Friday, April 30, 2010

CF Headquarters

The blog has hit another one of its periodic droughts. I am not only too unmotivated to write anything, but my brain simply will not put out, even if I wanted it to.

But I feel guilty about not updating the blog. . . and I feel guilty about feeling guilty about this, too!

Here I offer you a glimpse of the Inner Sanctum. Yes, this is where all of the counter-feminist goodness originates. It is. . . THE SOURCE.

From here, it spreads all around the planet in every direction. This is Fidelbogen's very own private office at the CF World Headquarters, located in a maze of catacombs deep beneath the Austrian Alps. Here, the Counter-Feminist Agents of Change (CFACs) attend a brutally hard training academy, from whence they are dispatched to their assignments in the vineyard, worldwide! Here too the grand Fidelbogen himself, Serene Imperial Pontifex Maximus of the Non-Feminist Revolution, whiles away his idle hours playing poker with the last holdouts of the Hapsburg Empire, who are his office-mates.

The image above appears as in a dream, in a midnight mood of silence and solitude. Edward Hopper could have painted this little roomscape. . .

Monday, April 26, 2010

CF Podcast: The Tenth

Here is Counter-Feminist podcast number ten:

You may download the MP3, for local consumption and propaganda dissemination, at the following URL:

The podscript is taken from the very first post I ever posted on this blog. However, it is not the first time this material has been used for podcasting. Another version (somewhat modified) was recorded by Amfortas roughly a year ago, and is hosted at Soundcloud, HERE:

So now you have a choice between Amfortas's fine, manly British accent. . . and my own dark, villainous Fidelbogian tones! ;)

As always, if you find the sentiments very much to your taste, and of the kind that you would personally broadcast to the world if you had time to dabble in such things, then you can do yourself a service by spreading this podcast either by linking to it, or spreading the MP3 file by various means—especially on college campuses! ;) Use the following snippet if you wish to embed this on your own website:

<embed src="" width="420" height="250" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"> </embed>

Thursday, April 22, 2010

A Feminist Joke

All right. Here is a funny, mean-spirited joke about feminists, courtesy of Chef Snark of the excellent Remasculation blog:

Q: Why are feminists so obsessed with pop culture?

A: Because they are too dense to appreciate the

Hey, that was a chance for feminist readers to "laugh at themselves" and live down the rusty old canard that "feminists have no sense of humor."

I haven't posted in a while because, frankly, I am frigggin' tired and burnt out. My brain these days is too much like
puréed asparagus to be of any use to blog readers. . . .

Anyhoo... in coming weeks and months I plan to do a lot more of those podcasts. Judging by recent download counts, they are becoming rather popular. So. . . give the people what they want, I reckon! ;)

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

CF Podcast: The Eighth

Here is The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent in podcast form:

For your downloading convenience, the MP3 may be found at the following link:

If the message in this podcast is to your liking, please spread it all over the universe. To embed the audio widget on your own website, use the following code:

<embed src="" width="320" height="200" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"> </embed>

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent

People sometimes like to make things complicated, and I sometimes find that their motive in avoiding simplicity is to avoid realizing, or thinking about, something which they find mentally indigestible.

Consider, for example, the matter of rape. Rape is a complicated subject, and yet . . . in certain connections it is very simple. I would like to enlarge upon that, but first I should point out that it is customary to insert a pious disclaimer in dicey discussions like the one to follow—reassuring everybody that rape is a terrible, terrible crime, and that one would never excuse or condone it. I say this is customary. However, it is a custom I will ignore. I have never in my life stated that rape is permissible, and if you impute such an opinion to me, and broadcast your imputation under color of fact, then you are guilty of libel or slander.

Nor am I morally obligated to prove how sensitive I am. Sensitivity is very well in its season, but other qualities too, have their season. And in the present case, my emotional posture toward rape simply does not matter. Whether I praise or condemn it, or view it in any emotional context at all, is simply not germane to the points I am raising.

Very well. Rape as a social issue is presently unsettled. It is in flux; you might say it is "swirling". And in the unsettled flux of popular discussion on blogs, web forums and the like, the talk swirls around mere description or mere definition of what might happen in hypothetical rape cases, while shunting aside the unforgiving existential question of what truly DOES happen in actual cases.

They argue back and forth about questions, definitions and possible scenarios: Is date rape really rape? Is marital rape really rape? What percentage of rapes go unreported? What percentage of women get raped in their lifetimes? What is or isn't 'consent'? And ought she know better than attend a party where horny frat boys are present? And if she dresses provocatively, does she deserve it? And if she goes back to his room with him, does that mean she wants it? And what if she happens to be drunk? And what if HE happens to be drunk? And what about this . . and what about that? Flibberty-jibberty-jibberty!

No, it does not interest me to quibble over the infinite shades of grey which separate consent from non-consent, or to waste much time on mere hypotheticals when the material point does not require them. I confess that I am unspeakably jaded by such meandering, involuted blab sessions, and I believe I am doing certain people an enormous favor when I graciously consent to fry my brain with their tedious, boring, repetitive, hand-wringing drivel— which goes nowhere but 'round and 'round the mulberry bush, and appears to serve no purpose but to evade the real issue.

If there were any point or profit to such talk, I would sing a different tune, but as matters stand, such windy exercises fascinate me in just the same way that counting angels on pinheads would fascinate me, and I have no patience with the countless pinheads who natter ad nauseam about such things. In the end, most of it is bullshit.

And why? Because: in the real world, all of this eventually funnels down to the simple, timeless, bedrock questions of arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, and most of all the jurisprudential and adjudicatory principles which govern these things at their various stages of operation. What are the facts, how do we even know, and can we ever truly know?

Know then, that the majority of rape cases are by their nature unprosecutable. Such is my considered assessment. When you point your finger at somebody and say, "he did such-and-so", you need to prove it. For it is the easiest thing in the world to point your finger and accuse: anybody can do this to anybody, anywhere, at any time. But that does not mean that anybody may send anybody to prison simply by pointing a finger. If you aim to accomplish such a thing, the criminal justice system (at least in theory) makes you work for it by means of a little device called "standards of evidence."

So let us consider the crime of rape. Yes, rape is a felony under law—I do not dispute this.

First, consider that most people are publicity-shy about two activities: 1.) sexual intercourse, and 2.) the commission of crime. In neither of these activities will the average man or woman invite witnesses—these are distinctly private activities. So, rape packs two-for-one because it is both sexual intercourse, and a crime. Briefly, it is a sex crime, and I can assert with confidence that almost no rapist wants to be seen raping. Therefore, the great majority of rape cases have no witnesses apart from the plaintiff and the defendant.

In addition, a somewhat smaller, but still quite large number of rape cases, have no forensic evidence suggesting that the alleged intercourse fits the legal definition of rape, i.e. that it was non-consensual.

Finally, under today's lax standards, a fair number of rape cases lack forensic evidence of any kind — due to the elapsed time from when the rape allegedly occurred, to when the plaintiff filed a police report.

So that is why most rape cases are (in this writer's opinion) inherently unprosecutable: because they amount to little more than her pointing a finger at him without any positive, indisputable, corroborative evidence that a crime was in fact committed. This state of affairs is commonly known as a "he said-she said".

"Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused, tho' never so innocent".

Yes, it is hard to think of a crime which is more difficult to prove than rape. And in saying this, I am saying nothing new. But I say it anyway, because the simple lesson it ought to teach us remains so stubbornly undigested. People cannot or will not learn, because they insist on making it complicated.

I have a modest proposal that would save a lot of time and taxpayer money. Why don't we eliminate all police work and all criminal justice procedure from the rape question by simply holding a lottery? Every male above a certain age would have his name thrown into the lottery pool, and once a year a certain number would be drawn from this pool. The lucky winners would be charged with rape sight unseen, and dispatched straightway to the penitentiary for a predetermined number of years. From this there would be no appeal.

But seriously: the system of rape prosecution that we've presently got, is in a moral and practical sense indistinguishable from the lottery system I have described. And if certain legal innovations go through, this will become even more the case.

Lowering the standard of evidence weaves the net tighter, giving it a smaller mesh. Reversing the burden of proof (if instituted) will augment this effect. These factors can generate more guilty verdicts (hence more convictions), but they can do nothing to differentiate the guilty from the innocent. In fact, the system is not meant to assay guilt or innocence: it is meant to get convictions in conformity to feminism's judicial worldview.

And feminism's judicial worldview is collectivistic. Women-as-a class have been violated by men-as-a-class; such is the feminist narrative. Therefore men-as a-class must pay the penalty as a class. This means that a certain percentage of the class "men" must be sacrificed to meet the requirements of feminist justice—and it doesn't matter who these men actually are or what they've actually done. Male blood is what's wanted and, men being collectively guilty, this may flow in an undifferentiated river from any or all male sources irrespectively. Such is feminism's judicial worldview.

Retribution for collective male guilt is feminism's shadow subtext, meaning that it stays in the shade. So as you might expect, only a few brash individuals at unguarded moments will admit what is happening. Now, in most rape cases, the lack of third-witness corroboration or conclusive forensic evidence makes it well-nigh impossible to ascertain guilt or innocence with any certainty — so the practice is, to railroad the defendant. All the same, a charade of justice must be kept in place, and so the rape lottery is dressed in black robes and procedural frills.

And that is why the only thing which matters is the existential positionality of the innocent defendant — his particular Golgotha. He is not "men" in some abstract cloudy way. No, he is a man: a living, breathing, sentient creature who has done no crime, and yet he is being destroyed. And his well-being is of interest to me because his case could be my own, or that of any other man. A feminist does not care about the suffering of men. As the saying goes, "sure, men can suffer, but they cannot be oppressed." In other words, your suffering is of no account to a feminist because you are not "oppressed"—and the distinction between suffering and oppression is, I have been assured, mighty critical!

So, the innocent rape defendant is not oppressed when he is railroaded into prison. Got that? But consistent with the feminist dictum, I am permitted to say that he suffers. And since the feminists do not care about this innocent man's suffering, then I reckon I must take up the slack. In fact, I must do double duty along that line, and re-budget my capacity for caring by redistributing it away from focal points where it might otherwise be applied.

All right. To those who insist on making things complicated, consider that it does not matter to the innocent rape defendant how many rapes go unreported. Nor does it matter how many women get raped in their lifetimes. That information has no bearing at all upon the facts of his particular case. None. Whether it be ten unreported rapes per year, or ten thousand, sheds no light whatever upon his own guilt or innocence in the matter under adjudication. None. And whether ten women get raped during their lifetimes, or all of them do, similarly sheds no light. None. Granted that to the feminist mind, imbued with a collectivistic worldview that seeks retribution, such apparently peripheral data hold a key importance. But to anybody else such data are, as said, peripheral.

As to the matter of consent: if no corroboration is available this becomes, if not peripheral, then at best immaterial. This is where the question of what is or isn't consent becomes nearly fruitless if not entirely so. One may certainly avow in principle that consent ought to be given, and that "no means no". This is easy in classroom discussions or internet bull sessions. But when actual guilt or innocence are at stake in a real life rape trial, and you have only her word against his, then it makes not a damned bit of difference how you gerrymander the line between consent or non-consent. All that matters is to know who is telling the truth. And if you are a feminist, you will say the woman is telling the truth because you cannot afford to say otherwise. As a feminist, you have a confessional interest in upholding the thesis that "women don't lie about rape".

Yet evidence is now to hand, and abundantly so, that women can and do lie about rape and are far from being delicate blossoms in that line of work! This evidence is piling up like stacks of lumber in a warehouse, and the warehouse is getting full. We need to build another one! And if you would persist in telling me that women don't lie about rape, then you would be living in a bubble of cognitive dissonance that could be warrantably termed neurosis.

So let us be deadly clear about what is happening. Innocent men are being torn to pieces, and ANY man might, in principle, live at the mercy of a lying woman. Our civilization has seen fit to bestow such power upon women and such hatred upon men, and the ideological movement called feminism has been the prime instigator in bringing this about. That is the simple, ugly, indigestible truth which lies at the bottom of all the complicated palaver about definitions and hypothetical scenarios. And it is a truth which, by the look of it, our civilization does not want to face honestly and squarely. Feminists certainly do not want to face it; that is no surprise. The surprise is, that large numbers of anti-feminists too would rather dance around with things which are not critical or central. They might be lazy, they might be ignorant, or they might be unconsciously blocking something they find mentally indigestible. I don't much care; I am bloody tired of it.

Innocent souls are being cast upon a sacrificial bonfire. This, as we are instructed to conclude, is not oppression—and I'm sure it is a great semantic comfort for certain men to be told that their suffering is not oppression. Still, it is a sacrifice. A holocaust, if you will. A holocaust of the innocent under color of the judicial. A war on rape is underway, and the powers-that-be figure it is acceptable to make the innocent suffer right along with the guilty, and guess what. . ? They are pondering how to turn the heat up even more!

We must consider, that there might be NO solution to the problem of rape—or at least none that would satisfy a feminist. That is harsh to think about, but what if it's true? Rape could very well end up being one of those god-damned things that we can't do ANYTHING about—or at least nothing that a feminist would find mentally digestible. But did anybody ever tell you that the universe was fair? Naturally, I would be interested to meet the wizard genius (be this man or woman) who can devise a surefire way to INFALLIBLY catch the guilty party in every case, and only the guilty party. I await that day, but I am not holding my breath.

Meanwhile, unless you consider the judicial holocaust of the innocent to be acceptable damage in the war on rape, then I would seriously question whether practical solutions in this domain are realistically (read: humanely and equitably) within reach.

Yes: the judicial holocaust of the innocent. I do not feel that "holocaust" is too strong a word for what is happening here. Just try telling the victim of such abominations that he has NOT been thrown upon a sacrificial fire. That is one meaning of holocaust: a sacrificial fire. And too, a fire which burns up everything. The holocaust of the innocent is a sacrificial fire upon which any and every innocent man might be thrown: in principle, no man is exempt. The guilty, you would say, deserve it—so accordingly, they are not the sacrifice. It is the innocent who are sacrificed, and no innocent man is secure from the reach of those flames—certainly the law affords no protection.

And the inferno spreads, engulfing more and more of the surrounding world—for as befits a holocaust, it is holistic and caustic. The suffering of the innocent is only the beginning, and what happens to them does not happen in a vacuum. Therefore, what happens to them does not stop with them. We must equally consider the fallout upon society. We must consider the ramifications, branching far and wide in all directions, eating deeper and deeper into the social fabric, both holistically and caustically.

Yes: the judicial holocaust of the innocent. That has a ring to it—a ring of truth, I daresay! It is perilous stuff, this incineration of innocent souls under color of law. It is, mark my words, a fire that shall burn us all; a deadly flashpoint that could, in the fullness of time, ignite a deadly social war. And I do mean war; the kind where real blood flows. Literally. Would that be "holocaustic" enough for you? Or would you rather be a holocaust denier?

Oh very well, go back to sleep. I am sorry to have troubled you.


Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Fidelbogian Attitude™

This is for anybody who finds Fidelbogian Attitude™ (albeit in its blander form) entertaining, of utility, or possibly worth emulating. You never can tell what might prove to be politically useful, and of course I am always happy to be useful if at all possible! ;)

Go and quickly read the following, and then dip into the comment thread a little bit. The thread contains upwards of 700 entries. Did I read all of them? Not on your life!

I left a brief item of my own on that comment thread, whereof I share herewith:
"My chief criticism of Knepper's opinion piece is that it was poorly written. He leaves himself open to the "slings and arrows" of his detractors on this comment thread, but if he had practiced rhetorical discipline they'd have been deprived of ammunition and left with nothing to say - or very little.

"Knepper should have thought harder and chosen his words more carefully. Cutting edge writing of the sort which he has attempted here, is a bit like the martial arts. A true master can block, and position himself so rapidly, and so skillfully, that his opponent can never land a blow. Not only that, but the master can actually turn his opponent's energy against him.

"Alex Knepper is, manifestly, not such a master. He has much to learn. . ."
Since posting the above, I have additionally posted the following:
"The central question about rape, which is continually misplaced in the shuffle (especially when the discussion gets heated), is that the majority of rape cases are inherently unprosecutable.

"The only way to MAKE them prosecutable is to LOWER THE STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE.

"This would have the effect that a lot more actual rapists would get convicted and (I would assume) sent to prison.

"It would also have the effect that a lot more innocent men would get convicted and sent to prison.

"So, unless you consider a judicial holocaust of the innocent to be acceptable damage in the "war on rape", then I would aver that practical solutions in this domain are not realistically (read: humanely and equitably) within reach."

Hey, it's nothing fancy, but sometimes "nothing fancy" is just the ticket! ;)

Keep hammering on the essential points. And yes, you can say almost any inflammatory thing you wish if your TONE is not inflammatory! ;)

(Although an inflammatory tone does have its place at times; don't get me wrong!)

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Testing. . Testing

I have decided to try something new. Below, you will find an MP3 widget that will let you listen to the most recent podcast directly on the blog, from your browser. If you have a slow connection this will take a while to load. . . but certainly no longer than it would take to download the MP3 from my file storage.

All right, I want feedback. Tell me about your user experience with this. Does it enhance your experience, or does it suck? Does it make the podcasts more accessible for you than simply downloading the file? Let's hear all about it. And. . . in case you still want to download the file in the old-fashioned way, here once again is the link:

You can also download the file via File > Save Page As. At least that is how my Firefox works. In other browsers, it might be "Save Link" . . . I'm not too sure about that.

Very well, feedback please?

CF Podcast: The Ninth

As promised, I have made an MP3 podcast from the post immediately prior to this one. It is available HERE:

This podcast is a bit different from the others I have produced, given that the script was purpose-made for podcasting. All my other podcasts have been modified versions of old blog posts, but CF9 was, from concept to completion, intended specifically for audio. And this, as you might imagine, inspired me to a whole different way of writing and thinking. It has been a learning experience, for truly a speech is not the same as a treatise. The experience has taught me to take it easy, and to curb my obsessive drive to be infinitely deep, thorough and precise in every point which I lay out. It has taught me to work alla prima, to relax and let it flow, to set down the first clear and simple phrase which occurs to me and to trust that this phrase will, in its clarity and simplicity, carry the weight of my thought with all the precision I could hope for. And nearly always, it does!

Yes, in writing this podscript I have broken some old, deeply entrenched word-smithing habits. So the question now becomes: how long will those old entrenched habits remain broken?

Anyhow . . . if you find yourself in whole-hearted agreement with the content of this latest podcast, feel free to propagate the MP3 file across the universe in whatever manner your ingenuity might suggest.

An Army Outside Their Door

These people will condescend to take us seriously only when they realize that an army has gathered outside their door. That is the only practical development that will move the feminists to reconsider their customary ways toward us. Until then, we must anticipate more of the same from them, ad infinitum. They will talk past us, talk around us, talk down to us, talk us in circles, slander us, misrepresent us, ignore us, feign not to understand us, and so on. None of this will change if practical circumstances continue as we presently know them.

They will continue giving us the runaround for as long as they think they can get away with it. At the same time, they will continue (as they have always done) to move ahead with their political plans on every front, creeping incrementally forward in every theatre of political operation, large or small, in the arrogant self-assurance of those who feel their position is unassailable or that their opposition is hopelessly overmatched or outflanked.

It is futile to argue with such people as feminists, or at least futile to engage them with the art of logic. They are like any other group of fanatical sectarians in that regard, given that they will only use logic when it serves them. But when logic goes against them, they have, be assured, other methods. And in the fullness of time we have become minutely familiar with this gamut of behaviors; our expertise in this realm has bulked large and grown formidable.

We know that in the end, they care only about power. Very early in the game, their seminal writers and thinkers laid down, in quite unmistakable terms, a programme of Feminist Revolution. It was, they made clear, to be a sweeping transformation in all aspects of life both large and small. They framed this in a manner which brooked no opposition, and their behavior down through the years has been consistent with the tone that they established in the beginning. They have consistently operated like a steamroller, flattening (by combinations of emotional shock-and-awe, changing the rules, and intellectual backstabbing) anything or anybody which got in their way.

Power is what they understand and that is the language we must address them in, if we would motivate them to cease their aggression against our sector. They must learn to do the right thing and we must teach them, and if we haven't learned by now that sweet reason is unavailing with these people, then I fear we have learned very little indeed.

So that is why the feminists need to see an army outside their door, for the only argument they will ever genuinely respect is the logic of sheer numbers. They need to see angry faces and hear angry voices; they need to be backed into a corner and made to understand the meaning of raw, primeval fear. Truly, I fear that is the only way with these people: the rest of the universe is not pleased with them!

"Peace, peace, the hypocrites say, but there is no peace!" Somebody, clearly, must teach somebody something about peace.

Yes. When it finally occurs to them that they might have a serious war on their hands, they will learn to modulate their voices, and they will understand why it is in their interest to dial down their sassy, saucy attitude. They will also, I predict, undergo a sudden and seemingly miraculous growth of basic intellectual comprehension. Things which they persistently did not hear or did not understand will all at once become clear as day to them, as if the scales had fallen from their eyes. You will be amazed at how intelligent and insightful they will get almost overnight, once they realize that "playing deaf and stupid" isn't going to fly anymore, and that we aren't falling for that garbage in any case.

We must grow our numbers. We must muster that army. We must recruit. And this is exactly what we've been doing for many years. We've not done it systematically, knowledgeably, efficiently or professionally, but all the same, we have been doing it. And our amateurish effort has paid off. More and more people have come to see feminism as a deadly canker in the body-politic, and are of a mind to take action—only they still don't know what action.

At the risk of sounding a mite silly, I will propose the needful action. It is: more of the same, only more so and better done. In this talk I have tried to make clear that growing our numbers is the winning strategy. It has been successful to date, where arguing has been fruitless. I have noticed that some of the enemy are sobering up in their rhetoric, and sounding a touch more restrained, a shade more circumspect. And I know this is happening for only one reason: because they are fearful of our growing numbers and our growing voice. They are not acting this way because our arguments have persuaded them. If they didn't sense that we were gaining ground, they would be acting just as arrogantly, stupidly and viciously as always.

The beauty of our winning strategy is, that so-called "argument" becomes as easy as rolling rocks down a mountainside at the enemy. We are not arguing "with" the enemy, but arguing "against" them by stating the case to people who are already halfway inclined to be sympathetic to our side, if not entirely so. In argument of this sort, eloquence and charisma are the driving force, and these qualities may certainly be acquired or found ready to our service.

In the long run, the rock slide we are unleashing upon our enemy is of the demographic kind. And it helps greatly that we have truth on our side—tons of it! But we need more agitators, and we need good ones. Well-trained ones who know what they are about, who know exactly who to agitate, and how and when. They of gifted tongue, who know that nine-tenths of speaking well consists in keeping your mouth shut until the perfect moment. Such are the agitators that we need.

Agitators, who agitate people in the right way, give rise to MORE agitators, and the sum of all this agitation is demographic growth—the milling mob with staves and pitchforks, ready to fork feminism and pitch it clean out of civilization altogether. And the next step beyond the milling mob is the trained and disciplined army, camped outside the enemy's door, with a multitude of specialists who may be set to work upon a multitude of specialized tasks. For the task ahead indeed demands skill and craft, a clear head, a clear eye, and a steady hand upon the tiller.

One is not "preaching to the choir". One is recruiting the choir and, having once done so, teaching it to sing better.

In conclusion, let it be said that our enemy has overreached. And if we are wise we'll not repeat their faulty judgment in critical matters. Therefore let us not overreach. Let the game come to us—and believe me, it will! And when it does, let our powder be dry and our forces ready. Let our enemies be the ones to overreach and to continue so doing—and let us offer them, in their extremity, every manner of stumbling-block our ingenuity may devise.

Meanwhile, the army grows outside their door.


Postscriptum: The foregoing will be posted as a podcast within a day.

Monday, April 05, 2010

Here: Feed Your Mind and Spirit!

Behold: Patriarchal-looking Douglas firs, standing erect in the forest and thrusting boldly into the sky! (But they aren't all Douglas firs; the one on the right is a cedar.)

I took this picture. . . ah. . only yesterday, in fact!

All right, that was your eye candy; your dessert—which certain philosophers advise us to "eat first".

Now comes the main meal. It is solid meat and potatoes, with lots and lots of gravy:

You might not agree with every statement the author of this article makes, but all in all you will find that the article richly repays your reading time. I would advise multiple readings, and I would advise that you archive it locally and bring it to the attention of others who would profit by such exposure.

A parting thought. As you are studying the material which I have linked above, do bear in mind that a man who is unjustly accused of rape may "possibly benefit from the experience", and that even if he does not so benefit, the experience should ideally set in motion a train of reflection about the oppression of women, and that when he reflects upon the terrible things that are being done to women in a distant country halfway around the world, he will understand that he has nothing to complain about. Then maybe he will shut his privileged yapper and go to prison with a smile, and maybe writers like me will grow a moral conscience and similarly shut the hell up!

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Eh Yah