analysis or a factor analysis unless you are the greatest wizard in that art who ever lived. And face it, virtually none of you are. As a counter-feminist policy wonk, your chief care is to make note of broad statistical trends. DO NOT CONFLATE THE BROAD STATISTICAL TREND WITH THE INDIVIDUAL CASE. Do not make the latter into a distillation of the former, and above all do not go public with speculations of this kind—for they illuminate very little, and they nearly always give spin-fodder to the enemy.

Remember that we are dealing with a disturbance in the social ecology, and in an ecology of any sort, causation is web-like rather than linear; things come about by an "orchestrated" multiplicity of vectors arriving from all directions. You would need the biggest supercomputer in the universe to track all of those quirky variables and outliers. You are not that computer, and you shouldn't pretend to be.

Luckily, you don't need to be. So make it easy and keep life simple. Why spin tissues of speculation which have dubious political value and possibly make you look like a moonbat, when you can limit yourself to cryptic aphorisms and oracular sayings about "chickens coming home to roost" or the like—and nothing more than that! You should know what to say and what not to say. Likewise, you should know when to speak and when to adopt a discreet and politic silence:
"A wise old owl sat on an oak;
The more he sat, the less he spoke;
The less he spoke, the more he heard;
Wasn't he a wise old bird?"
Your policy then, is to be silent or nearly so, and listen to the feminists. Gather an ear-full and then comment on what they are saying rather than letting them comment on what WE are saying! They shall be unable to do the latter because (in theory) we shall not have provided them grist enough for their mill: they'll have nothing to comment on! So, let them make Blazing Frank a poster boy for 'male violence' or 'the patriarchy' or some-such, for that is always the first half of their game. But then, deny them the second half. Do not feed the feminists! When they go surfing to MRA websites in quest of impeachable utterance, starve them!

Furthermore, many of those things that you might be burning to say are not only better left unsaid, but better left unthought or unfelt. What do I mean here? I mean that too many male MRAs wish to voice their disenchantment with women—and in their talk generally, the perennial point of return is "relationships". They are in fact mastered by this feeling; they are driven by it. And in being so mastered and so driven, they are living under the power of women because they are letting women master and drive their emotions—which is not the best idea. So it follows that misogyny—not in the politically obfuscated feminist meaning of the term, but in the honest meaning of a root animus toward women as a group—is similarly not the best idea. An actual misogynist is, after all, emotionally dominated and driven by women in a way that is nothing but ironic if he were to process the implications of it.

Now, it has long been my considered opinion that those who oppose feminism should direct a hard and narrow polemic against it. In this respect, they ought to limit themselves, for it keeps the conversation on point—indeed, forces it to remain so! Thus, a pivot of counter-feminist policy is to eschew any kind of woman-centric discourse. If you build the conversation around "broads", you cannot keep it narrow! It is feminism's task to make the world "all about women"; it is not our task. Our task is merely to inflict damage on feminism in the most efficacious way and, when the injury at last proves mortal, let the chips fall where they will.

That day, when it finally arrives, will be an interesting one. In the meantime, let us reflect further on policy. Often enough, a fellow will arrive on an MRA website to post a comment abounding in woman-centric scurrility—women are all "skanks" or "ho's" or "bitches" or the like—or to sing the praises (even briefly) of George Sodini or any Blazing Frank du jour. On such occasions, we have no objective "duty" to peer-correct this person's opinion or to speak against him in any way. Statistically considered, we know that such feeling among men is on the rise and that in large part feminism made this happen. And to permit such words to stand, counts as a form of glasnost! We render the world a benevolent service by exhibiting the ugly state of things in so uncensured and uncensored a manner; we want the world to see, for its own good, precisely what feminism has wrought! The woman-obsessed chap who either bashes females or extols Blazing Frank, is as much a sign of the times as Blazing Frank himself, and to speak of any objective duty to "discipline" this commenter is a damnable feminist evasion, for it misses the point and continually re-inscribes the feminist narrative. It obscures the truth and fails to hold feminism accountable—and we must above all things hold feminism accountable!

There is the additional possibility—in fact, a considerable one—that this individual is really a feminist in MRA drag, on a trolling mission, in quest of either impeachable utterance or impeachable silence. Certainly, there is no infallible way to spot such a critter, but a one-size-fits-all response would be to non-chalantly—even playfully—intone something like: "You wouldn't happen to be a feminist provocateur . . . would you?" Frequent iteration of such a dialogue would infuse the general mind with the fact that such things as feminist provocateurs do exist, and this realization would throw a permanent shadow across every conversation—a state of affairs that would sap the force of enemy rhetoric.

The other mode of response would be to casually inform the too-frank speaker that his speech is counter-productive, but without communicating to him any tone of personal judgment for talking in such a way. This may at times open the door to a longer conversation of the more political sort, during which you will have occasion to enlighten him on points of critical importance, while at the same time enlightening readers of all persuasions.

Prior to concluding this article, let us give final consideration to the eventual effect upon the feminists of the policy we are advocating. We must, as I have proposed, govern our tongues to the point of silence, or to the point of saying nothing much. At any rate, well short of saying anything impeachable. We are simply to hold our peace, and to listen to the enemy. Let US be the ones who reap the harvest, in noting and archiving the typically bigoted and ideologically-driven things they will be saying. They will reap little from us, but we will gather plenty from them, and by our silence we will drain them of three-quarters or four-fifths of the fuel which they had counted on obtaining, and in the past have seldom failed to obtain in quantity. In the end, it shall leave them bereft and holding an empty bag. As the pattern for a macro-strategy in all realms, this has much to recommend it.

Friday, March 26, 2010

This Makes Perfect Sense

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, has been quoted as follows:
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
All right, let's mull this over. First off, I can agree that men do not lose their husbands in combat, so. . . score one for the ladies!

But men DO sometimes lose fathers or sons in combat. So, call this one even-steven.

But wait, here comes the big cruncher: follow me closely! Men do NOT lose their wives, their mothers, their daughters in combat. Thus, if a particular woman loses her husband in combat, that same husband has NOT lost his wife. Or. . . if a particular woman loses her father in combat, that same father has NOT lost his daughter. Or. . . if a particular woman loses her son in combat, that same son has NOT lost his mother.

So, I think you can easily see that overall, men are not the primary losers in war because in most cases as exampled here, men simply do not suffer comparable losses!

Thank you so much, Secretary Clinton, for clearing that serious matter right up for us!

MRm! - Third Issue

Here it is, folks! Issue number three of MRm!: the edgy, cutting-edge, keen-slicing magazine of the pro-male men's movement. The magazine that reaches out to the masses!

Contributors to this issue include Zed, Paul Elam (of Men's News Daily), Porky ("the Counterfeminist Pig"), Obsidian, Welmer (of The Spearhead), Heretic (of "Heretical Sex"), and E. Steven Berkimer (of the False Rape Society). I, myself, have not contributed this time around.

You'll find that it's pretty good stuff. Informative and pertinent, if nothing else. And, let me add, damned important—especially the piece by Heretic, and the one by Obsidian! I largely agree with most of the material in this issue—or at any rate nearly always respect the space the writer is coming from en route to his conclusion, even if I don't quite share the conclusion.

Design-wise, the magazine is improving. I found the layout more user-friendly this time.

Download your copy from HERE:


Wednesday, March 24, 2010

I Have an Admirer - Yes, for Real!

A fellow by the name of Julian Real, who keeps a blog called "Radical Profeminist", has achieved considerable notoriety. Indeed, you may know of him already. He is famous, or should I rather say infamous?

So, my fellow workers in the vineyard: on with the story. Two or three days ago, I did something very unusual (for me). I left a comment on a feminist blog—the blog in question being Julian's. And why did I do this? Well, it was like an impulse buy at the checkout line, but in this case I was "checking out" his blog when the impulse struck. I do get those impulses occasionally.

I nonchalantly reckoned the comment would never see the light of day. Well, it looks like I reckoned wrong. It appeared indeed, but in a quite unexpected and spectacular manner. You see, Julian has done me the right singular honor of devoting an entire blog post to . . . . ME!! That is exactly how much admiration I have kindled in Julian's heart; he must reckon that I am a mighty grand figure indeed, in the grand scheme of things! I mean, he could have just deleted my comment and forgotten all about it—but no! Julian's. . admiration got the better of him! It seems the poor boy simply could not control himself!

Okay, now let's get serious. I say that he couldn't control himself, and seeing what he posted on his blog, you would almost certainly agree that he was "out of control". The post consisted chiefly of vitriolic personal attacks with no evident foundation or justification of any kind—unless you count as justification his links to my two blogs, which to him appear self-evidentially inculpative. But then, I must protest that he has a tin ear for the nuances.

Vitriol was ingredient number one—and proportionately, the greater. Ingredient number two was shoddily constructed argumention. But Julian doesn't give a rip about any of that, because he is "preaching to the choir", meaning that he blogs for the approving gaze of his radical leftwing peer group who can be depended on to share certain reflex emotions, and to cut him whatever slack he needs.

Julian's unreal onslaught depends almost entirely upon emotional shock and awe — a technique that radical feminists have honed and perfected to a fine art for many years. Nazi and Stalinist police interrogators were also adept at this. So. . . am I a bully? Only if you are, Julian! ;)

Anyhoo, in this case shock and awe failed, since I am neither shocked nor awed. Can't you tell? For example, Julian calls me an "anti-feminist asshole". Well, I will gladly acknowledge the anti-feminist part even though, oddly, he makes it sound like a bad thing! As for the "asshole" part, well. . . that is merely his opinion. And as you know (erm), we all have one of those, right?

Apart from shock and awe, Julian has flooded me with something I call the five-hundred gallon treatment. This technique also is a classic feminist debating trick, and it operates on the principle that five-hundred gallons is TOO MUCH! There is no way in hell you can drink it all! Nor would I attempt this in the present case, especially considering that most of it is bilgewater! Julian no doubt feels that his arguments are devastatingly trenchant; the problem is, I disagree. I can see a shitload of things wrong with those arguments, and. . . . I honestly don't have time to fuck with it; life is too short. And in a larger sense, NONE of us have time for this: that is the critical lesson that we non-feminists, counter-feminists, MRAs and so on, must all take to heart and practice diligently until it becomes second nature! Arguing with fanatics and 'true-believers' is a one way ticket down a bottomless rat hole!

I send you now to my handy little primer of feminist debating tactics, posted elsewhere on the blog, where 'five-hundred gallon treatment' is explained along with a few other things, some of which you might see to be germane to the present case:


You're back? All right.

So. . . Julian also attempts "guilt by association" because I allegedly "pal around with" (i.e. socially interact with) certain unclearly specified persons whom he deems to be "misogynistic, uberprivileged hetboys" and the like. Again, we all have opinions. . . don't we? Certainly, Julian and his peer group do! But for the record, I have hob-nobbed and 'chewed the fat' with a great variety of people in my day — including people not unlike Julian himself — and never once did I seek any permission from anybody, anywhere, any way, at any time, prior to doing so. So to be wholesomely frank about this, Julian can piss off! I will have a conversation with ANY human being on planet earth with whom I feel so-inclined, as often as I feel so-inclined, and for as long as I feel so-inclined, and with as much appearance of affability or any other emotion as it jolly well pleases me to manifest! Finito!!

Oh hey, I almost forgot: Here is the link to the post on Julian's blog which I am talking about. And I would kindly ask my onside readers one small favor: do NOT leave comments over there. Okay? Comment here to your heart's content, however.


Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Pro-feminist Wisdom About

Greetings NF revolutionaries, students of counter-feminism, and members of the pro-male men's movement!

A couple of days ago, I stumbled upon a mousy little blog post which appears to be courting obscurity. In this, it has so well succeeded that even though it was first published on 28 May, 2009, I didn't find it until much, much later. But find it I did—and I found it interesting!

The item in question is from a blog kept by a collaborationist who writes under the monikker of The Longest War—which, by the way, is also the name of the blog itself. For convenience henceforward, I shall refer to the author as TLW.

What I am sharing requires considerable back-story. The question is, where to start? All right, first I will send you to the TLW post. Read it slowly and thoughtfully—but fear not, 'tis brief:


So what do you make of this sensitive soul-scraping male feminist blogger and his maudlin, guilt-drenched words? He says "pro-male" as if this were a bad thing—and that screams volumes! I would opine, that like too many of his tribe, TLW is living in a different moral universe; a Castanedean "separate reality"; a bubble of invincible self-reference which, in the end, only rude force will ever prick! However, that is by-the-by. At the moment, I must send you away for additional off-post reading to complete the back-story. For some of you, the following would be new material; for others, a timely refresher:


Very well, that wraps up the outside reading. Now let's piece this together. The first thing you should have noticed is that TLW writes of a person named Kyle Payne, and that my own lengthy CF post is likewise about Kyle Payne! The next point of interest is that both the TLW post, and my own, were published close to the same time—mine on 8 April 2009, and the TLW item about 7 weeks later, on 28 May of that year.

All right. When I posted the Kyle Payne piece, my daily hit count spiked dramatically for about three days—and the increase went specifically to the post page itself! So how to account for that? Well clearly, the article provoked a LOT of interest: somebody saw it and told somebody else, or more likely a passel of somebodies—and the rush was on!

And the demographic composition of this visitor spike? Not MRAs or random websurfers, of course—I know those people well enough and trust me, it wasn't them! No, such an obsession with Kyle Payne would only originate, asymmetrically, from the feminist side. After all, Kyle was one hell of a stink bomb in their world at that time, and what I wrote about Kyle was, in its own way I suppose, a stink bomb as well! For I am certain that nobody on planet Earth—bar none!—had such an antagonistically mind-reaming and abrasively original slant on the subject as did I in that particular blog post. It must have punched through their brain-tunnels like a riptide from left field! I doubt if anything they had ever seen before quite prepared them for it!

And that brings us back to the mousy little post on TLW's blog. TLW has very evidently read my article on Kyle Payne. It has lodged in his cerebrum and, from the look of it, done some quirky things there. Consider the post title:

The Counter-Feminist Fidel-what’s-his-name and Kyle Payne: Could they both be on the same side?

What the hell is this dude talking about, anyway?

Honestly, I have no idea.

But wait, it gets better. Here is something that most will miss—indeed, I too nearly overlooked it. It is the cumbersomely long URL of the TLW blog post. Read it patiently; study it thoughtfully; chew it thoroughly, and let the juices trickle slowly down your gullet:

http://thelongestwar.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/fidel-whats-his-name-and-kyle-payne- could-they-both-be-sides-of-the-same-disinformation-coin-designed-to-distract-feminists/

I was going to write several paragraphs of clever, scintillating stuff, but I decided to hell with it! So, take a good look at the rest of the TLW blog; read some of the other posts just to get the flavor. This is quintessential feminism in its most characteristic and fully-developed form, however, it is the masochistic male side of the coin. Masochism is a recurring theme among these people; TLW and his political cohort Kyle Payne are both shining examples of this.

Whosoever loathest himself, the same shall be loathed like unto an unclean thing!

And to cap it all off, here is a recent item at Men's News Daily that you absolutely WILL read—and I mean it! No excuses!:


In conclusion: men who support feminism are a big problem, and they are the Enemy. If they would only keep their dirty little cult to themselves, I would gladly live and let live. But no, they are aggressive little buggers looking for trouble, and . . . I predict they will get it!

You ought to scrutinize these people closely when you get the chance, and take notes. Nothing hinders my belief that guys like Kyle Payne are fairly common in the pro-feminist men's movement. Why would they not be? Given your personal knowledge of the world, would the opposite be any less plausible?

Monday, March 22, 2010

A Cool Tool for Non-Feminists
and Counter-Feminists

The accompanying JPEG has a document size of 3.5" x 2", which is the correct dimension for printing onto standard business cards.

You'll want to keep a few of these in your pocket, purse or wallet for handing out to persons who, in your considered opinion, need to have such a card handed to them. ;)

Or, you can mysteriously leave them in different places for no particular reason. Example: tucked inside of books at your favorite lefty bookstore. (I just love lefty bookstores! Don't you?)

The text for this was taken from an old (but absolutely canonical "must read") Counter-Feminist article, HERE: http://tinyurl.com/5uvm28

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.


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."

And Here is ANOTHER One!

Another new website of the pro-male men's movement, I mean. These are sprouting up everywhere, as I have said before, and if I were a feminist I might say "sprouting up like poison mushrooms." However, I am not a feminist, so to my mind they are pushing up like the crocuses and daffodils of Spring!

The blossom which I am introducing today is a website called end-hate.org. The publisher of this site is Steven — and since he has requested that I hold his surname in confidence, I won't call him any more than that. I had asked Steven to send me some "good copy", and he obligingly mailed the following:
"Thank you! I am relatively new to anti-feminist activism but no man is new to the experience of being a member of the disposable sex. Here is some material for you:

"It is difficult to even imagine and conceive just how pervasive feminist social conditioning is on our society. So many good men feel constant simmering rage, unknowingly trapped in an unending hell of cognitive dissonance and taught to blame themselves for their feelings; unaware that their rage stems from the fact that they are enslaved.

"It starts with “romantic” nursery rhymes and fairy tales of gallant heroes rescuing fair maidens, told to us as infants. If the hero does not save the maiden then he might as well not even exist. United States society, in particular, constantly reminds men how lucky they are to be “free” and to have jobs so they can materially provide for their prostitutes, I mean wives, girlfriends and prospective girlfriends: so much reinforcement that the last thing a man could possibly think is that he is enslaved. In the psychological theories of transactional analysis, our society is playing a giant game, i.e. con. At the expense of primarily male taxpayers, females use the majority of welfare and government benefits to steal from us by virtue of having no obligation to us whatsoever. Taxpayers are denied even a simple “thank you” from the women and children we are forced to anonymously support. I think the truth can begin to set these men free, force women to be honest and help many children too.

"www.end-hate.org is a constant work in progress and I anticipate it will continue evolving in the years ahead. The objective of the site is to be simple, clear, direct and brutally honest. I want feminists to be confronted, surrounded, shocked and awed by their own vile hypocrisy. I want feminists to feel filthy and disgusted with themselves as they are struggling to remain afloat in cesspools of their own lies and hate. I want feminists to feel the burden of having spat upon the memory of millions of their heroic forefathers who died for women: on battlefields, working dangerous jobs, and the tens of thousands of men who die each year by their own hand. I want to expose the modern feminism/female supremacy movement as genocide, the systematic murder of the male soul; the despicable and obscene crime against humanity that it truly is. I want feminists to repent for their exploitation, demand equal responsibility, and demand to pay restitution in the form of education to all people on the evil selfishness of feminism. I want to empower men to escape the trap, help others escape it, and help children avoid it. I want children, men and women to cherish honesty, courage, respect and non-exploitive love.

"Again, my anti-feminist activism is just getting started. So far, beyond the simple website, activities include distributing flyers (shrunk to 80%, http://end-hate.org/doublestandard.htm fits on a single sheet of paper) and making small financial contributions. I have to be very careful because I work on a University campus that represents one of the epicenters of the feminist movement, complete with Orwellian sexual harassment rules and a rabid Women’s Studies department that perpetuates them. Therefore, so that I may continue my efforts, I would appreciate your keeping my full name (feel free to use my first) and email address confidential. At the same time, I get to work with people like Daphne Patai. Being active in an epicenter of feminism is a blessing because it gives me an opportunity to strike right at the heart of it.

"Thank you again,

It is good to see somebody who is active on campus, and I know that such activity is astir both in the USA and abroad.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Women are More Compassionate

Women are more compassionate than other people. Women are more in touch with their feelings than other people. Well, aren't they? That's what I've always heard!

By way of demonstration, note the following:


Now, the bloodily-expectorating bloke described in this story was undoubtedly a deadbeat dad and a reprobate scumbag. The story furnishes scant detail in that direction, but hey, he got arrested and thrown in jail, so evidently he was a good-for-nothing! After all, nice people never get arrested and thrown in jail under any circumstances. . . do they? And this guy was arrested for not paying child support even though he willfully concealed a gold mine in his mouth, god damn him!!

Under the circumstances, he was oppressing a woman—namely the putative mother of his child—and so we can hardly expect another woman (charged to uphold the law!) to react other than compassionately . . . can we? As is entirely fitting. . . isn't it? Lt. Mayhew's mayhem happened for a god-damned good reason. . . didn't it? Of course it did!

In conclusion, we all know perfectly well that people other than women start wars and duck their support payments, and we know equally well that when women at last occupy all the seats of executive authority in this world, wars simply will not happen any more, and child support will be compassionately extracted . . . or else! Right, kids?

Monday, March 15, 2010

Allow Me to Introduce. . .

. . another website of the pro-male men's movement. It is called very simply "Men Again".

The author is Joab, who has appeared here as a commenter a couple of times. Joab has gone through divorce hell, as his blog will (I presume) detail in upcoming posts.

From the blog, I share the following:
"I'll keep the specifics fairly few because I don't want this blog discovered and used against me by the woman who stayed at my side for ten years and then turned into an evil stranger in one night. By now I have learned all too well that, as men in this society, we are like rabbits in the wild. The best we can do is run. Ever see rabbits stand up against wolves, or stare fiercely back into the crosshairs of a hunter's gun? They wouldn't last long and neither will men these days.
This sudden, unpredictable mutability of behavior is a trait which I too have observed in certain women. I will attest to it. And nowadays, the law gives deadly teeth to women of this sort.

Further along, Joab writes this:
"She said if I was in so much pain she should call 911. We didn't have good insurance and couldn't afford it so I said, "I'll kill you if you..." During the course of our marriage she said it to me about a million times. She still says it to the kids when they piss her off - "I'll kill you if..." . . . . . She called 911 all right. . . . . She called the cops and said I was going to kill her. Some time later, two uniformed men arrived with guns, rousted me from my own bed, interrogated me as I lay on the floor of my own home, and told me if I didn't leave I would go to jail. "
There you have it. And if you still cannot comprehend what MRAs and similar people are on about, then I won't bother smacking you upside the head—even though you richly deserve it—for you are beyond hope. Anyhow, I don't know if Joab's 'ex' considers herself a feminist or not, but that is a small matter. What matters is, that she ACTS like one—using the standard tactical psychology which radical feminists themselves have honed and perfected in the realm of the political—but Joab's ex-wife has put this to work in the realm of the personal. Note the duplicity; the misrepresentation; the cold-blooded serpentine calculation; the fraudulent semantic "switcheroo"—all of this is regulation feminist behavior. And largely because the feminists have employed similar tactics in their activism, lobbying and propagandizing efforts—simply put, their political efforts— it is now possible for women such as Joab's ex-wife to destroy men in a personal way using related methods. Whether they call themselves feminists or not! That is how feminism has empowered women.

And all of this has been accomplished by harnessing the power of the state—specifically, the state's monopoly on violence, which has been made available to females on an extensional basis and at the mere caprice of any woman. The state has been feminized, by which I mean infiltrated by the feminist worldview. Owing to all of this, women (as proxies of state power) now hold a monopoly on violence which they are empowered to use arbitrarily against men. This, as I have explained elsewhere at considerable length, voids the social contract between men and women. It is feminism's purpose to enslave men, but men of keen understanding (such as your present writer) know that they have been morally and politically liberated in a potentially very dangerous way.

All right, enough of my yapping. I will send you now to Joab's blog:


Note: The linked blog (above) is now defunct. (Feb. 2011)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Man, Woman & Myth Website

Here is a new website that you mightn't know about yet. I've only known about it for . . oh, maybe twenty minutes. I think you will be impressed:


And a few blurbs from the site:

"This site is principally a video repository and video blog concerned with male-female relations and the damage caused by Feminism in what is, essentially, an ongoing War on Men in Western society.

"Men are under fire from numerous directions and in various ways. Indeed the size, scale and sheer variety of misandry – the hatred of men – almost defies belief and yet is plain to see in many areas of life.

"This attack on men is perpetrated by governments, businesses (including charities) and also by “Radical Feminists“. The assault against men and the very idea of manhood, has been steadily increasing in ferocity over the decades to the extent that men are increasingly being treated in law and by custom, as second-class citizens. . . . . . .

". . . .Feminism has simply got to go: it’s no good for women and it’s worse for men and children. The first step in getting rid of it is to recognise its reach and scope and most importantly, its source. If we can do that, we are a good way towards its elimination."

Briefly noted: MRA and feminist-unfriendly websites of every kind are sprouting up so quickly and thickly now that I cannot possibly keep track of them—let alone read EVERYTHING contained in ALL of them on a regular basis! As 'Fred' would say: "Just can't do it."

This is happening so fast it makes my head spin! I am aware of several sites that I haven't gotten around to looking into yet, and I feel vaguely "guilty" about this. ;) Anyhow, do enjoy the website that I have linked in this post!

Oh, I suppose now would be a good time to mention that visitor traffic to this present blog (CF) has increased dramatically over the last few months. And I'm pretty sure it is due to a rising tide floating all boats—including my own little kayak! :)

Sunday, March 07, 2010

A Woman's Nation

If you are not up to speed on this, here it is now. Again, I am posting this because of the reverb effect. You know, because my recent monster post ("Message to Non-feminist Women") is still echoing in your mind, and because all of this ties together:


It is getting harder and harder to uphold, with a straight face, the rancid old tripe that women are oppressed—and only the most pompous of hacks are hacking away at this game. You can hear these people a mile away because their voices ring so. . . pompously and hackishly! The women's oppression meme is sounding patently, transparently and unmistakably like tripe nowadays, and critical numbers of people are developing a keen ear and a Hemingwayan crap detector for all this. The "men's movement", as we so lazily and imprecisely call it, is taking serious strides and is on the cusp of breaking big. Yet simultaneously to this, the forces of evil that work against us are upping their game and growing relentlessly more entrenched in their power. So. . . it is the best of times and the worst of times. We are nowhere close to being out of the forest yet, and although there is reason for optimism on some fronts, we must expect things to continue getting worse for men and boys everywhere—at least for the foreseeable future. And that summarizes where the major trend arrows are so contradictorily pointing. Forgive me for blowing both hot and cold!

So. . . it is a woman's nation now! A powerful, official voice (with Rockefeller money behind it, no less!) has told us so and therefore, who are we to doubt this? Accordingly, if the future for men is a harsh, grim desert, then men can at least cast a worthless bag of rocks off their shoulders and travel light. Let that be their harsh, grim solace! And what do I mean by such a statement? I mean that if this is a woman's nation, then women are on their own! They're big girls now and they can fend for themselves, in their own nation. Exclusively. Entirely. And we can even "wish them all the best", because after all, wishes are cheap. But if they want the real goods, then they must "root hog or die", the same as anybody else. Luckily, since they are now privileged royalty living off the fat of the land, they needn't root hard at all.

But they don't get any special considerations from us menfolk any more. Women's issues are no longer a point of melodramatic obsession. Chivalry, manifestly enough, is dead. We've known that for quite a long time. And from here on out, it shall be men helping men AS men. If the feminists insist on upping the ante without limit then we shall have no choice but reciprocate, and the sexes will continue drifting further and further apart. Women in the abstract, women as a group, no longer exist as an object of concern for us—although we are free to shower blessings at will upon any individual woman who shows herself worthy by making the all-important cognitive leap known as "getting it".

If you haven't been HERE before, you may wish to go now, for it very much pertains to the mood of the time.: http://www.4shared.com/file/143935331/7f21a612/2partySystem.html?

Finally, be sure to read the following lengthy PDF, which details a highly approving conversation (stretching over several years) upon the subject of Female Supremacy. Yes, FS is a very live and very real force on earth, which awaits only the right moment and the right signal to bring it gushing to the surface of society and spreading visibly, as a layer of noxious gelatin, over everything, everywhere.


Postscriptum: Here is a link to the original CF post (from summer, 2009) which discusses the material linked immediately above. This may be of interest to readers:

A Report From the Low Country

And here is more in related vein, from around the same time:

More in a Related Vein

Article at MND - Worth a Read

The following was posted at Men's News Daily less than 12 hours ago, and it pulls together quite a few threads concerning the dire predicament of men in today's world. I recommend reading it while my immediately prior CF post is fresh in your mind. This MND piece is, according to the author, a work-in-progress for which he solicits feedback:


"What remains of chivalry is better described as toxic waste in the water supply. And just as we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, we must do the same with chivalry. It may have once also been a code of honor used by alphas to control other men, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaning- female privilege. And so now we can call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry."
(Some of you might be familiar with the simile of shoving the toothpaste back into the tube, conceived by the same author some time ago, and will see how it all interlinks!)


Wednesday, March 03, 2010

An Open Message to the Women
of the Non-Feminist Sector

Today, I bring an open message to the politically awakened women of the non-feminist sector. It is a speech I have been thinking about making for quite a long time, and it is not simply a podcast or a blog post as usual, but something quite different. I could even say, something of pivotal importance.

For you see, the non-feminist revolution contains far more than just those notorious people called MRAs, and far more than whatever might be conjured in the facile expression "men's movement". That is why I would address the talk not specifically to men, but to the growing number of women—non-feminist women, mind you—who have smelled the coffee! And not only smelled it, but drank a few strong cups and are now wide awake, ready for what lies ahead in the growing light of dawn.

Pardon me for making one or two assumptions about the present audience, but expediency requires that I do so. This is not an introductory lecture, and I will skip the 101 curriculum because I take for granted that you are already up to speed. You don't need to be told that FEMINISM is the enemy, or why it is the enemy. Nor do you lack an array of talking points and arguments to share with your less-awakened sisters.

You are fully aware of the damage inflicted on men by the growth of feminist innovation over the years, and you know this damage will only get worse, and that women too have been damaged and will be damaged even further. Yes, you are already well-informed about this and quite a bit more besides, so I don't need to rehash any of it. I can cut to the chase and be very, very direct with you!

I wish to clear new ground today, so I will touch upon some less common points of politics which I believe to be of critical importance—matters which call for measured reflection and response from all of us and for careful planning in the interest of policy. Understand also, that I will not gloss over the formidable difficulties and even moral paradoxes which the present crisis sets before us. I will not sugarcoat these matters. I will be very, very frank about them, even at the hazard of placing myself in a politically troublesome light. Yes, I fear the path ahead is fraught with ambiguity and all manner of double-edged things.

To begin: I'd like you to introspect a bit, and ask yourself something. Why have you aligned yourself with the non-feminist sector? Needless to say, you understand all too clearly what feminism has inflicted upon men, but for whose sake do you join this struggle? Think about it. What do you hope to gain from all of this tangled politics? Are you in this for the sake of men?

Well, I certainly hope not! Or if you insist that you are, then I certainly hope it is not only for the sake of men that you have shown an interest in this chaotic imbroglio. For I would like to appeal to your self-interest. Your rational self-interest, I mean. Your enlightened self-interest. I would much rather you were in this thing not for my sake, or for the sake of any male person on earth, but clearly and frankly for your own sake! Yes, I want this to be about YOU.

Curse me, but the very last thing I want to see is the non-feminist revolution turning into a horrid, degrading, melodramatic pity party for men! Banish any scenario of that kind to the limit of outer darkness, please! I'll have no part of it!

I trust your understanding far enough to presume upon it. Hence, I presume your understanding suffices to inform you that we live in a social ecology, where effects (for either good or ill) will propagate across a web of causative interrelations. Likewise, I know you understand that feminism has introduced, into this web, much that was intended to damage the male population. I know that we are on the same page in knowing these things, and I know I can address you with a well-founded assurance that my meaning will not go amiss.

Accordingly, if one would poison the world against men, one would poison the world against women as well. Men and women, in the mutual fabric of their interwoven existence, share far too many base factors for such effects to be limited in their range or scope of operation. And THAT, I submit, is where your rational self-interest comes into play.

Feminism, I would aver, has brought a particular social world into existence, namely the one which presently engulfs us. And left to its predictable devices, feminism will operate true to form by adding new layers upon former layers to create that same world over and over again into the indefinite future—only more so! Therefore ask yourself: is that the kind of world I want to live in? Would it be healthy for me to live in such a world? Profitable for me to live in such a world? Enjoyable for me to live in such a world? Safe for me to live in such a world?

On and on the questions go, but all to the same unvarying purpose, all converging upon the point of your rational and enlightened self-interest. What kind of world do YOU want to live in? And do you believe for even five seconds that feminism will construct such a world if given a free hand? Where does YOUR rational and enlightened self-interest lie?

In that spirit, and with that thought echoing in your brain, let us turn now to matters of a differing and yet closely related tenor. I am referring to the objective political situation which now applies to both men and women in the aftermath of epochal feminist change. It is a posture of affairs fraught with perplexities of a catch-22 order, and it all turns upon the axial difficulty that the social contract between men and women is no longer in effect.

I blame feminism principally, though not entirely, for this state of things. Elsewhere, I have considered at length how feminism contaminates the machinery of government, and the entire body-politic, with anti-male bias. I have argued that feminist corruption of the social polity on all levels finally guts the legitimacy of the social contract itself, leaving only a moral vacuum in its place.

Let the feminists preach and screech any way the spirit moves them, but they presently have no objective foundation from which to leverage ANY form of moral injunction, or to adopt ANY sermonizing posture whatsoever, toward men either individually or as a group. Such being given, no feminist may rightfully take me to task for what I will say next.

And that is, that men and women have become separate political interest groups, and that due to the extinction of any effective social contract, they no longer owe any form of social duty or political obligation to one another. It is only the outward shell of laws and institutions, combined with sheer force of habit or convention, and common ignorance of the state of things, which keeps society glued together and functioning day by day. As a social polity, we've not YET had our Wile E. Coyote moment when we realize we are walking on air.

Again, I chiefly blame feminism for bringing the world to this pass. Men and women are, in a purely objective, pragmatic and structural way, enemies. I say "purely objective" because it is true independently of whether we like it or not. And given that "enemies" is so ugly a word, I could proffer "rivals" or "competitors" by way of euphemism, but I think the point is clear enough. The world has fallen to a sad estate indeed, when the very foundation of society itself ordains that the two sexes shall go through life scrambling to outbid or outdo each other.

The saddest part is that most people, men and women both, never wanted this and never asked for it. It was foisted on them, slowly, gradualistically, by insensible degrees, under cover of darkness and through various agencies of psychic seduction.

But sad or otherwise, we are prisoners of all this. And the first step toward securing our freedom is to admit that we are indeed trapped. A series of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemmas have pinned us to the board, and it can be next to impossible to conspire against such a system, to rail against it, or even to criticize it intelligently, without electing yourself among the "damned". That is just how diabolically the game is rigged.

And yet it gets worse, for if you play dumb, if you collaborate, if you "go along to get along", then you will only multiply your damnation in the long run when the snare pulls tighter and tighter around you, when all possibility of honor deserts you, and when you not only die as a coward, but know with sickening poignancy in your final days that such is indeed the manner of your departure.

No. Far better to be numbered among the "damned" who are damned only because they speak out honestly, even at the hazard of placing themselves (heaven help us!) in a politically troublesome light! In composing such heroic words, I speak as a male person in today's world, from a standpoint that is distinctly male as opposed to female. Women, owing to their worldly situation, will not find themselves in quite the same dilemma—although they may experience dilemmas of their own.

So as a male person, I am alive to the dilemma which it entails, to say that the social contract between men and women no longer exists. I know that merely drawing attention to this puts me in a politically troublesome light, because it means that women are on their own—and that is a politically troublesome proposition. Yet troublesome or no, I must declare it now from my own mouth as a plain truth whose concealment would do the world no good service: women are on their own. The idea that I, as a male citizen, have any social duty at all to any woman or to women generally, is very simply an illusion. Due to the objective historical reality which feminist innovation has brought about, such a duty has no longer any legitimate moral basis for existence.

In view of the rank abominations that have been inflicted upon men, and continue to be inflicted on them in an escalating growth curve, it is ironic (to say the least) that anybody at all should preach at men about any imagined duty toward women. Due to the objective political condition of men in these times, it is simply laughable and contemptible to prate of such matters any more.

Given that men and maleness are under attack on so very many fronts, and given that women are pampered and treated like royalty in so very many ways, it is simply to be expected that sour feeling toward women, by men, will show a steady increase over time. It is neither plausible nor logical to expect any opposite scenario.

And so, feminists and fellow travelers who blow their ninny-whistle about "misogyny" and insist on men's duty to "control themselves" are pompous hypocrites and jackasses—manipulators at worst, moral idiots at best. This is not to suggest that men should never control themselves (depending on the situation), but rather that the people who commonly preach that style of sermon are a passel of shameless parasites with no moral license to do what they are doing, and that we don't owe their sadistic windbaggery any respectful hearing whatsoever. Simply stated, they must cast the beam out of their own eye before they pluck the mote out of their neighbor's eye.

To collaborate with the feminist plan, to endorse the feminist narrative either openly or implicitly, is to betray oneself and to betray all other men. I speak from a male standpoint. Feminism regularly issues moral injunctions toward the male population—toward men in the abstract—and yet this very procedure is a vacuous idiocy because feminism has no moral authority whatsoever. It has only a pretended moral authority, along with a load of gullible supporters who are intimidated by this pretense, and swayed by it.

However, there are some who will not be so intimidated or so swayed. To go along with such a regime—to drive, so to speak, in its wagon-ruts—gives it a default validation, and makes you the patsy in an ethical swindle: the kind of swindle practiced by any sanctimonious twit who goes around presumptuously commanding people to "do the right thing", and takes credit for their action when they appear to "obey". Such petty tyrants are a social cancer and they make the world unspeakably worse.

But again, men have gotten a raw deal, and by the look of things, the powers-that-be aren't done with us yet. And the fallout from such past, present and future dealings will entail ongoing consequences if the difficulty goes uncorrected.

Feminism's wedge-driving campaign will continue to alienate men and women from each other, with a predictable growth of ill feeling on both sides, and as always the feminists will focus on the male side of this while leaving the female side unexamined, and so a renewed cry of "misogyny" will fill the air along with a demand for new laws and "programs" to correct male intransigence wherever it rears its nasty, patriarchal head.

But men in large numbers will stubbornly refuse to be corrected in this way, and will instead grow more and more truculent toward women. Women will mirror this truculence, and men will mirror it back in turn, and on and on this will spiral while the feminists (like audio loops) will never stop braying about misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege, male violence, power and control, and so forth.

The death of the social contract will become painfully obvious when the alienation of men and boys reaches critical mass and the polite fiction grows too unwieldy to sustain. What theorists like myself merely write about on obscure websites, will in time become the common currency of male discourse among widening circles of the politically-awakened intelligentsia.

But for unintellectual men, and especially the young ones, such realization will surface as a malaise—a poorly articulated feeling to be ACTED OUT, sometimes violently, sometimes with headline-making consequences for women, yet in practice just as likely to be directed toward other men or toward the world at random. This increasingly feral and barbarian "lumpenproletariat" will not intellectualize the death of the social contract, but their dysfunctional behavior will demonstrate an instinct, an intuition, a primitive cognition that such a thing has occurred.

Such men and boys are, you would say, politically unawakened—and living in a state of false consciousness. That makes them dangerous, destructive, a force to be feared. Since their understanding is merely visceral and inchoate, they cannot direct their anger toward a proper target, and so they are likely to focus it however and wherever—and as a rule, with unpleasant consequences

That is exactly what the feminists wish to see happen, because the presence of dysfunctional male behavior gives feminism a permanent "job" in the field of anti-male crisis management, along with endless opportunities to throw good money after bad while digging us all deeper and deeper into a hole.

In order to thwart the feminists, and to prevent the worst in every form, men in large numbers must be politically awakened. And to be politically awakened, men must learn to know feminism as their enemy. Knowing feminism as their enemy, men will be inspired to direct their polemical energy—their anger, I mean—in a style that best comports with the objective state of the world. For to know the objective state of the world means, for one thing, to know who your actual enemy is. It will not do to confuse an enemy with an innocent bystander.

A consensus has long existed among core MRAs that feminism alone must be the target, and not women generally. The many "loose cannon-mouths" who lambaste women in the abstract are counter-productive rather than counter-feminist, because their invective against women simply mirrors feminism's transgression against men. Feminism made a deadly mistake when it launched a war against all men, and if we are smart we'll not commit the equivalent error. Our endeavor should be to redirect male disaffection exclusively toward feminism as an ideology, and feminism as a movement. We must dig channels, build dikes and levees, pile up sandbags—whatever it takes to harness the turbulent power of those waters to the correct purpose.

However, it is no business of ours to moralize or preach against the destructive forces we are witnessing. More precisely, I mean that we have no business blaming MEN for the damage which feminism has inflicted initially upon men themselves, and consequently upon the social ecology at large. For we know that certain poisonous inputs to the social ecology (in the form of anti-male politics) will make poisonous repercussions unavoidable, and that if any blame is to be apportioned, the accusing finger should point nowhere if not upstream, to where the poison was first introduced into the system.

Thus, I cannot be bothered to get my head in a tizzy every time some chap makes a remark that sounds vaguely "chauvinistic"—or even a bit more than vaguely! My responsibility on such occasions is rather to parse the subtext, to weigh the complex interplay of socio-political factors that might have given rise to such an utterance within our present anti-male environment, and to make duly charitable allowances.

So when a man is ironic, or facetious, or sarcastic, or voices an absolutely justifiable outrage at the state of things, I feel it is my bounden counter-feminist duty to proffer him something better than a tin ear. I will never, but never, say anything that would make him think I am working for the feminists, but rather, I will advise him in a frank, brotherly and good-humored way that his tone is politically counter-productive and unnecessary to the cause.

And I will never MORALIZE about this. Full stop. I will play the perfect pragmatist throughout, and discourse in political terms to him, and plant political seeds in his mind. And I might even drink a few brotherly beers with the brotherman, and with his brotherly say-so, recruit him!

And if he continues to say depreciatory things about women, I will simply shrug it off, and thereafter only on occasion will I suavely and urbanely counsel him to adopt a different tone. I will try to impress upon him that he shouldn't let women have such power over his mind. And once again, I will not moralize.

All right. Since I am intending this for a female audience, I should steer the talk once more in a direction that sounds like I am speaking to women in particular. I have stressed that the force of male anger must be directed toward feminism as a movement and as an ideology. But I have not talked about the role that women ought to play in all of this, so I go now to make good on that omission.

If we are to channel the force of male anger purely and narrowly against feminism, we must make it clear that feminist and female are distinctly separate things. The worst mind-job that the feminists have hoisted upon the world is the hazily conceived mental folly that "women" and "feminism" are interchangeable terms. There are plenty of people, men and women both, who loosely harbor this idea or something close to it.

In retrospect, one sees that the feminists have given men and women every possible inducement to be mutually hostile and mistrustful, and that their effort has been twofold. Firstly, they have conducted a massive smear campaign against the male population both in order to turn women against men, and to induce paranoia in men themselves. And secondly, they have procured advantages and special considerations for women while failing to hold women morally accountable in their new powers and freedoms.

The synergism of these factors is particularly deadly. Consider that feminism has not encouraged women to be morally introspective. Quite the contrary: the expression "you go girl" best epitomizes the character of feminist instruction to women. You will hear next to nothing on the theme of "you: whoa girl!" or "you: WOE girl!"

As a study in contrast, such phrases as "stand by your man", or "do right by your man" are known to flow from the mouths of traditional conservative women. Their attitude is the sinews of civilization—by which I mean that it binds civilization together. It is not, however, what feminism encourages.

Indeed, feminism has absolutely no reason to encourage the growth of moral intelligence among women at large, and every reason to encourage the opposite—and to blame men for the dysfunctionality which follows.

And feminism's void of edifying discourse melds seamlessly with the human proclivity to be lazy and venal. This proclivity is common to both men and women, but here the tendency is one-sidedly encouraged among the female population: women are led to believe they can do no wrong, while men are potentially subjected to an adverse construction or negative transvaluation of any word or deed.

It is small wonder therefore, that a lot of men look at women in the aggregate and see an undifferentiated mass of complicit sheep at best, and feministically-minded man-haters at worst. This makes a ripe breeding ground for misogynistic feeling; it generates a set of conditions that virtually guarantee the growth of such feeling, and under such conditions you would ask too much to ask otherwise. Yes: under certain conditions mildew will grow. Likewise, under certain conditions misogyny will grow. Given the necessary conditions, both outcomes are predictable.

Truly, there are many ways that a male person might learn—quite rationally and justifiably within his own lights—to distrust women. And from distrusting them, to travel the slippery slope into the valley of still darker feelings. So it ought to be our rational concern as a society, to starve the process that would cause any man, or men generally, to evolve in such a way. But to teach women that they are not morally accountable to men, can only feed this process on a grand scale. And that is precisely what feminism does.

The growth of ill-feeling toward women is bound to occur if men perceive women in general to be acquiescent toward feminism and toward anti-male politics. And if female supremacist plans continue to unfold (as they appear set to do), this effect can only be the worse, and can only accelerate as time goes on. Similarly, the growing political enlightenment of men about the nature of feminism can only undermine its own purpose if a corresponding enlightenment, in tandem, does not take place among women. The political enlightenment of women is imperative because the absence of such a thing would only validate men's worst suspicions about women, and from this, the alleged interchangeability of female and feminist would appear (in their minds) to be confirmed.

To sum up, a political awakening of women about the nature of feminism MUST occur alongside the political awakening of men, for if it does not occur, then politically awakened men will conclude that most women are feminists by nature, and therefore as much the enemy as feminism itself. At that point, the death of the social contract will become impossible to ignore, and objective conditions will spiral from bad to worse.

Therefore: women must be brought on board as aggressive agitators against feminism. You see, political awakening is merely the first step; they must also get loud about it. If overwhelming, complicit silence from women is the only thing which men at the political vanguard believe themselves to be hearing, then in the long term they will feel justified in drawing unfavorable conclusions about the female population as a whole.

And if that happens, only two significant outcomes may be predicted. The first is, that civilization will collapse and a general pandemonium will follow in which women will fare worse than presently. The second is, that men will act decisively to reclaim masculine power and prerogative before civilization collapses, but with a permanently soured and "wised up" view of women—and again women will fare the worse for it.

You would think that any feminist would be keen to avoid either of the two scenarios sketched above. Yet knowing them as I do, I would anticipate no support and no receptive hearing, from any feminist, for anything at all which I have stated. On the contrary, to speak in such a vein will set me, as I am only too well aware, in a politically troublesome light. Yet I feel in duty bound to frankness, for it would ill serve the world to discourse otherwise.

Clearly feminism will be no help, and will cast no illumination in the troubled years ahead. Clearly, feminism must be swept out of the road with a big broom. We are all working together on that clean-up crew: men, women, MRAs, and non-feminists of every description. But I have suggested that women especially have a critical part in all of this. And the remainder of the talk will build purposefully, step by step, toward the role that women can or should play in the non-feminist revolution that is now gathering force around the planet.

I would remind the women who are reading this to reflect upon what they stand to gain. . . or to lose. This is not about men—it is about all of us. And if you are a woman, then "all of us" means YOU if it means anything whatsoever. So please, think about YOU, because you know that in a social ecology what goes around comes around, and you know that in the end it always comes around to you—again and again!

Cynics and suchlike philosophers will inform you that "the nature of woman is mercenary." But is that really true? Mind you, I am not one to lose my composure when I hear a man talk that way. What do I look like, a feminist, that I should correct his opinion? Who can say what his experience has been, and who am I to make doubt of it? For it is possible, at least in theory, that he knows more of the world than do I—and I am far, far indeed from knowing all there is to know of the world!

And yet, born skeptic that I am, I would no sooner make doubt of my own experience—and I have seen a fair bit that inspires me to think for myself. So I cannot bring myself to bar the broad gate of possibility without directing your attention to a wicket-gate in the hedge just down the way.

Assuredly, the world has no lack of mercenary women in it—as likewise, mercenary men. And mercenary is as mercenary does, so in the end all will be manifested to the broad light of day, is not that so? So I will forbear to rule abstractively about the so-called "nature of woman". Rather, in a spirit of unadulterated science and pragmatism, I am willing to let results speak for themselves.

And let me tell you a little secret: I am something of a mercenary myself! I think we all have a drop or two of that blood nowadays; it's just the way things are. In an age where avenues of loyalty are apt to betray the loyalist without warning, how is it possible not to see the world through mercenary eyes upon occasion?

Now, any good mercenary knows how to maximize his advantage, and knows which side his bread is buttered on—and my own mercenary instincts certainly do instruct ME in all the needful wisdom of that sort. And I am trusting that you too possess those instincts. So, just between us mercenaries, a touch of renegade understanding is in the warrant, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I feel certain that critical numbers of women will know perfectly well, in the present debacle, which side their bread is buttered on.
I am confident they will know to maximize their advantage, and have the discreet intelligence to be governed by prudential considerations rather than empty loyalties to false friends, false values, false gods, or any other form of fool's gold. Some would declare that women are incapable of this, but I for one am willing to wager differently.

I do not mean to suggest that the movement of men cannot succeed without female help. Men will mobilize on their own behalf come what may, and the question is not whether they will succeed in their game. Rather, the question is whether they will succeed too well in the wrong way, at the expense of women, and in the end give the world a feminism in reverse. If we desire to avoid the latter outcome, then the presence of non-feminist women is needful to the game of counter-feminist agitation.

Men need to see dramatic evidence that women "get it". Mind you, one does not expect miracles. If, let us say, the United States harbors a female population of 150 million, one does not anticipate that all or most of that number will rise up in unison for the cause. Luckily, no such turnout is needed—or anything close to it. For although we might be pessimistic about the numbers, let us consider the grounds for optimism: if only 2 or 3 million women and girls in the whole United States became counter-feminist agitators, that would be more than enough to put the game over the top. 2 or 3 million is a lot of people; enough to make a lot of noise; enough to send a clear message both to men and to the world at large.

2 or 3 million; that is all it would take. And if anything, I am highballing when I offer that figure: ONE million, or even a bit less, would probably do the trick. And so what then, is the trick? It is to be smart, organized, passionate, aggressive and full of energy. Quantity counts less than quality.

To be frank, most people, men and women alike, are sheep—which is an impolite way of saying they are followers! But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on the case, it can work either for you or against you. So the needful art, understandably enough, is to pilot this effect to the furtherance of your purposes. Yes. . . if you address them in a way they can understand, the broad mass of women will follow you. Or if not follow, at the very least part the way for you, and speak no word against you. The silent majority is not so much silent as INERT. And being inert, they have inertia, which is always a developed quality—even a mercenary quality you might say, since it can swing one way or the other.

Another chauvinistic stereotype about women is, that they understand only domestic morality. And here again, the field is wide open for any woman to demonstrate the contrary. But still, domestic morality is just as important as public morality in its own way, and I wouldn't doubt that along with everything else, women understand domestic morality very well indeed.

So remember that women are your constituency, and when you address them you must appeal to them "where they live". In practical terms, you must talk about their sons, their fathers, their brothers, their uncles—simply stated, their families and especially the male members of their families for whom they cherish a familial affection. Remember that you are not talking about "men" in some abstract political way, but rather addressing the personal life of women precisely where it intersects with male life.

Most women will perceive their rational self-interest to be invested in this realm, and if you want to reach them, you must start here. This is their social ecology. This, for them, is both personal and political—and here the feminists will have occasion to think further upon their precept that the personal is the political, and finally eat those words with a bit more barbecue sauce than they'd like.

I should in fairness add that many feminists do claim to care about their male family members. However, while I don't doubt that these persons are mentally convinced of their own sincerity, I cannot overlook the power of compartmentalization to anesthetize cognitive dissonance. The only way such a feminist can pretend to care about male family members in the teeth of feminist depredation toward men generally, is to grow a "flat spot" in her brain which effectively blocks or filters out the mismatch between her fine sense of domestic morality on the one side, and her blazing stupidity about public morality on the other. Also, I suspect that such women are practicing the "it can't happen here" brand of magical thinking.

I would gladly wager that non-feminist women are not burdened by such mental deficiencies as sketched above; that they understand perfectly well how events in the public sphere can generate grievous consequences in the domestic sphere, and that they will apportion their care and concern in a manner befitting their intelligence.

I have suggested that only a tiny percentage of women will become active in counter-feminist agitation, but that the influence of such agitators can be out of proportion to their numbers, and that many additional women can be pulled in as passive supporters and sympathizers if approached in the manner described. I would also like to suggest that when the time is ripe for an idea or an innovation, the spread of it can occur in unexpected ways that look like magic. And such a venture, to be set in motion, wants only a venturesome spirit in its application.

Such being said, I turn now to the question of active practice and the organization of it. I would like to sketch, lightly and from a distance, the outward structure of women's participation in the business which lies ahead. The structure of our revolution must reflect, in embryonic form, the natural order of life that will rise to the surface as feminism sinks to its demise. We are not YET living in a post-feminist world, but we ought to plan for it, and put up a few survey markers in advance of it.

The natural order of life is marked by two distinctly differing forms of activity that we shall call men's business, and women's business. And to each of these zones is mapped a fundamentally exclusionary domain of social territory, respectively: male space and female space. Over the years, feminism has worked to integrate men and women forcibly into each other's business—except when women don't want this. Feminism has also worked to destroy male space as far as possible while leaving women ample opportunity to be alone with other women if they so desire.

Feminism's destruction of so-called patriarchy is centered upon the colonization of male space. Patriarchy is simply a codeword for male power of any kind, and it is a well established principle that if you want to disempower a targeted group of people, you must reduce as far as you are able the amount of time this group spends together with no outsiders present. And that is precisely what has been done to men as a group; they have been scattered and fragmented, male institutions have been rendered anemic, and in consequence feminism has grown powerful by filling the resulting vacuum with cultural innovations.

And so, the primary and most efficient way to break feminism's back is to reconstitute male space by any and all means—along with male bonding, male friendship, and shared male activity in the absence of women. Any action to restore the sanctity of men's time with other men will be revolutionary and counter-feminist, and for that reason the reconstitution of male space must be enshrined at the heart of the non-feminist revolution. This will sow seeds for the new post-feminist social order that will gradually emerge from the predictable turmoil which lies ahead.

Men, therefore, must walk their own road on their own terms, as men among men. Men must work out their own destiny, as men among men. Men must reclaim their spiritual center of gravity, as men among men. Women simply do not enter the picture here—or at any rate, not the heart of the picture. The men's rights movement is narrowly about men and about their rights, while the broader non-feminist revolution is about all of us and about feminism's wrongs. So the place for women is in the broader non-feminist revolution.

You might say that women are on their own in this; they are running their own show; they are their own boss. They are not the women's auxiliary of the men's rights movement unless they insist on defining themselves that way—but we aren't responsible for that. They don't take marching orders from men, and it ought to gladden the heart of any feminist that empowered women will be mauling feminism on their own initiative.

So, within the non-feminist revolution, men and women have their respective business and their respective space. That is how it should be in life as well; it is a vision which our revolution can grow into like a pair of boots.

But all of that is to dream of the future. A worthy occupation, to be sure, yet the present likewise deserves our attention, especially nowadays while it is indeed present. Therefore, we need next to outline the exact apportionment of tasks which ought to fall to men and women respectively, in order that the non-feminist revolution will move forward efficaciously.

In our movement, men and women both will spend time talking to people in order to sway them and eventually recruit them. But there is a logic to this procedure, a method to it—a template, you might call it. And into this template both men's business and women's business must be appropriately slotted.

I will discuss the role of women, but toss in some occasional words about the role of men as well, in order to balance the picture.

Bear in mind that each sex will communicate with especial proficiency to itself AS itself. Accordingly, women who agitate against feminism will make the best use of their time, energy, and natural talents if they give special thought to the uncommitted women among their auditors. Being women themselves, they can talk to other women in a way that men cannot, by which I mean that they can talk to women AS women. They are "from the hood"; they speak the language; they are able to navigate in female spaces, to broach topics, to introduce ideas, to initiate dialogues with women in a way no man can hope to emulate.

But women can speak to women as women not just in a charming or persuasive way, but if necessary, in a harsh way—voicing anger with them, chastising them, taking them to task. Simply put, women can SHAME women AS women—and again, they can do this in a way that men cannot. Whether they are berating women-at-large for any kind of reprobate behavior, or speaking daggers to feminist women in particular, they know the psychology of their listeners in a way that only an insider can know it.

Furthermore, women can say things to women which, for political reasons, men would find it imprudent to say and which, for the very reason that a woman says it, a feminist could not so easily dismiss or argue against.

Men, in the meantime, should work to reach men as men, by appealing to masculine experience and masculine sensibility. Women can witness to men AS women, of course, and do so to quite good effect by offering the inside female perspective on feminism, or by making clear to men that since many women themselves think poorly of feminism, men needn't feel pressured to support it.

Men, I am very sure, would be the least effective at talking women out of feminism in one-on-one encounters. Best to leave such work to women themselves.

Women, AS women, can shame not only other women, but men especially. Indeed, the power of women to shame men is legendary—although some men are more susceptible to this, and others not so much.

But this is so important it ought to be treated at length. The prospective task as I see it, is very simply that women would shame men for supporting feminism. Various lines of appeal are possible here, depending on the cultural demographic being subjected to this operation. Men from both the right and left of the political spectrum will be found supporting feminism—the former indirectly and naively, the latter aggressively and openly. We shall loosely refer to the latter as the pro-feminist men's movement. We focus on them in particular because, of all male groups supporting feminism, they are by a considerable margin the most mischievous and septic.

It grieves and sickens me above all other things, to see young men and boys, at the vulnerable stage of identity formation, falling into the hands of the pro-feminist men's movement. The latter have developed a widespread mentoring and indoctrinating industry, and they are always looking for opportunities to socially engineer the younger generation.

It is common to think of these people as "traitors" — but I suppose that is a question of semantics. For to be a traitor is to betray, specifically to betray a loyalty once pledged. Otherwise, one is not properly a traitor, but purely and simply an enemy. However, I cannot bother myself to untangle that skein, which at all events would profit me nothing. Enemy, traitor . . . it's all the same in the end. I call them simply "collaborationists", a usage I would recommend to all.

The members of the pro-feminist men's movement have aligned themselves with feminism for complex reasons, but rest assured, they would not be doing this if it held no prospect of reward. Be it psychic, sexual, political, tangible or intangible, these males are gaining something from the bargain they have concluded. Now, since I lack the time or patience to explicate the nuances, I'll wrap it up simply: these fellows are positioning themselves as the male ruling class in a projected feminist social order. For all of their angelic rhetoric, what they truly seek is POWER. Their chief conflict is with men of a different sub-cultural or socio-economic class than themselves, and they wish to become the top dogs. To that end, they have concluded an arrangement with, loosely speaking, "women", but more accurately feminism.

There is simply no way that the feminist ensemble of anti-male innovations could have been set in place without, paradoxical as it sounds, male support. It was so in the beginning, and it needs to be ongoing or else the innovations would swiftly be eroded and nullified by the sheer force of male non-cooperation and male solidarity. The feminist anti-male power structure could not continue existing without a class of male iscariots permanently installed within that structure.

And these men, as said, make a proper target for the shaming action of non-feminist female agitators. They are, as they have abundantly demonstrated, vulnerable to female opinion—especially in their proclivity to be "so open-minded that they can't take their own side" (a trait which may be played upon!).

Accordingly, you may inform them that they are deaf to the diversity of women's voices, and therefore insensitive to women's real needs. You may aver that their concern for "women" is essentially phony and rooted in their own psychopathology. You may convey to them that their evident want of self-respect makes them unworthy of your own respect, while at the same time making plain your personal feelings about feminism. You may impress upon them that they are not helping women by supporting feminism, that you are not pleased by the position they have taken, and that you will not support them socially or politically. Finally, you may submit to them that they are betraying other men, and that they ought to feel ashamed. You may communicate all of this either by direct conversation, or by injecting your message into every form of media you can access, so that the word will reach the targeted group by ambient circulation.

So much then, for the role of women in the game of non-feminist agitation. I have only begun to sketch the possibilities, but I wanted to offer a few suggestions as pointers for continued study. At any rate, this has been a long talk, and I think it is past time to wrap it up and draw to a conclusion.

The non-feminist revolution is a pattern, a paradigm, a path-breaking pilot project for a range of other innovationary initiatives. A life-sustaining balance of energy between male and female may, in the traffic of such endeavors, be brought about through spontaneous forces of organic development. If there is a viable social contract to be developed in the course of all this, it will emerge from the many reforms that will be set in motion, and upon the foundation of trust established while making this happen. In the end, I foresee the day when a dynamic coalition of sociopolitical forces, involving both men and women, will pin the beast of feminism in a kind of permanent wrestler's hold.

Very well. I have offered a number of policy suggestions in the present speech, and sheer luck, combined with my feeble powers of persuasion, might prevail on one or two people to swing these into practice. Accordingly, if you've a mind to such work, go forth and share these words with other women—and men too. More importantly, share your own words, but choose them wisely and make them count.

All the best to you.