Sunday, October 31, 2010

A Report From the "First International"

The historic first international antifeminist meeting of the Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus (Anti-feminist Interest Group, or IGAF) was held yesterday, 30 October, 2010, in Switzerland. Below, I link you to an article, by a certain 'Lieutenant Dino', which briefly sums up the overall events of the day -- although it doesn't get much into what the speakers talked about, or the least bit (obviously) into what the attendees chatted about during their 'getting to know you' breakaway sessions!

But I am happy to report that the drunken translator effect is not so bad in this particular piece; it actually reads quite smoothly and easily. And I do recommend reading it; it is informative:

What impresses me about this event is how much it radiates. . . well. . . for want of a better word . . . patriarchy! I do not get the impression that this was a pack of obscure, rag-tag revolutionaries who wandered in from the street. All right, what I'm driving at, is that this looks to be an organization of well-heeled, well-connected people with some position in society, who are so-situated that they can get the game rolling on a fairly high level. So. . this bears watching!

In the photo at right, to the left, we see René Kuhn -- the founder of the IGAF antifeminist group -- so I reckon that is what an anti-feminist looks like, eh? He doesn't look a bit like me: not hairy enough, by quite a stretch! ;) He is said to be an eloquent speaker. To the right, René's wife, Oxana. In the middle, a modified celebrity. Somebody has an arcane sense of humor, perhaps?

You know what? The expression "men's movement" is a misnomer, because there is no men's movement (singular), but rather an indefinite yet growing number of men's movements (plural). I have, of course, long known this -- and I like to call the sum total of it all a fermentation. And this . . . fermentation: it is contained within a sociopolitical and cultural space called the non-feminist sector. I would call that an efficient political worldview, a paradigm that will help greatly to set future endeavors on an efficient footing.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Radio Program in England
that Ought to Kick a Ruckus

I thank George Rolph in England for sharing the following. As I understand it, this broadcast is reaching large numbers. I recommend listening to it -- it is about an hour in length, and includes clips of many speakers, including the celebrated Erin Pizzey, who tells some horrid stories about radical feminist behavior. James Williams, quoted in the e-mail below, is the producer of the program:
Historic Radio Broadcast in the UK.

Click on Men's Matters. If you wish to save it, use the free real player program. Right click on the program itself and choose real player download from the menu.

George Rolph

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Rolph
Date: 30 October 2010 11:18
Subject: Re: Mens Matters Feminism Documentary Finally on-line

I am listening to this again now. James, I wonder if you are aware and if your crew at the station are aware that you have made history in Britain? I shall write more on this later. Frankly, if you removed my small contribution to this program altogether it would still remain a powerful piece that has long been needed to be aired. Massive credit needs to go to man, woman myth and the web master there for the staggering work that has been done and which enabled this program to be put together but also, equal credit needs to go to you for having the guts to put this program together and regardless of our differences, I have nothing but huge respect towards you for doing this.

As I have said. I shall write more later and I shall also write to the station. They must now, having had the courage to allow this to go out on the air and all over the world by Internet, stand up to any furious backlash that comes from it. I hope they will do so and not become apologetic wimps to any press furore that may arise. They have nothing, in a democracy, to be ashamed of by allowing a contrary point of view to be spoken.


On 30 October 2010 09:34, James Williams wrote:


The special edition broadcast of Men’s Matters on radio ExpressFM 93.7 has finally been transferred to the station’s Listen Again site.

It is an adaptation for radio of the story of Feminism created by Man and Woman Myth. If you are inclined towards feminism, you won’t like it.

To demonstrate support please email or phone the station. The more noise the more notice! EXPRESS FM OFFICE : 02392751530 If you call try to make it normal UK office hours 0900 - 1700


James Williams

Friday, October 29, 2010

More News About the Historic IGAF Meeting

The following arrives from the Swedish News Wire (thank you, Ulf!). I give it here almost verbatim. You will find it interesting:
Subject: ENG: Interview with Ulf Andersson (PappaRättsGruppen) and Urs Bleiker, the President of IGAF_on
Date: 30 okt 2010 00:15


Interview with Ulf Andersson, PappaRättsGruppen, and Urs Bleiker, the President of IGAF (Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus):


“Even I don’t know where it is being held,” said Ulf Andersson,a member of the Swiss-based antifeminist interest group IGAF (Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus) organising the event.


Andersson described it as a “very special” and “historic moment”.

“The major goal is not to come to conclusions about anything but mostly to meet like-minded people. As you have seen, there are forces trying to stop us from having this meeting,” Andersson told

News of the meeting was reported in the press and led to a demonstration by 50 feminist activists in Zurich and graffiti was sprayed on a community hall in Uitikon, canton Zurich, where the meeting was planned. Leaflets have also been handed out for a rally to coincide with the event.

“A lot of people have the wrong impression about what an antifeminist really is,” said Andersson. “They believe that an antifeminist is a woman-hater. Not at all. An antifeminist is a kind of peacekeeper who wants to return things to normal. As an antifeminist I believe in true equality between a man and a woman.”

Core beliefs

In a written statement prepared for Saturday’s meeting, Andersson has drawn up five key beliefs of antifeminists:

“opposing the feminist hatred of men, valuing the nuclear family, believing in the child’s rights to both its parents after a divorce or a separation, looking at the individual and not judging people by their gender, and accepting that men and women are different and counting that as assets”.

Anderson founded the Swedish father’s rights group PappaRättsGruppen after being prevented from seeing his daughter for six years after getting divorced from his wife. With support from a father’s rights group his situation has since changed and he is now able to see his 11-year-old occasionally.

But he blames “feminist” social workers for his plight. In his eyes, “feminists have hijacked the word equality” and today, “feminist stands for pure evil”. He cites radical feminist organisations who call for men to be grounded at home after 9pm or bear placards calling for “male slaughter, female supremacy”, as an example.

Risk of discrimination

“A totalitarian ideology like feminism draws particularly strong opposition” in Switzerland, said IGAF president Urs Bleiker, explaining one of the reasons why it was chosen as the location for the international meeting. The organisers are Swiss, he noted, but “the Swiss love of freedom” also was a contributing factor in choosing the location.”


Thursday, October 28, 2010

They Wish to Pass More Anti-Male Laws

Here is a portion of an e-mail which I got today, which, as you can see, is a call to activism. And as my custom is, I am passing this along for the benefit of all who would act upon it as due consideration might incline them.

Obama, it seems, wants to "strengthen" DV laws. And what could that possibly mean, other than making it easier to arrest and prosecute? What, apart from some such, would make DV laws "stronger"? And against which chromosomal cohort, in particular, would the enhanced "strength" of these laws most likely be exercised? Ponder that question if you please:

"The President has unveiled a new domestic violence program that is transparently designed to sway the upcoming November 2 election. WE MUST ACT NOW.

"On Thursday and Friday, Oct. 28-29,2010, we are asking you to telephone your Senators and Representative in Washington DC at 1-202-224-3121 and deliver this simple message: 'Stop playing politics with Domestic Violence. Speak out against President Obama's untested DV plan. We need abuse prevention programs that are based on sound science, and do not ignore half of all abuse victims.'

"Don't call just once. Call several times, spacing your calls about an hour apart.

"And for extra emphasis, send an email to White House Domestic Violence czar Lynn Rosenthal: public@... with the same message. Politely direct Ms. Rosenthal to SAVE's plan to improve domestic violence programs [I have no idea what Rosenthal's e-mail is, and can't find it - Fidelbogen]:

SAVE Plan- -

Below is the propaganda sheet from the White House, which foments the hysteria:

And also, if it pleases you, a place to look up Congressional contact information:

So all right, here's a question: why do we hear so much hype on the subject of "violence against women"? Why is violence against women even an issue at all, and why does anybody even bother their head about it one way or the other? Why, why, why??


Why is violence against women in particular so commonly singled out from among all other forms of violence? Why is such a harsh and obsessive spotlight trained upon THIS kind of violence in preference to the many, many other forms which violence may, on varied occasions, assume? Why has violence against one arbitrarily chosen class of people been boosted to such a peculiar and dizzily exaggerated altitude of public importance?

These are serious questions indeed, and yet they are nearly always swept under the carpet. Dirt, too, is swept under the carpet by those who, while disinclined to make proper disposal of it, are anxious to uphold propriety "on the cheap".

Let us suppose that I and a friend were to arm ourselves with baseball bats, go to the nearest public park, and belabor about the face and head the first two luckless Sunday strollers we chanced upon -- and with the additional detail that my friend attacked a man, and I a woman. Now, on the face of it, you would say that we had committed the identical crime; that of battery. In purely cosmetic terms, to be sure, our work would afford no basis for mutual distinction. And yet. . . I would have committed violence against a woman, whereas my friend would have committed (we are led to infer) an altogether more venial species of infraction.

Violence against women, you see, inheres as a uniquely differentiated category within the discourse of law and jurisprudence, but violence against men does not! And that is why we have a corpus of federal law in the United States known as the Violence Against Women Act -- or VAWA. For it is no longer the case that violence is simply violence irrespectively, as a lump sum. Heavens no, my pulverizing of a woman's face into an unrecognizable mass of sticky pulp, is of a qualitatively different order than the identical transformation wrought upon a male subject! We are not, overall, given to understand why this is so, yet we are proffered the most solemn assurance touching the wisdom of our intellectual superiors in this and related matters.

For example, we are not given to understand why the actual pattern of violence in the world is not taken into account. It is widely and generally acknowledged, even by learned experts, that the bulk of all physical violence on planet earth is directed against male targets. That being so, common sense might seem to require that violence against men -- rather than violence against women -- would be singled out as a special category in the discourse of law and jurisprudence. But such are the paradoxes, and our intellectual superiors assure us that common sense is wayward, that we really do need special laws which single out violence against women for unique attention, and that we now need to "strengthen" these laws -- because apparently they still aren't strong enough!

We might compare the field of human violence to a terrain with mountains and lowlands. Violence against men would compose the Alpine, Andean and Himalayan heights -- which peak and spike! Violence against women, by contrast, would be like unto the Coast Range of Oregon. Now, I don't know if you have ever been there, but Oregon's coastal "mountains", in the more dramatic stretches, could better be described as rugged hills -- and in the less dramatic stretches, not even that. Oh very well, I grant you that Mary's Peak, west of Corvallis, looks impressive on the skyline.

But Alps they are not. Andes they are not. Himalayas they are not. In fact, they resemble nothing so much as a kid brother to the much mightier Cascades -- just across the Willamette valley to the east.

Yes, "violence against women" is the Oregon Coast Range, and "violence against men" is the Himalayas. There is no comparison -- although it is true that you could have an equally violent rock-climbing accident in either region!

Yet, notwithstanding the stark disparities, our intellectual superiors do assure us, most assuredly, that violence against women is "special", and must be specially categorized in the discourse of law and jurisprudence, and given a proportionally greater percentage of cultural mindshare. It isn't just violence like any other violence, mind you: it is violence against women -- and you know how terrible that sounds . . . right? So, violence against women deserves a Himalayan amount of mindshare despite its Oregon Coast Range proportions, while violence against men (so it seems) deserves an Oregon Coast Range amount of mindshare despite its Himalayan proportions.

Because you see, our intellectual superiors, in their infinite wisdom, are always one jump ahead of us. They understand, as we do not, that we are, all of us, living in something called "the Patriarchy". And they (our intellectual superiors) would therewith kindly make us understand, in that infinitely patient and obliging way they've got, that while it is true that most violence is suffered by men, it is also true that most violence is inflicted by men.

And aye, forsooth, it arrives as a balm and a soothing ointment unto our souls, that we are made to understand at last the true bearing of this. Men inflict the majority of violence, women suffer the minority of violence, and for that very reason, violence against little old YOU (unlike violence against "women") deserves no separate consideration in the discourse of law and jurisprudence. Violence against "women" is just special in that way. . . but there is nothing "special" about violence against little old YOU. Is this all becoming clear to you now?

Men, you see, commit the bulk of all violence in the world (or so we are told by our intellectual superiors), and this entrenched regime of male violence is called "the Patriarchy". Our intellectual superiors have assured us, most assuredly, that this is true. Men collectively, we are given to understand, use the aggregate of their male violence in order to exercise what is called "patriarchal power and control", and . . . this patriarchal power and control reaches clear down into the smallest transactions of individual life. Yes, virtually everything operates according to the wise "body of theory" which our intellectual superiors (in the superiority of their intellect) have kindly mapped out and made available as a guide for all of our lives.

And that brings us to the clincher -- that although it is true that most violence is suffered by men, this fact is far overshadowed in importance by the fact that most violence is committed by men. And the reason men collectively commit that statistical mass of violence in the first place, is to exercise patriarchal power and control over other men, and finally. . . . over women too!

Yes, our intellectual superiors have been teaching us for years -- or at least trying to teach us -- that a catastrophic, pandemic forest fire of domestic violence is raging through society, and that 95% of this DV is initiated by MEN -- for the simple, universal, invariable and infallibly diagnosed reason that they (men) wish to exercise patriarchal power and control over the women in their lives. Yes, that is precisely what men are always doing in such cases! Our intellectual superiors have taught us this. They know this for a fact, and they know it is true clear across the board -- true even for multitudes of men and women whose lives they have never personally investigated! And although a lot of MRAs and other ungrateful curs have suggested that they (our intellectual superiors) are "just pulling that stuff out of their ass", it should not in the least concern us to know what part of their bodies our intellectual superiors are pulling that stuff from. For us, it is enough to know that they ARE IN FACT our intellectual superiors, and that we ought to respect our intellectual superiors, and that whatever issues from them -- orifice notwithstanding -- is "more evolved" than we are.

So never mind that our intellectual superiors have got zero conclusive evidence to prove that men commit any more than half of all domestic violence! And never mind that our intellectual superiors have constructed their case on a foundation of shamefully shoddy scholarship and even downright lies; never mind all of that! For they, being our intellectual superiors, ought to be respected, and ought to be taken on faith as serving a higher good which is not directly known to us -- yes: they have their reasons!

That they, our intellectual superiors, have for one-third of a century built their game upon a method morally indistinguishable from the Big Lie recommended by Josef Goebbels, might at first sight appear to lend additional credence to the term feminazi! But feminazi is a filthy, filthy word -- and don't you ever, EVER call our intellectual superiors by such a name!

Just get busy with your broom, and sweep this all under the rug. I won't say nothin' if you won't! Shhhhh!!

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

The Backlash Begins

In my previous entry, I spoke of the IGAF (anti-feminismus) conference scheduled for 30 October in Zurich, Switzerland. This was given plenty of coverage in the European (or at least Swiss) media, and the enemy has reacted with the speed of a rattlesnake. All right, putting it plainly: threats of violence have been made against the IGAF conference, and the radical left/feminist sector has already engaged in some "takin' it to the streets" action in anticipation of the upcoming event. As a result, the IGAF people have canceled the conference, and re-scheduled it for a secret location. (They have expressed concern for the safety of conference attendees.)

For some reason, the idea that anybody might be opposed to feminism, for any reason at all, is just plain unthinkable to some people. All right, so here is a photo of some anti-anti-feminist artwork being crafted on a public wall in Zurich. The visible words, in German, translate as "against sexism and antifeminists". Notice how the faces have been rendered "illegible":

You would naturally expect such scenes to appear FIRST in continental Europe, and NOT in stodgy old England or anywhere else in the Anglosphere. In the Eurosphere, the pro-male movement is gaining a raw, serious, organized political momentum that we in the Anglosphere (for cultural reasons) haven't got the same capacity to generate. We're all about "don't make a scene", and "don't rock the boat", and all that sort of thing -- which, I grant you, is a sensible philosophy some of the time!

But here is more to feast your eyes upon. This photo shows more anti-anti-feminist agitprop on the same wall depicted in the first image. The spray-painted words "lautstark geg[en] antifeministen" translates as "loudly against anti-feminists" -- I reckon they are speaking out loudly against the antifeminists; something like that.

The cartoon balloon at right, just below the large words, translates roughly, in part, as: "They want to take us back to the middle ages", and I can pretty easily guess who "they" refers to. The words are depicted as issuing from a fine, manly-looking chap; a house builder. It is of interest to ponder the semiotics here.

Next, we see the sign in front of the venue where the conference was originally to have been held. Note that the sign has been defaced with stencilled grafitti. The words translate as "together against sexism -- the anti-feminists must be muzzled." Well, they can start by muzzling ME! No wait, I'm a counter-feminist, not an anti-feminist . . so I guess those words wouldn't apply to me, right? But seriously, doesn't this remind you of the people we've known on the internet who declare that MRAs ought to shut the hell up? Yes, it all flows from the same psychology.

Along with the words we see the symbol of the radical women's movement. A clenched fist is depicted, and I cannot take that as suggesting anything but violence, or the threat of it. A fist is a fist is a fist, you know. That the fist is enclosed in the alchemical symbol for "female" makes it no less of a fist. In the end, it is plausible that the "alchemy" adds up to something like "female violence". . . wouldn't you say? And at the risk of seeming a simpleton, I would even venture that this smells uncannily like fascism.

Now I turn to something different but closely related. As you know, the action under discussion is taking place in Switzerland -- and neutral, mercenary Switzerland is a dramatically different country from Sweden! In Sweden, nobody would be demonstrating against "antifeminists", because in Sweden, nobody would dare to stick their antifeminist head up in the first place! So it would be unnecessary to demonstrate against it. In Sweden, they'll chuck you in the slammer if you even dare suggest that men belong to the human race. Well all right. . . I exaggerate! But seriously: here is what Ulf Andersson, Swedish father's rights activist, recently shared as a comment. He aims to give us an idea of how bad Swedish feminism is:
"Some remarks about Swedish Feminism:
Sara Stridsberg, who translated The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas to Swedish, is going to be awarded the big Prize Of Journalism.

"Selected statements made by Swedish feminists:

"1. 'Cut the dick off every man!'
"2. 'Ground all men after 9 PM'
"3. 'A heterosexual nuclear family is always in some respect an Anti-Feminist project. I don´t believe in the family. I want to introduce anti-family politics into the Feminist Initiative'.

"Young Swedish Social Democrats in the city of Växjö, 12.43 miles away from where I live, demonstrated with a banner proclaiming 'Male Slaughter - Female Power'.

"The President for The National Organization for Women Shelters in Sweden, quoted The Scum Manifesto right out on Swedish National Broadcasting (public service television, funded with viewer´s fee every 3rd month) in a documentary - answering the interviewer´s question:

"Interviewer: - All men are animals, and to call a man walking dildo is to flatter him?
The President: - All men are animals.Don´t you think?

"About two or three years later, this former President stated that "men are worse than animals" in a newspaper.

"Ever heard about 'radical' cheerleading?

"A group called Pirata Radical Cheerleaders (or Cheerleading) had a nice rhyme indeed. Sorry about the lousy automatic translation, but it´s a lot to translate at almost 2 AM in Sweden:
"There´s plenty more from where that came from. . . .

"When it comes to Feminism (worldwide) : like Yoda said to young Skywalker in Star Wars: Be afraid - be VERY afraid!"
Well. Sweden is one of the worst -- if not THE worst -- places on earth for feminism. Now, I have read "official" descriptions of  Swedish feminism, and these sound very, very bland -- like Sweden itself! But that is only the "official" version, the one that is "offically" purported to exist in theory. Yet we have caught a glimpse of real life, haven't we? Feminism is feminism is feminism, so forget about so-called official theories. It is the same cancer the world over, even if it gussies itself up in different threads on different occasions in order to deceive us about its underlying intentions. Below the surface, everywhere, seethes the identical man-hating core. Everywhere! This is the REAL feminism that will emerge little by little as feminist innovation consolidates itself and secures its power base. And by the time it all comes out, its power will be so entrenched that it will be nearly impossible to do anything about it, other than to grin-and-bear-it and suck it up!

So study the feminist regime in Sweden if you want to know what feminism really is under all the rhetoric and all the hype. In Sweden, for whatever reason, the crust is thin and the force of true feminism can more easily break through and ooze around everywhere in the broad light of day -- just as we presently see it doing! Study feminism in Sweden, and at the same time think about the current happenings in Switzerland, and make the connection! It's all feminism and its all the same monolithic substance everywhere -- only the thickness of the disguise is variable.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Big News: International Anti-Feminist Meeting
in Switzerland!

The following e-mail reaches me from Ulf Andersson, a father's rights activist in Sweden.

That's right -- Sweden! The most rabidly feminazified nation on earth!

But the news, you will see, is enormous. I have always known that our brothers in the Eurosphere were miles ahead of us Anglo types, and now . . . see how they have taken the bit in their teeth!

Eh. . . this makes me feel like "two bits"!

But here is the e-mail, complete with active links. Actually, I learned about this late last night, before getting the mail, and was going to post the news in my own words. . . but this makes my job easier:
-----Original Message-----

To: fidelbogen @ earthling . net
Sent: Sat, Oct 23, 2010 10:37 am
Subject: Fwd: ENG_The World´s First International Anti-Feminist Meeting

(World's First International Antifeminist Meeting)
Varldens forsta internationella antifeministiska sammankomst

The World´s First International Anti-Feminist Meeting, October 30th, 2010
Organized by The Anti-Feminist Interest Group
(IGAF, Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus)

« It´s a historical moment »
(Interview with Ulf Andersson from PappaRättsGruppen)

The Anti-feminists are Charging!

Written contribution by Ulf Andersson:

ENG_My Experiences of Feminism [PDF]

Comment by Ulf:
Switzerland was neutral in World War II (1939 – 1945).
Now, the Swiss are leading the worldwide resistance against Feminism.
Very admirable!
I responded to the e-mail as follows:

"Thank you very much for this exciting news. I wish I could be there too!
I will post about this on my blog immediately."

Be sure to download and read the PDF file listed above: "My Experiences of Feminism". It is worth your time, and it really drives home the international character of all this! Notice that although Ulf Andersson is a "father's rights activist", he has an "MRA" consciousness as well, because he clearly identifies FEMINISM as the enemy. That is just the spirit we need for building coalitions across the non-feminist sector!

By the way, I like how they (the conference organizers) have the audacity to flatly call themselves ANTI-feminist!


This is what I mean, when I say that arguing with feminists is nearly useless, and that the only language they understand is power. The only thing that will ever make them gulp and sit up straight and mend their tone, will be tangible worldly developments on the chessboard of power -- such as we see happening here.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Counter-Feminist: A Retrospective Round-Up

Today is 18 October, 2010. Four years and 3 days ago, I published the very first post on this blog. All right, so I missed the correct anniversary date by a few days! But yes, I have been plugging away at this job for four years now. It is scary, how quickly time flies. And I really do mean that: it scares me!

And I am tired. These past few weeks, I've been nearly unable to write anything at all. I find, nowadays, that I would much rather read than write; much rather think than talk; much rather take in than put out. A half-formed sensation has gotten hold of me: that it's time for a change, time for a fresh start, time to branch out in a new direction -- although I'm not a bit clear on what that new direction ought to be!

So, I reckon I'll keep doing what I'm doing, eh?

But I thought it would marshal my thinking, and be helpful to my readers also, if I took a nice long backward glance over the last four years and summarized most of what I have been saying, or trying to say, during that time. I did not start this blog in order to vent -- although it has certainly given me a chance to do so! But no, I started this blog in order to expound an integrated system of thought, a philosophical worldview, a theoretical foundation for practical worldly action against feminism. Along the road, I have dabbled in activism a little bit, but I have been true to my original plan for the entire time. And I have said not all, but a considerable lot, of what I set out to say -- although, admittedly, I feel like I haven't said it well enough!

At any rate, I will now share a series of links to earlier posts, in addition to some files for download. I would like to leave my readers -- especially the more recent arrivals -- with a clear (if somewhat sketchy) idea of the philosophical structure which underlies this style of thinking called "counter-feminism". I know that you haven't all read everything on the blog, so a lot of what I am now sharing will be new stuff for a lot of readers. Along with the links, I will give a capsule summary of the main ideas I have formulated since October 2006, and try to show how these ideas flow together into an organic unity.

First, a crafty little parable -- or allegory if you will. It paints in miniature the folly, the vanity, the wickedness and even the underlying criminality of our enemy. And it offers the shade of a hint on how we ought to deal with the matters confronting us:
The House on the Hill

Next, I lay down the rules of the road for my own journey, and I lay down the law for any feminist who reads it. And I will expect any feminist who presumes to criticize me to have read it -- and not knowing about it, is no excuse! You know what they say about ignorance of the law:
The Seven Point Counter-Feminist Platform

Next, I link you to the most famous and celebrated thing I have ever published on this blog. It was the proverbial shot heard 'round the world, a bombshell that sent overnight shockwaves rippling from one end of the MRM to the other. It was something bold and new, a kind of writing that was scarcely known among MRAs in early 2007! And it contains, in embryonic form, about two-thirds of the main ideas that were fleshed-out in later blog entries -- for example, the principle of perpetual revolution, and the irrelevance of "morality" as a criterion of validation or invalidation for the so-called men's movement. The title says it was written for feminists, but to be honest I think I really had MRAs in mind, as an audience, when I wrote this:
For Feminist Readers: An Introduction to the Men's Movement

Next, I link you to the very first post on the blog, from 15 October, 2006. This essay is foundational in a critically important way, because it peels the poison artichoke of feminism straight down to the core, and paves the road for the pivotal realization that feminism EQUALS female supremacism:
Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

Next: there are many different feminisms -- as the feminists themselves love to remind us! And yet, these many different feminisms all belong to the same elephant. A blind man would overlook this: Feminism's Occult Unity of Purpose

Next, one of my signally enduring contributions to the intellectual culture of the MRM. The principle that "patriarchy" is a feminist codeword for "male power of any kind" is quite deeply embedded in MRA discourse now; it crops up in discussions everywhere:
When Feminists talk about "Patriarchy", they mean Male Power

From early on, it was clear to me that the word 'feminism' did not offer an adequate grip upon the serpentine complexities we were struggling with. It had long been clear to me that feminism was in fact an organism, a sociopolitical aggregate of parts and operations that blended gradually into the surrounding world. Simply put, I felt there was "more to feminism than feminism", and I was finally able to distill this feeling into words, in an essay that also explains both the role of female supremacism and the need to assert a non-feminist 'will-to-power': What is the 'Femplex'?

The following lays out the rudiments of counter-feminist analysis -- that feminism is a system of restless energy which obtains sustenance and furtherance by expanding endlessly into the surrounding world, and by generating revolutionary change. Feminism is like a weather phenomenon which exists only because it is in motion. We call this motion perpetual revolution. If you block perpetual revolution, feminism will die:
Counter-feminism Operates from a Specialized Analysis

In the below-linked podcast (the first of fifteen to date), I asserted the futility of modifying feminist behavior through any form of debate or appeal to reason. I argued that the only thing the feminists will respond to, is a tangible worldly threat to their entrenched position of advantage. I then outlined a few modest suggestions on how to get things moving in the right direction:
Feminism Will not Yield to Argument Alone

The next post, not to mince words, talks about putting feminism out of business without its permission -- and that's "pragmatic", all right! When you realize the futility of debating or arguing with these people, such a modus operandus follows logically enough:
Counter-Feminism is Pragmatic in its Manner of Operation

Counter-feminist analysis is like a Greek Chorus, commenting on and forecasting things. Given certain conditions, certain trends are likely to continue, leading to certain outcomes. Don't say nobody warned you. We cannot, in good conscience, do other than issue these bulletins. Prediction is not prescription, so don't shoot the messenger:
Counter-Feminism Makes Predictions. Prediction is not Prescription!

You have heard it said that feminism operates on the principle of man equals bad and woman equals good. The following scalps the duff down to the bedrock:
The Manichean Ontology of Female Supremacism

From a web forum: 136 pages of conversation about Female Supremacy, and the (projected) future of men in society. Most of the women believe in the "natural superiority of women", and think that women have a natural right to dominate men. A lot of the men AGREE, and look forward to this. Download this in PDF format, here:
Female Supremacism Straight From the Horse's Ass

Now we come to an item which is easily among the top five in terms of ideological importance -- if not necessarily crowd appeal. The following essay sets forth an elegantly simple idea which nothing prior to April 2008 had foreshadowed, namely, the idea of dividing the entire world into a feminist and a non-feminist zone of existence, and framing the entire opposition to feminism in terms of the resulting schematic duality. We call this efficient political worldview the Sector System.

The beauty of the Sector System is, that it puts feminism unalterably on the defensive while it frees the opposition from any need to "answer for" itself, in merely moralistic terms, as an official movement or ideology might be required to do. As an individual, you need only declare yourself "non-feminist" and walk away from any feminist conversation which you find annoying -- they may not importune you or interrogate you further!

The Sector System also generates a foundational space that will permit counter-feminist energy to constitute itself in a diversity of forms transcending the so-called "men's movement".

In the process of developing the sector thesis, I had occasion to introduce the vitally important doctrine of feminist subjectivism, which will ultimately empower us to flip the script altogether and place feminism, as an ideology and as a movement, under moral siege:
The Sector System: An Efficient Political Worldview

Next, an essay which burrows further into feminism's guts, depositing metal-shavings and shards of broken glass along the way. The vitally important doctrine of feminist subjectivism is further developed here, and the closely related concept of feminist triumphalism is introduced. The essay concludes by sketching the memetic strategy of distributed questions, and finally informing feminism that it had better learn to "co-exist".
Is Feminism a Good Thing? It is an Object for the World!

The following podcast examines the crisis of the age which feminism created when it politicized relations between men and women, and turned men into second-class citizens. The unhealthy outcome is, that "women are on their own", and men have no special duty to "go to bat" for women's personal or political interests:
The Two-Party System of Sexual Politics

The following PDF tract builds upon the points established in the preceding podcast, and develops a full-fledged theory of the state and the social contract. Step-by-step, the tract explains why the state and the entire culture have been contaminated by the feminist worldview, and why any possible social contract involving men has been nullified. The sobering conclusion is, that you as a man owe no political obligation to women, and that the only valid locus of moral sovereignty is a moral law within yourself. Granted, the implications of this are not uniformly pretty, but then . . . I am only the messenger:
The State and the Social Contract under the Feminist Regime

And below, a duo of podcasts, both on the same theme. The battle for feminism's soul, referred to in their titles, signifies the battle to take away feminism's control over its own narrative, and so to effect the fatal rupture of feminist subjectivism, followed by feminism's sociopolitical "loss of innocence". The core strategy of this campaign, is to expose female supremacism as identical with feminism's "soul":
The Battle for Feminism's Soul - Part 1
The Battle for Feminism's Soul - Part 2

Wrapping up the round-up now, I send you to a rather recent post with a very simple, yet intriguing, title. This essay explains how feminism's failure to hold women to any meaningful standard of moral accountability can serve as a "bright line test" to establish a conceptual, and eventually sociopolitical, demarcation between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector:
The Bright Line

All right. Considering that this blog contains over five-hundred posts, you haven't seen much. But you have seen most of the best, or I should say, you have seen most of the most critically important items of the lot. So this does more than scratch the surface; this plows a pretty decent furrow upon it! But still, it's only a furrow.

I'm sure that all of this material will keep you busy reading for quite a while, which means I won't need to update the blog for quite a while. Enjoy! ;~)

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

CounterFeminism on Reddit

Somebody has started a Reddit "channel" with the title "CounterFeminism". I have just discovered it. I have no idea who this is, how long they've been at it, or. . . where they got the idea for their title.

And I don't completely know what to think of it (yet), since I haven't looked very far into it (yet).

Here is the self-description blurb which they use:

"No sexism or hate speech.

"This is not about attacking feminists or bashing women. This is about debate about nature/nurture, sex/gender, and the balance of male/female power. Please remain respectful. The use of the word "Feminazi" (or similar) as an insult is a ban-able offense.

"Feminism is broadly defined as follows: Belief in the existence of Patriarchy and/or that gender roles are completely or almost completely socially constructed.

"For the purpose of discussion, Feminism is NOT defined as "Equality between sexes". "Equality" is a subject so broad that it would include almost everybody's beliefs in some way. Further, no particular ideology has a monopoly on the word "Equality", only their particular view of what equality means to them.

"Discussions about men's rights, problems, and issues are not regarded as "whining". The pervasive existence of inequalities for males is used as evidence against a patriarchy. In some cases it is also evidence of the hypocrisy of feminism in that feminism often advocates women's advancement at the expense of men while simultaneously claiming to be for "equality". Responses such as "be a man", "stop whining", or "quit bitching" are ban-able offenses."

Overall, that sounds pretty good -- although I could take exception to a few small points.

For example, the part where it says "not about attacking feminists": I, the original counter-feminist, am sometimes guilty of that crime myself! However, I note that they do NOT say anything about attacking feminISM, which is a critical distinction. So, I'll assume that they DO attack femininISM. At any rate, they certainly appear to undermine it!

Also, where they give their "definition" of feminism, they say nothing about female supremacism -- which is the crux of the biscuit as far as I'm concerned! (What they DO include in their definition is not bad so far as it goes, but it feels incomplete.)

Also, where they talk about "feminazi" as an insult, I hope they mean, quite specifically, as an insult directed toward a private individual on the forum -- and not as a form of generic abuse against a generically understood group, or as a specific barb against some heinous celebrity. Personally, although I avoid the word feminazi for stylistic reasons, I have no squeams or qualms against it per se.

I particularly like their paragraph about "equality". I wish I'd thought of that, that no particular ideology has a monopoly on the word "equality"! (Although, I do think that mathematics has such a monopoly, if anything does. But then, math is not an "ideology".)

All right, go and check out Reddit CounterFeminism, HERE:

Friday, October 08, 2010

Kevin Driscoll Has Been Found Innocent!

Kevin Driscoll, the Redmond, Oregon man who was arrested and tried TWICE on a stunningly flimsy rape charge, has been found innocent by the jury in Deschutes County Circuit Court, Bend, Oregon, USA.

Below, I link you to a five-minute YouTube video by Bernard Chapin, who happily shares the happy news. You will enjoy hearing about the hugs and handshakes which the falsely rape-accused Kevin received from the jury -- followed by an invitation to lunch! Such behavior by a jury, it seems, is quite unusual:

Kevin Driscoll Has Been Found Innocent

In addition, I share the following e-mail which I got from a friend of Kevin, which tells a bit more than what is in the video:
"Kevin was found innocent today. 11-1 on 5 of 6 charges, and unanimous on the attempted sodomy charge. He is a free man!!
"I have been writing his story and about this trial, but was just informed by the attorney that Jody Vaughn is out to get Kevin. She has not finished the torment or torture of him. I do not know what she has up her sleeve or plans to do, but at this point I am unable to say anymore than HE IS A FREE MAN!!!"
I admit that the final sentence in the message perplexes me: "unable to say anymore" that he is a free man? And what on earth is Jody Vaughan up to? What could she be up to? I reckon that will become clear in time.

[Note: it has just been pointed out to me, that the word in the "perplexing" passage above is than rather than that -- which renders the passage lucid. I guess I should learn to read more carefully.]

Meanwhile, for those who know nothing about any of this, the following will link you to nearly all the blog posts which I wrote when I was covering Kevin's original trial in late 2009:

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Worth Reading Several Times

A commenter who calls himself "CashingOut" has recently posted the following at The Spearhead. And I wouldn't be re-posting it like this, if I didn't think that it was damned important for CF readers to read:
"I’ve encountered men who will say that they are MRAs, but to listen to them talk, I wouldn’t trust them in the same room with me, forget brotherhood or even any agreement on any basic point whatsoever.

"It’s kind of hard to buy that you’re for brotherhood with men, when you give props to the video of some guys talking about “you gonna have to kill you some crackas.” The people talking about “real men,” and then using examples of old time street thugs and italian gangsters and such as examples of masculinity do more than make the movement a mockery, they take away internal credibility. If your idea of where masculinity should return to is actual criminality, then most likely you are of a mindset such that I don’t want to deal with you in real life. You have too many men who want to take every deviant, criminal, immoral, unpopular belief, action, and impulse under the sun, stick it onto the “MRA” label, and go “well, I’m disliked because I’m an MRA and I believe X…” MRAism, and the desire to euthanize everyone who isn’t blond haired and blue eyes, are two different things, k? You can’t claim that you’re an MRA, and as part of your rights as a man, you should be allowed to have as many rap video hoes as you want, especially when that’s the kind of thing you’re supposedly protesting.

"While there are a number of men who have their priorities and mission statement regarding Men’s Rights straight, that I would not mind breaking bread with in person, even if I don’t agree with everything they say or do, you have too many nutjobs too, who want to put all of their failings, flaws, and borderline criminal tendencies under the purview of MRAism, and I don’t wish to be known by these people any more than I wish to be known by the feminists."

Here is the Spearhead thread where the original version of this may be found:

I would only add, that too many barnacles will sink ANY ship. Furthermore, it is not only the "badness" of the barnacles which weighs the vessel down, but is also the "irrelevance" of them. In plain English, I mean to say that we should limit the range and scope of "MRA issues" for the sake of message discipline (a component of rhetorical discipline).

Not only do we not want to be associated with anything morally toxic or possibly criminal, but we equally don't want to lumber ourselves with (perhaps controversial) "agenda bloating" issues that don't pertain to our core focus.

We don't need to express opinions on every damn topic under the sun, especially considering that we may be called upon to defend those standpoints -- which might be too damn much work, like fighting a war on multiple fronts!

So, don't be afraid to "keep it narrow", and be silent about a lot of things.

Narrow weapons make deep wounds.