Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Redstockings Manifesto - Part 3

Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!

Today's talk, is part 3 of a podcast series concerning the Redstockings Manifesto, an early feminist document which in my opinion lays bare most of what is essential to feminism. Yes, you could throw away nearly everything else that people say feminism is, and feminism would remain intact upon the strength of what the Redstockings Manifesto contains. But if you throw away Redstockings, feminism both as an ideology and as a movement would amount to little better than loose straw, and this loose straw would scatter in the wind in very short order. ..

To recap briefly, the Redstockings Manifesto was published in New York City in 1969, and its principal author appears to have been the Marxist-inspired Shulamith Firestone—who also wrote a well-known book called The Dialectic of Sex.

Redstockings differs from the preachings of Valerie Solanas or of Rasa von Werder (of "woman thou art god" notoriety) in that it does not expressly advance the idea of female supremacy. Granted that by its hostility toward men it paves the way to such a conclusion, but it falls short of stating the conclusion in set terms.

Redstockings also amounts to an elliptical summary of the patriarchy theory, even though the word patriarchy itself nowhere appears. Again, as with female supremacy, Redstockings suggestively paves the road to such a conclusion—and both conclusions are easily supplied by any reader so inclined.

But for our purpose, the most important thing about the Redstockings Manifesto is that nobody can plausibly aver that it isn't really feminism. Redstockings is very much indeed a politically conceived feminist document—a kind of party platform. I would be interested to meet the feminist answer expert who could put the case otherwise. I believe that Redstockings contains so much that is essential to feminism, that to shine a blazing daylight upon it would be the same as if we had pulled up feminism altogether by the roots.

And knowing Redstockings to be essentially feminist, we can easily use it for a measuring rod. We need only line it up against a given body of speech or writing to obtain a rough-and-ready spectral analysis.

Further, we can challenge any self-declared feminist to put her money where her mouth is. For example, if for some odd reason she insists that Redstockings "isn't really feminist", we can reasonably require of her that she disown it, and thereafter restate for our benefit what she thinks feminism really means—simply as a way of setting the record straight! And more: we can place her words and actions under a microscope for any sign of intellectual complicity with the Redstockings ideology, and demand the highest standards of probity in her conduct.

If she agrees that Redstockings is feminist, but perkily informs us that she herself is some different kind of feminist, then her case varies only superficially from that outlined above. Either way, it comes to the same thing: she finds the document embarrassing and wants to distance herself. And either way, we would hold her feet to the same fire.

Finally, if our hypothetical feminist proudly declares herself a Redstockings loyalist and bids us go to the devil, then she will have damned herself out of her own totalitarian mouth—which is to say, she will have metaphorically inserted her head in the noose. We would thereafter hold her to a nuanced accounting for the nuanced implications of her stated credo.

By the end of the day, the world contains two kinds of people: those who will abjure the Redstockings Manifesto, and those who won't. Friends, that is how we separate the sheep from the goats. Redstockings seems almost purpose-made for the job because it covers so much territory in such a small package. I could hardly ask for a more concise resumé of feminism's core principles—and almost anybody can read it in five minutes.

Now, up to this point I have hinted at the usefulness of Redstockings as a social arm-twisting device in one-on-one scenarios. But I wish to dial the lens back, in order to take in the broader landscape of macro-political operations. We need not only to work this thing upon private individuals, but to impress the very same understanding upon the public mind at large. .

So, we need to make the Redstockings Manifesto famous. Most people have never heard of it, and that is a collective mental deficiency that ought to be remedied. For this manifesto is nothing less than a political watershed marker, a fact that should be impressed upon people in great numbers. And so the Redstockings Challenge goes out to the entire world, calling any and all to take a stand upon one or the other side of a great moral and existential dividing line.

Our endeavor is to advertise the existence of the Redstockings Manifesto, what it contains, and most of all what it signifies in raw political terms. We would like to use Redstockings as a wedge issue in order to generate polarization around a flashpoint. We want to split the world straight down the middle into two conflicting camps—those who embrace Redstockings and all it entails, and those who adamantly reject it.

All of which is simply another way of saying, that we wish to pound a wedge between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector, to ratchet up the tension between them, to force an open confrontation between them, and to generate an energy for change.

And at the same time, we wish to throw feminism everywhere on the defensive, to block the expansion of its power, to collapse its fuzzy borders, and to make the obfuscation of its actions progressively more difficult.

I say, isn't it swell to have your enemy all sewn up into one neat little bag? Think about it. Then, share the thought with others.

Fidelbogen. . . .out.


The podcast version of this will follow in the near future. Actually, it would have followed right now, but. . . my recording software "unexpectedly quit" while I was in the final editing stages and, wouldn't you know it, I had NOT backed up the .aup file even once. Not once! So all of my work was lost!!

That was a harsh lesson which, from henceforth, shall not be wasted on me.

In the meantime, you might want to get acquainted with the two earlier podcasts in this series:

Part One:

Part Two:

Monday, June 28, 2010

Efficient Political Worldview (Redux)

Feminism is an aggressive ideological worldview which pretends to explain the world and all of human life according to a certain narrative—namely, its own. And the continued existence of feminism as a political life form requires a perpetual expansion into non-feminist territory, and a colonization of that territory whether the inhabitants want it or not. In the end, feminism wishes to become the world, and to reduce everybody else to a subaltern pattern of existence.

The following 14-page treatise proposes to draw the line against feminism by a device called the sector system. This system will make possible a counter-narrative, a counter-discourse, and a moral high ground against feminist depredation. In the end, feminism will find itself bottled up and forced into auto-cannibalism:

If you find the sentiments expressed in this treatise very much to your taste, then you may be of help if you spread the PDF among subversive scholars and freethinkers of your aquaintance.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Misandry: The Hating of Men and Things Male

The following post on the Spearhead is, in my opinion, a very useful eye-opener. I think you ought to give it a read. For even if one would insist that "feminism" is not a hate movement, the evidence of pervasive male-bashing in the culture at large is persistent, omnipresent, and hard to miss unless you are "filtering" it. Thank heaven for MRAs, who make it a career to bring such things to our attention:

As you are scanning down that list of man-hating book titles, consider the difficult search you would have, to find an equivalent trove of woman-hating material. It just ain't out there, folks!

This MIGHT be explainable (just maybe) by claiming that men overall don't hate women to the same extent that women hate men. Another explanation might be, that all the misogyny gets censored and silenced by the "lace curtain" effect, which permits only the female aspect of the disease to shine through — but what would that tell you about the comparative institutional power base of women as against that of men? So neither of these alternatives add up to a case that any feminist would care to put forward. . . do they?

Anyhow. . I wrote an entry on the reader thread over yonder, and I thought it was fairly good, so I share it here. It was in response to a commenter who signs herself as 'Laura10':

“Those women are on the very fringe of feminism. They are radical and very small in number.”

They are not the fringe of feminism; they are the root; the core; the fuel rod in the reactor. Without women like them, feminism would effectively cease to exist as a political life-form.

It is the mild, lukewarm ones who in fact are the “fringe”— the comparatively bland suburbia surrounding the seething inner city, as it were.

Small in number, you say? Sure, if you mean in proportion to the total female population of the planet. But in proportion to the self-declared feminist population, they are a much larger fraction.

Andrea Dworkin was an extremist among extremists. Trust me, you can find scads of feminists and feminoids (both the academic and the ‘pop’ variety) who mightn’t be quite as bad as Dworkin, but still reek to the high heavens. Don’t believe me? Then spend as much time studying feminist websites and reading feminist literature as I have done . . .

(Not that I *enjoy* doing this, but I take the pursuit of knowledge seriously enough to do it anyway.)

Female supremacist thinking and anti-male emotion in all of its spectral shades is well-represented throughout the feminist community both past and present. DISAFFECTION TOWARD MEN AND ALL THINGS MALE is the glue that binds feminism together as a cultural entity, and the motive force that keeps it moving right along.

Subtract that element of disaffection, and feminism as a social organism would disintegrate, dissipate and rapidly be forgotten.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A Counter-Feminist Theory of the State (Redux)

The feminized and anti-male nature of the state voids any social contract binding upon men - no such contract objectively exists. Neither feminism nor the state has any ground of moral authority.

You have no political obligation toward women, either individually or as a class. Your transaction with any individual woman is constructed entirely upon a moral law within yourself.

The following political treatise, in PDF format, explains in detail why the foregoing is true:

Please distribute freely to freethinkers and scholars who might find it helpful.


Note: the following also pertains:

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Amanda Marcotte Says That
You Want to Rape Her!

That headline got your attention, didn't it??

And you might want to know more about it. Did Amanda Marcotte really say this? Well you can be the judge. Have a look at the following egregious gaffe and then tell me what your verdict is:

"I concede that a tiny, inconsequential fraction of rape accusations are false. But I also won't be alone in a room with a man that goes on and on about false rape accusations. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives." - Amanda Marcotte - 06/08/2010, 13:08:43
So, Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying (in the blasé tonality of a young urban sophisticate) that any man who will not be silent about false rape accusation is a potential rapist!

Yes. That is what Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying.

And not only a "potential" rapist, but a probable one too! Notice her exact wording:

"Said obsession indicates ulterior motives."

Amanda Marcotte does not soften that phrase with modifiers. She does not inform us that said obsession only might indicate ulterior motives, that it only implies or hints at such motives, or that she only feels that it so implies or so hints.

Nor does she employ the Dennis Miller gambit, by saying "that's my opinion, I could be wrong."

No, she lays her position down in blunt, unequivocally factualistic terms. On the plain face of Amanda Marcotte's words, there is naught else to infer but that any man who is "obsessed" with the issue of false rape accusation has "ulterior motives" — not might have, but HAS! Clearly and categorically!

Amanda Marcotte has used a weasel sentence, as I will call it. For she does not directly tell us what she means by "ulterior motives", but embeds this in a context that leaves almost no room for any interpretation but the one I have indicated.

Once again: that any man who will not be silent about false rape accusation is a potential rapist!

Yes. That is what Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying.

Such a man's ostensible motive might be political, but according to Amanda Marcotte his ulterior motive is personal. How very like a feminist, to amalgamate the personal with the political! So in plain English, Amanda Marcotte is saying that such a man is motivated by the personal desire to commit rape. I see no other construction to draw from Amanda Marcotte's words.

Why else would Amanda Marcotte not be alone in a room with such a man? Does Amanda mean to say, that if she were alone in a room with such a man he would try to sell her the Brooklyn bridge, or steal her handbag, or entrap her in a drug trafficking sting? Would that be his ulterior motive?

Or. . . does Amanda mean to say, that if she were alone in a room with such a man, he would try to rape her?

Yes, that is what I think Amanda Marcotte means to say. I really do.

And so, tying this all together once again, Amanda Marcotte says that if you are a man who "goes on and on" about false rape accusation, then she would not be alone in a room with you because she expects that you would have the ulterior motive of raping her.

Let us be extremely clear: Amanda Marcotte is saying that men (such as your present author) who are passionately outspoken on the subject of false rape accusation, are really just rapists at heart.

That is what Amanda Marcotte is saying. Yes, I say it, and if Amanda has anything to say for herself she can jolly well speak up loud and straight.

Amanda is guilty until proven innocent. It is not our task to prove Amanda Marcotte—or any other feminist—innocent of being a feminist!

Personally, I would not be alone in a room with Amanda Marcotte because I think she would harbor the ulterior motive of falsely accusing me, and would gladly see me go to prison—especially after reading this! Yes, I think Amanda Marcotte is exactly that kind of person. I am convinced that she is morally capable of this; I do not put it past her.

And I don't need to prove a bloody thing, so she had better get busy and talk her way out of it!

Yes: Amanda Marcotte is a potential rape liar!

I say she is.

In addition, Amanda Marcotte is a sickening moral idiot, a brazen intellectual coward, a filthy sexist bigot, and to top it off, a plain old-fashioned hypocrite. And she is unafraid to flaunt these qualities loudly and proudly because she thinks she can get away with it. Po' little princess never got a taste of her own shit when she was growing up. Somebody spoiled her. She fancies herself bullet-proof to the critical gaze and moral intelligence of other people only because she is STUFFED FULL OF HERSELF. And full of other ingredients also, I might add.

Furthermore, as a strong, independant feminist woman, Amanda Marcotte is "empowered" to behave this way. You see, Amanda is not alone—she has peer support! The entire feminist tribe of planet Earth, male and female alike, has got her back! Ain't that swell? Amanda Marcotte need not ever answer to anybody except a "jury of her peers"—because non-feminists and all those other "little people" aren't really people at all . . . are they?

But anyhow, don't play chickenshit with me, Amanda Marcotte! If you think I am a "potential" rapist, then step right up and say it to my face. Just say it!

And if you really, really think I would rape you if I were alone with you, then step right up and say that to my face. Just say it!

I have already told you exactly what I think of YOU: I think that you, Amanda Marcotte, would lie about rape and never give it a second thought!

All right, so you got something to say to ME now?? Then be a "man" about it , grrrl! I dare you.

You are perfectly entitled to your "opinion", as I am entitled to mine, and I will not hold it against you. But here's the deal: I want you to be OPEN about this! I want you to scream it in my face and then scream it to the whole wide world! Don't be bashful! Go for it, you little potential rape liar!

Front and center, Amanda! Front and center!


Go now, immediately, and read the following at the False Rape Society:

Monday, June 21, 2010

Some Good Stuff for You

In these recent days, I have been slow to post. That is because I am profoundly frazzled, burnt-out, benumbed and exhausted: more than I wish to say and more than you need to hear. The well is dry, at least until prolonged rain or snowmelt in distant mountain ranges replenishes the aquifer.

But I shan't leave you with naught. At the following, you will discover a trove of good, rich counter-feminist "dirt":

The odd thing is, that I have no idea if the people who run that website consider themselves "feminist" or not. I sincerely hope for their sake that they do not. Feminism is merely a word, words mean different things to different people, and sometimes (although not always) it is more sensible to find a new word than to convince people that the original word means what you think it means and not what they think it means.

The people who run the above website, and have provided us with such useful material, might find it sensible to call themselves "liberal humanists" or something like that. Otherwise, they might risk the fate which commonly overtakes "moderate" members of any hated ideology when a revolution against said ideology gets rolling.

At any rate, you will find a long list of PDF files over yonder, which I'm sure you'll want to download, archive, and propagate by all means to all interested parties in all quarters. :)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Latest on EDM-105

Please go to the following, at the False Rape Strike Force blog:

There you will learn the latest about our campaign to combat the Early Day Motion in Parliament, which seeks to block anonymity for rape defendants.

To all UK readers, please think seriously about getting involved in the British Isles phase of this business.

My next installment will discuss the international phase.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

A Coalition of Rebel Forces Converging Upon Feminism's Empire

The following e-mail arrived yesterday, from an organization called 'Interpaal'. As my custom is, I will let the material speak for itself and afterwards make it a springboard for my own thoughts:



Today 16th June 2010, sees the historic launch of a global human rights campaign by the ‘International Parents Alliance’ (INTERPAAL), calculated to bring to an end the crises in international family law, responsible for the destruction of millions of parent/child relationships worldwide. By presenting all past, current and future victims, with the opportunity to make a compelling personal statement, the voiceless have now been given a voice.

The attached ‘International Boycott of Family Courts’ campaign document finally provides a historic global rallying point and valuable support, to all those demanding that governments uphold their human rights obligations, to effectively protect the parent/child relationships of their citizens.

Working in their capacity as a solution based think tank, ‘INTERPAAL’ first focused on clearly identifying the (4) prime causal factors responsible for destroying so many parent/child relationships. Importantly, all four prime causal factors were unmistakably found to be inter-related, as are the numerous secondary effects.

Next they produced a legal, non-violent, gender-neutral campaign model, based on equality and social justice for all. The resulting document sets out the four (4) non- negotiable core demands considered absolutely vital to achieve effective change. The global alliance makes this historic ‘International Boycott of Family Courts’ campaign document freely available in 11 different languages.

Millions of dispossessed biological parents, victim children as well as every extended family member around the world, now have the means to make a self-empowering personal protest in support of their human rights, and so join this grass roots rebellion, against the wholesale destruction of families.

The ‘International Boycott of Family Courts’ document can be used in many areas of family justice activism, will be widely available on-line, and accommodates the urgent desire of every concerned citizen to be able to personally pressure their elected representatives into supportive action.

Beginning today, the boycott will continue until international family laws comply with every responsible parents’ fundamental human right to be a parent, ensuring each parent obtains the protection of a legal equal parenting right to remain part of his/her biological children’s lives.

Widespread support for a grass roots rebellion is illustrated by Sir Bob Geldof ‘s recent comments on the family justice system. Sir Bob accused the family courts, of state-sanctioned kidnap and challenges the moral credibility of the family law industry by asking, ‘How long before just one of them admit they have it all wrong and apologize to their myriad of victims?

Sir Bob perhaps prophetically points out: ‘In the near future the family law under which we endure, will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act’.

For all international media enquiries please contact our Media Unit at:

Well. I hope that intrigued you, and inspired you, and gave you an impression of movement (as opposed to stagnation) in the greater domain of events. For I think it is safe to say that things are moving, even if it does feel slow, frustrating, fragmented, uncoordinated, and even if motion is not always evident upon the everyday face of life.

Now, the memo I have shared does not talk about feminism—and I'm sure any feminist on earth would be quick to point that out! Furthermore, I cannot affirm that Interpaal, as an organization, assumes any political stance toward feminism as such. At any rate, nothing in their rhetoric offers any direct clue about that, although I would be happy to opinion-poll their members as individuals.

Anyway, Interpaal is attacking a global crisis which feminism is largely responsible for creating in the first place, and for condoning and rationalizing at the later stages. For better or worse, the feminists are quite smug about all this, and shamefully slow to work up any sense of moral urgency whatsoever. Their customary behavior is to minimalize, trivialize, compartmentalize, change the subject, or shift the blame by issuing slanders against father's rights activists. So clearly, somebody must pull the feminists up by a short rope. However, one thing at a time. . .

The breaking-apart of marriages and families is a global crisis—meaning that it's all over the planet. This we have long known. And we know it is a feminist goal—their leading writers and thinkers announced this years ago. And now we see it happening, all over the world, right before our eyes! You may wish to inform me that "correlation is not causation", but if you do, I am permitted to be equally shallow and clever: where there is smoke there is fire!

All right, so the feminists are world class cop-out artists. Nothing new here; we've always known it. And so they are perfectly happy to wash their hands of things which they originally had a hand in. Global family crisis? Don't blame feminism!

Well, I do blame feminism. Enough said.

But feminism is much more than an ideology or a movement: it is an empire. It is a sum total of practical operations, applications and effects which support, either directly or indirectly, the goal of female supremacy. It is a feministical operations complex; a femplex, you might say. And for that reason it is possible to make war on feminism simply by attacking its variegated nodes and regions of invested socio-political energy. These attack points need not even be clearly labelled as feminism, and so you need not be a conscious anti-feminist of any kind in order to make war on feminism.

So how do you know when you have struck gold? Easy: it is when you strike a nerve! Watch and listen. Feminist voices will pipe up querelously, even stridently, and feminist jargon will fill the air. You might not be aware that you are attacking feminism, but their early warning radar system is set on hair trigger! You may depend on it, that they know precisely where their bread is buttered, and if you tamper with their bread or butter in any way (personally OR politically), you'll quickly be informed.

Briefly then, you know you are attacking feminism when feminists raise a stink about what you are doing—whatever that might be! And it might surprise you. In fact, it could make you aware for the first time in your life that you are a non-feminist . . . or even an anti-feminist!

Little by little, the non-feminist sector becomes ACTIVATED. And by that I mean that growing numbers of neutral non-feminists decide, for one reason or another, to jump down on the "anti" side of the fence. Something inspires them; something triggers them; something makes the bead click over; something opens their eyes. To be an activated partisan of the non-feminist sector, means to identify feminism specifically as the root of the particular evil you are opposing, in contrast to those who merely attack feminist power nodes without comprehending that such is the nature of their target.

And so we see a motley coalition of persons, organizations and entities converging upon the feminist empire like Vandals and Visigoths, under color of the various causes which they espouse, and not always knowing that they are in league with each other. Some of these entities have identified feminism as the core of what they are attacking, and some of them have not. And yet, within most of these groups will be found individuals who know where it's at, and are now more or less consciously allied with the non-feminist revolution. THEY have identified feminism as the problem, and they have made their political choice accordingly.

"MRA", the Magical Reflex Acronym, is a term which I (the present writer) apply to myself. And why should I not? It delineates in clear, objective terms what I clearly and objectively do, namely: advocate for the rights of men. That packs it into a nutshell; it is right on the money because it says neither too much nor too little.

And yet, it says both too much AND too little. "MRA", as terminology, was generated ad hoc, by those angry men of yore who grew weary of constantly typing "men's rights activist" on newslists, forums and the like. Such abbreviation was bound to occur, and being catchy, it quickly caught on. However, it was not the product of any systematic ideology or structured worldview; thus, the chaotic nature of its origin haunts us even to the present day, introducing chaos into our talking and thinking—a condition which our enemies have exploited, by the way.

But I'm afraid we'll just have to live with this, because the term "MRA" is so convenient and so catchy that I'm sure people will never stop using it. Yes, it is embedded in our language and discourse, so I fear we are stuck with it! So let our enemies say what they will, and let us depend on our growing numbers, our growing charisma, and our growing infiltration of power structures to eventually silence them.

The term "men's movement" presents many of the same difficulties which MRA presents, and yet. . . we are stuck with it too!

A perplexity confronts us, given that many of the rebel coalition presently chewing away at different sectors of the feminist empire either do not call themselves MRAs, or have never even heard the expression. That could make it hard to clarify our taxonomy. And yet, the confusion may work to our advantage in a practical way because, so far, the feminists have been stunningly myopic about the essential character of the conflict. To them, "MRA" is a kind of simple-simon shorthand for an amorphous wall of hostile forces whose true extent, and true compostion, completely baffles them. All of that writhing chaos, which scares them and defies their comprehension, is quite idiotically summarized by them under the "MRA" rubric. "If we act sufficiently snotty and patronizing", they seem to be thinking, "maybe the barbarians will fade away!" This is a common psychology among ruling classes who are about to get their ass handed to them—call it a form of denial.

Therefore, under the protective shadow of feminist ignorance we may operate unseen and with surprising openness, while the feminists busy themselves among the phantoms of their collective imagination. Let them call us what they will, and let them believe what they tell themselves about us—it means they cannot see us . . . and so we are invisible!

That brings me back to the Interpaal e-mail posted above. I will not call Interpaal an MRA organization, for it would be presumptuous of me to do so. And yet, a solitary cold, hard, salient fact towers above the prairie like a blazing beacon: they sent me an e-mail—I of all people! And they sent it for a reason; I cannot think otherwise. They sent it because they deemed me a likely candidate for such communication.

Interpaal is just another army in the rebel coalition, marching against the feminist empire as you will plainly see if you study their literature or browse their website. They do not speak of feminism in any form, although their endeavor could not be anything but damaging to feminism as a political life form. Witness further, that they kindly sent a message to a website that calls itself the COUNTER-FEMINIST, which hints very strongly that such a title was unobjectionable to them. They surely know what my political stance toward feminism is, and yet they see me as an ally. So it appears there is a Magnetic Chain of Karma which binds me to them, and them to me. Such is the character of the non-feminist revolutionary coalition.

I call myself an MRA. And at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I will venture to inform you that Interpaal does not call itself an MRA organization. And you know what? I'm fine with that!

Vive la difference!

Vive La Révolution!

Monday, June 14, 2010

Proposed Activism Campaign

Our dark, nefarious cabal of men's rights hooligans is setting sail upon the stormy waters of activist politics, and we invite you all to be our shipmates for the voyage.

To that end, I have just posted the following at the 'False Rape Strike Force' blog (where I am a co-publisher):

As you will note, it is all about the recent parliamentary doings in England. I trust that you will find it self-explanatory, and that you'll keep an eye on that space in the coming days. The FRSF blog is meant to serve as the launchpad for such activities, so I would urge all fellow workers in the vineyard to direct web traffic thataways by all available means in order to gather momentum for the project that we now have in hand.

Go now; I will see you again over there!

Thursday, June 10, 2010

A Voluminous Stash

This is off-topic for the blog. . . or maybe not?

But I'm 'God' around these parts, so I can get away with such things! Har har!

Very well. I have stumbled upon an ample, well-rounded online library of G.K. Chesterton books—a trove of quite considerable heft and girth, in PDF format. These are free for download, and you will find them HERE:

I believe that many of you cutting-edge MRAs out yonder would enhance your 'inner game' by exposing yourselves to this particular writer, with his uniquely sardonic eye for the human condition! ;)

Classic Chesterton-ism: A thief respects private property. He just wants to make it his own so he can respect it more fully.

I wonder if the average feminist appreciates Chesterton? Somehow, I doubt it. ;)

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Feminism is an Object for the World (Redux)

Here is the latest from the CF Propaganda Ministry. It is the cybertract version of a post from 1.5 years ago. The elite, cutting-edge MRA philosophers who compose the bulk of this blog's readership will find this to be a lengthy and quite rigorous schooling in a number of foundational counter-feminist doctrines. In other words, lots of bang for your buck—and best of all. . it is free! Also, I am sure that plenty of recently-arrived readers have never before encountered this item. The 14-page PDF is 93 KB in size, which will take all of 12 seconds to download:

"Is feminism a good thing? The opposing sector will NOT be happy to hear this. It is blasphemy to even intone such a query at all, and it will make them madder than a one-legged kangaroo on a skateboard— particularly if the question will not go away! Particularly if the question pops up everywhere, again and again, more and more as time goes by, and always in a voice that is unfailingly nonchalant and blander than butterscotch pudding.

"Eventually, the question will settle into the landscape, take root, and grow. Then the culture will not be rid of it, particularly when a popular discourse springs to life around it, and people grow addicted to the liberative enjoyment such discourse introduces into their lives."
As always, if you find the sentiments very much to your taste, and of the kind that you yourself would wish to see propagated . . . then propagate them! By e-mailings, CD-ROMs, posted links. . .etc, etc. . . ;)

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

The Essentially Violent and Criminal
Nature of Feminism

Following the example of Snark, I shall draw attention to a hard-hitting sermon lately posted by Welmer on The Spearhead. In fact, I am re-posting it below, in its entirety:
"Feminists and their satellite organizations like NOMAS always pretend to deplore violence. They consistently claim to be striving for a nonviolent society, and to be opposed to all forms of physical force. Usually, they take a stand against “violence against women,” but sometimes they suggest that a peaceful society in general is their goal.

"This is a snow job. It is not really nonviolence that these people want, but power. Whether raw or distilled, they crave the intoxicating rush of power. Solanas, perhaps the only truly honest feminism out of the entire lot of them, openly advocated murder and slavery. She exulted in the idea of murder and destruction, and was – and still is – cheered on for it.

"But one need not read Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto to see that the claims of peaceful intentions are false; the facts on the ground bear witness to the violent intent of feminism. To achieve the power they lust for, feminists and their allies have passed laws that result in a great many men being imprisoned for anything from grabbing the wrist of a woman who was hitting them to losing their jobs and being unable to pay child support. Imprisonment is a form of violence, and is recognized as such by law.

"Not only are men imprisoned, they are beaten or arrested with excessive force every day. Witness the case of the man set upon by dogs at the behest of his ex-wife in Tennessee. Every year, scores of men are shot and killed by police responding to domestic disputes. In many cases it is the police response, mandated by feminist law, that precipitates the crisis. Men who couldn’t afford child support orders are beaten and raped in jail and prison. Some have died there. Untold thousands have been driven to suicide.

"This, to the feminists, is 'nonviolence'.

"Achieving domination by turning uniformed men with guns on their enemies is the means by which feminists pursue their aims. Throwing men in jail is how they do it. Forcing confessions from men who are under threat of imprisonment and losing their children is another method.

"Shooting people works for feminists.

"Beating people is OK.

"Attacking men with dogs? Just fine.

"Confiscating property is considered 'benign' from a feminist point of view.

"Shocking and gassing people to subdue them is all in a day’s work.

"Caging impoverished fathers like animals is 'justice'.

"There is no country in the world that practices this brutality to the same degree as the United States, but others, such as Australia, Canada and the UK, are catching up. What we have to recognize is that men have paid an enormous price for so-called women’s liberation, which has brought the world little more than Oprah, Hillary Clinton and the worn out, skeletal old hags of Sex and the City. Oh, and lest I forget, rampant illegitimacy, hundreds of millions of victims of broken families, and enormous, incalculable social welfare costs.

"Men have lost a great deal of liberty. Men have lost a great deal of property. Millions of men have lost their children. Many men have lost their freedom, and many their lives.

"If there is such a thing as a human rights crisis, this is one, and yet the feminists make the rounds as though they have halos floating over their heads. You’d think they are all clones of Mother Teresa from the deference they are shown in public and the mainstream press.

"It’s time to call a spade a spade. Feminists are not nonviolent. They are not good people. Their vision for the future entails, to paraphrase Orwell, a stiletto heel stamping on a man’s face, forever.

"Feminism is bare-faced barbarism."

I would make a small quibble with this. The stiletto heel scenario is only one school of thought among feminists. The other (but equally supremacist) vision, is a more benign sort of matriarchy where men in general will be "nannied" for their own good if they agree to behave like "good negroes". (But if they don't, it's the jails, the blacklists, the black boots, the false prosecutions, etc.)

Anyhow, about ten months ago I posted something in a related vein, and I think it is worth revisiting at such a perfect moment. I believe that the mingled reverberations of the Spearhead post and my own CF post will form a worthwhile combination in your mind's ear. Go now:

Welmer's post in its native habitat is linked below—and you will find the reader comments similarly illuminating:

Monday, June 07, 2010

Anti-Male Politics in Parliament

In recent posts I have blogged about the Early Day Motion in Parliament which opposes anonymity for defendants in rape cases. This motion was submitted by the Labour MP Fiona Mactaggart (a woman) and co-signed by a total of 53 MPs — mostly Labour party members, and mostly women.

The Early Day Motion (No. 105), submitted on 26 May 2010, is as follows:

"Mactaggart, Fiona

"That this House believes that the Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed; fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists; is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review; is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal."
All right, to belabour the obvious: Fiona Mactaggart and her accomplices feel that a man who has not been found guilty of rape ought to have his name freely published, and be made known to the world as a "rape defendant". These parliamentarians see nothing wrong with such a proceeding; they figure it is quite jim-dandy to do this! I don't know about you, but I think these parliamentarians are despicable jackasses and shameless moral imbeciles. They have no business being in Parliament where they can get their filthy hands upon the vital business of the nation. Sack the lot forthwith, I say, and put them to work as toilet cleaners in the parliamentary "privy chambers". That is the ONLY government work they are fitted to be doing!

Seriously now, how in the bloody hell does shielding a rape defendant's name "send a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed"? There is absolutely no rhyme, reason or sense whatsoever to such a statement— and nobody with their head screwed on straight, man or woman, could possibly think so!

Furthermore, did you notice how the plaintiff is called the VICTIM? Fiona Mactaggart has jumped the gun and shot herself in the foot! That lapse alone is proof positive of either mental laziness or moral intransigence, neither of which are acceptable traits in a public servant. It also offers a subtle clue to understanding such an incredible statement as "send a message . . . that the victim is not to be believed." For if the plaintiff is classified as a "victim", it would follow that she MUST be telling the truth because the language itself asserts a priori knowledge—as if the case had ALREADY been proven! That is what it means to call the plaintiff a "victim" prior to the verdict: it implies that you already know for a fact that they are telling the truth; it implies that the trial has already been held; it implies that the case has already been adjudicated—even though nothing of the sort has happened yet!

One more thing: notice that even though the plaintiff is called "the victim", the defendant is STILL called the defendant! So in the mind of Fiona Mactaggart, the plaintiff doesn't even need to be a "plaintiff" any more, and yet . . . the defendant is still the defendant! And yet. . . under color of strict consistency, you could as warrantably call him "the falsely accused". . couldn't you?

And whatever is happening in the mind of Fiona Mactaggart is happening similarly in the minds of all those other MPs who put their names to the petition! None of them understands or respects the notion of innocent until proven guilty! In fact, none of them truly gives a crap if justice is actually done, or if any injustice gets committed. If you are merely charged with rape, then as far as they're concerned you might as well be guilty of rape—and therefore you don't deserve normal criminal justice procedure.

So fire all 53 of those parliamentary morons, instruct them to clean out their desks, and issue them their toilet brushes!

Very well. On a different note, Steven of the False Rape Society has given thought to all of this, and has recently submitted the following as a comment. I think this material is important and ought to be prominently exposed for general consideration:
"I've been trying to post the following everywhere I can, so I hope you don't mind:

"I have read quite a few statements from those who oppose this measure, stating that why is it necessary to grant anonymity to men (people?) accused of this one crime, and not others?

"Here is my response:

"Why is it, that we grant anonymity to accusers of this one crime, and no others? To pull out the line that feminists love to use when it is to their advantage, it's called "equality".

"For no other class of crime, do we grant the accuser anonymity. So if this one crime is so special, or so horrific, then all involved should be anonymous, or none should, and a crime this special or horrific, will carry a stigma, regardless of the veracity of the complaint.

"All the best,

"E. Steven Berkimer"

Finally, I will send you to the Rights of Man blog for the following letter which the blogger has drafted to be sent to the offending MPs.




I will post more on all of this as things develop.



The following was left as a comment (by Aimee) on the post just before this. It refers briefly to the online petition linked in that post, and goes on to talk about other things which, I think, shed light on the matter given in the present post:
"I signed it. I think this makes sense as the mere accusation of rape or sexual misconduct can ruin a man's reputation forever even if he is innocent. This happened to a man in my church who was my Sunday School teacher as well as a junior high school teacher. Two students who were angry with him for bad grades accused him of molesting them.

"It was a horrible time for him and his family and our church. My father was the minister and our family stood by him because we knew he was innocent. But many people left the church because they assumed the accusations must be true. He also lost his teaching job. He was asked to resign. Eventually, the girls recanted their accusations but this man's life was ruined. That stain of presumed guilt never goes away.

"Considering the magnitude of damage these kinds of accusations can do, I think it is important to keep anonymity for the accused. And it's important from a justice standpoint as well to ensure a fair trial and protect the accused from public condemnation. It's supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" but I find that is rarely the case. People make their judgements before knowing the facts."

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Petition to Protect the Anonymity
of the Accused

Go, read the following, and if it seems right to you, put your name to it:

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Men's Rights are Human Rights

Let's Get Involved in British Politics!

he following e-mail reached me today, from the False Rape Society:

"Below this note is a post that will run on False Rape Society early Tuesday morning. I believe that this issue is one that absolutely demands our advocacy, but I need your help. I am thinking of a petition drive with a short, simple message that is quickly accessible to all concerned about human rights, even when those human rights affect men. I would like for us to try to involve all the other prominent men's rights bloggers. John and Snark would know better about the approach, and I greatly value Fidelbogen's ideas, and of course, Steve's.

"Can I count on your help?"
My immediate response is: "Count me in!". Below, I am posting (I should say mirroring?) the FRS post which he refers to (which was included in the e-mail):
"This is the most important issue the false rape community has encountered, and possibly the most important issue the men's movement has before it right now. It cries out for intense, fierce, and smart advocacy. It can't be handled in a single blog post. I intend to do whatever I am capable of doing to help, but I need help: the issue is a UK issue, and my familiarity with the UK is limited.

"The issue is the opposition by a significant number of MPs to the new UK government's plan for anonymity for the presumptively innocent accused of rape.

"John Kimble, writing for one of my favorite blogs, The Rights of Man, has written a brilliant piece that lists the names of the 53 MPs opposing the proposal to give anonymity to those accused of rape. Among his points is this dead-on refutation of the motion's assertion that "the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal." Mr. Kimble counters: "This last point is the most valid aspect of the motion. There is something of a lack of research on this issues, yet you'll notice that the vast majority of this listed below who signed the motion are member of the Labour Party and have therefore been in power for the last 13 years. These politicians had all that time to conduct this research yet they've refused to even discuss the issue of innocent people having their lives completely ruined by false accusers. In fact it's worse than this, the Labour government created and nurtured a hysterical gender feminist climate in which the issue became almost completely taboo, so it's little wonder we're lacking in decent research on the issue. This is quite clearly a problem of their own making so it's quite pathetic to bring up such a point now."

"I am writing to Mr. Kimble, Snark, Fidelbogen, and Steve, of course, because we need to come up with a battle plan. I invite all our readers to brainstorm."

I'll be damned if I'm going to do nothing while the well-organized feminist machine destroys the most humane plan we've seen for the innocent lambs falsely accused of rape.
Very well. If you haven't yet done so, please have a look at the "Rights of Man" blog linked above. In fact, here is the link again:

Next, you ought to look at the False Rape Society post in its native habitat, since you will want to read the comments—28 at latest count:

All right, so far I have just barely gotten my feet wet in this. But I am posting this now in order to launch it into the psychic airwaves.

In case you haven't heard, political forces are now in motion in England, to grant anonymity to male defendants in rape trials. I guess I should have posted about this earlier, but here is a link to the UK Daily Mail Online which will get you up to speed:

So. . the Labour Party got ousted in the recent elections, and England is now under a coalition government divided between Conservatives and Liberals. ("Coalition government" is a concept unknown to most Americans, since we haven't got a parliamentary system.)

And . . as I have gathered for quite some time, the Labour party is the principle source of the many potent evils that have been spreading cancerously through Great Britain in recent years. Labour, its seems, had to go. And now they are gone (or at least banished to the back row), and that, I am informed, is a sea change.

The 53 MPs who object to the proposed measure are almost all Labour MPs, and 41 of these are women. I will let that speak for itself!

All right, what about action?

Well, those Labour MPs must be be-laboured, clearly. Some commenters have remarked that this faction probably won't win, given that they are merely 53 out of (roughly) 650 MPs in total. But personally, I think this is a great opportunity to make a splash and show some MRA political muscle. A showing of international male solidarity on a matter of such key importance surely makes a statement and sends a message, and bumps us higher on the global radar screen. . . don't you think?

I shall be brainstorming with "the crew" in the next day or two, and I will post more on this subject. In the interim, think "distributed e-mail bombardment". (That is what I am thinking, you know. . ! ;)