Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Word Travels Fast on the Street

Yesterday, I published a writeup on the promising and exciting Men's Voting Alliance. Since posting, I have gotten a sharp spike of visitor traffic. That is not unusual, of course. Whenever I post something more-than-normally "juicy", I will get such exaggerated bursts of activity. In fact, any new post gets at least a modest influx. But this time, the spike went clean through the roof and cleared the treetops in a phenomenally short time, and now, going into the second day, gives no sign (yet) of slowing down!

And yes, an abnormally large amount of the entry traffic was targeted to that post page specifically!

I'm not sure how this happens. By what magic do all of those people suddenly know what is going on? Does the info get "shotgunned" into an e-mail tree all at once by just a few individuals? Perhaps. But then again, I see no evidence in my web stats. (You can tell when somebody arrives from an e-mail link, and I'm not finding much of that!)

Finally, is it enemy traffic, friend traffic, or a bit of both?

All right, I think I will continue along the same vein as yesterday's post, when I ruminated upon the texture of the political landscape which the feminist regime has imposed on the world. And when I say "the world" I mean, of course, the non-feminist sector. That's us -- and we didn't ask for this!

Men and women are now separate political power blocs. We have no good reason to assume otherwise. This is a plain, simple, objective, pragmatic, hard-headed fact. And it is not hard to understand why this has come about, given that feminism has worked so hard for so many years to raise political consciousness among women, and to form the female collective psyche upon the paradigm of "sisterhood". Women have been taught that they are victims to whom compensation is owed, and this meme has taken deep root as a cultural narrative among critical numbers of the female population. It has become self-sustaining and self-validating, which was the intended outcome all along.

Women, in short, are politicized. The Redstockings Manifesto (as a prime example) laid the plan out years ago, and we are living with the fruit of it today. A lot of women nowadays (under feminist tutelage) think that women are "special" and due for special treatment, and a host of laws, policies, institutions, and lobbying groups stand ready to cater to this expectation, while a host of feminist agitators work to foster the growth of ever deeper and moar elaborated expectations. And in the midst of all this hustling and grabbing, the well-being of half the human race -- the male half -- is frankly not much noticed or talked about. The feminists are fine with that, and they even have a special, light-hearted saying which is akin to "let them eat cake". This special feminist witticism is: "What about teh menz?"

Men are being run over -- sometimes with malice aforethought, other times in sheer ignorance, but either way the consequences are on a par. In fine, it is not a fine thing, to be run over.

Bearing in mind what we have lately touched upon, it is easy to understand why men and women are now separate political power blocs. Political self-awareness is widespread among women, but up until recently, very limited among men. This means that men aren't much of a power bloc at all, but more like a power vacuum. For whatever power men might have, it is not self-aware power of men-as-a-group distinguished from that of women as a group. Sisterhood is currently thicker than brotherhood, and men, putting it briefly, do not exist politically as men. They lack what, in Marxian terms, would be called a class consciousness.

And lacking such, they are patsies and pushovers in the path of feminist aggression.

It is never the nature of power bloc A to be altruistically concerned for the health of power bloc B, for if such were the case, their differentiation as blocs would never have come about. And if power bloc B is politically unaware of itself, it will take the worst end of the business in most cases. Men, then, are power bloc B. And men must, both for their own good and for the good of the non-feminist revolution, agree to bond in brotherhood and solidarity. This needs to happen one way or the other.

Once again, men must exist politically as men or they will be thrown under the bus. In saying this, I am grimly aware of how unhealthy it is for the human race that men and women should be separate political interest groups. It is simply not natural, and a house divided against itself cannot stand. But, the house is already divided against itself anyway! Feminism made this happen, and feminism is a war against men. Therefore, if feminism is to be counteracted, it is MEN who must take the initiative in bringing this about. Men, being themselves the ground zero of feminist aggression, are in a unique position of understanding and therefore uniquely qualified to undertake the necessary operations.

And so, the pro-male men's movement (as opposed to the pro-feminist men's movement) will always be, and must always be, a key force in the non-feminist revolution as a whole.

Whatever is good for men, is bad for feminism; whatever is good for feminism, is bad for men; whatever is bad for men, is good for feminism; whatever is bad for feminism, is good for men. . .

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

More Evidence That It Is Happening

Thanks to an e-mail which I received about forty minutes ago, I am now informed of a pro-male political initiative called the Men's Voting Alliance. If you visit their website, you will see that they have large, forward-thinking plans. But here is what they say about themselves:
"The mission of Men's Voting Alliance is to unite men's voting power and take action to defend, protect and preserve men and boys fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and subsequent acts of Congress. Civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. We can only accomplish this mission with members who are willing to take action to defend, protect and preserve the rights of men and boys. We must organize, join forces and vote. We welcome all individuals, Men's Groups and Fathers Rights Groups to join forces with Men's Voting Alliance."
So tell me, how long have I been saying that men and women are, de facto, like-it-or-not, separate political interest groups that owe no political obligation to each other? I know that does not sound like a pleasant situation, and I reckon it isn't. But, that is just the way things ARE! It's an objectively accomplished fact of history, and I am only the messenger, so don't shoot! Shoot feminism, okay? The guilty party, in other words.

Truly, if men don't begin to exist politically, they will be rolled flat into the pavement in every way that might occur to you. And not only that, but the non-feminist revolution as a whole will not go places if men, as men, don't occupy the vanguard of the operation. Women will never do this on their own initiative, so it is and can only be a male initiative. Of course, electoral politics is only a small part of what it means for men to exist politically, but . . . it's a powerful and important part that should not be neglected.

Here is the website address for the Men's Voting Alliance. I think you'll want to keep your eye on this. I know that I plan to bookmark this and visit often:

Friday, December 17, 2010

For the Benefit of Newcomers: A Review of Some Basic Things

The non-feminist revolution is growing -- no doubt of that. I see signs of this busting out everywhere, like the first crocuses of spring or the first influx of robins. Sometimes I think it is just my imagination. That is, I quickly grow accustomed to the latest hints of quickening life and these in turn quickly become the new norm, the new baseline. Hence, these things become old hat. And straightway, stasis and boredom set in, and it feels like nothing is changing after all. So I become jaded, and I write off my spell of hopeful enthusiasm as "imagination". But then, without warning, larger and improved signs of life arise to remind me yet again that I am NOT imagining this.

Yes. So much is happening -- everywhere, all at once, at all levels -- that it always comes back around to the vexed question of where to begin. How to start talking about all of this? Especially with new recruits and sympathizers, who have arrived by way of the grassroots? For are they not themselves the foremost among those signs of life which I have spoken of?

Aye, it is good that these new ones have arrived by way of the grassroots, because this thing of ours is a grassroots revolution before all else. It is a revolution of, by, and for the people, with its wellspring in the mundane micro-world -- the non-political universe of everyday thoughts, feelings, conversations, conclusions and decisions. Such is the territory to be reclaimed, and fiercely guarded. And all manner of intellectual machinery -- even the loftiest -- may eventually be inducted into the service of this micro-world. But for the present, let us make the evils and blessings of the day, sufficient unto the day.

I write with newcomers chiefly in mind, although old-timers are welcome to profit by anything they find here. But I will address the question of "where to begin" quite simply, by embarking directly from where the new arrival is most likely to be. And that is, in a state of perplexity. "Where do I fit in?" is what the newcomer will most likely be asking. The newcomer wants a map, marked with a bold, bright 'X' upon the spot where he or she is presently situated. And I will undertake to provide such a map, and to proffer such hints and helps upon the journey as will assist the pilgrim to draw the big, bold X-mark from his or her own reasoned conclusions.

At the outset, I feel safe in concluding that you are not a feminist. I am so sure of this, that I will take it as the organizing premise for all that follows. If you are not dead certain, at the very least, that you are not a feminist, then I would counsel you to retire elsewhere until you have cemented this conviction firmly in your own mind.

Very well, let us review a few basic things. I say a few, because there exist far more such things than I can do justice to in the allotted space. So I will stick to such items as a newcomer would find profitable for orientation. Accordingly, since you, the newcomer, are not a feminist, I think it is safe to say that you are situated in the non-feminist portion of reality. What do you think: does that sound about right to you?

Good. Now, if it will further assist your understanding, think of a hard line drawn straight through the middle of the human race. On the one side of this line, picture a banner with the word FEMINIST inscribed upon it. And on the other side, a banner inscribed with the word NON-FEMINIST. Are you visualizing that?

What you are mentally depicting, is something we call the sector system. And what is the purpose of this . . sector system? I'm glad you asked! Simply put, the sector system is an efficient way to organize your thinking in terms of the larger sociopolitical struggle which presently engages us. Yes, each side of that conceptual line is called a sector -- that is the term we use. And so accordingly, we have both a feminist sector and a non-feminist sector. And friend, you and I both know which sector we belong to . . . don't we?

The sector system is useful because it throws feminism on the defensive, forcing it to justify its own presence on earth by answering to something objectively OTHER than itself. Feminism is not the world, but the feminists want very badly to convince the world otherwise. And feminist behavior toward the rest of us is very much like American foreign policy: "We will bring you the blessings of our way of life whether you asked for it or not! We know what is good for you!" But again, the sector system rises up as a challenge to the feminist attitude.

Yes, the hubris and arrogance of feminism has been colossal; it is a revolution meant to encompass even the tiniest dimensions of life, and it aims to convert the rest of the world entirely to feminism -- it will not take no for an answer! The feminist posture toward the rest of the world is one of sheer aggression, blended with a heavy dose of totalitarian psychology -- a macro-plan which they intend to cram into the micro, whether the micro wants it or not! The micro? That's you and me, friend!

Briefly then, feminism does not look kindly upon the existence of anything independent of itself or unequivocally other than itself. That is to say: the feminist sector aims to squeeze the non-feminist sector completely out of existence.

And what is wrong with that, you ask? Many things, foremost of which is that the project which feminism proposes is impossible; it cannot be accomplished; it is a falsehood from the very outset, and to impose it by force can only end in grief and calamity for all concerned. But however far the wreckage extends, feminism can never force the non-feminist sector to stop existing. And that is for the same reason that a lie can never force the truth to stop existing.

The True Believers of the feminist cult believe that Feminist Theory has the power to explain all of life, universally. But the falsehood of this can be demonstrated, and indeed, has been so demonstrated, thousands of times, by the philosophers of the non-feminist revolution. These fine thinkers have plied their trade patiently, and thanklessly, for many years. The reason they advance so slowly, is because they are voices in the wilderness with so very little power against a massively entrenched establishment. When the powers-that-be ordain you as the "village idiot", nothing you say carries any weight. What walks tallest upon this earth is not truth, righteousness, or intellectual integrity, but power pure and simple. The powers-that-be know this well, and they chortle about it.

It makes no matter if feminism has been discredited a thousand times, or ten thousand, or untold thousands. All of that intellective work is no better than spinning your wheels in the mud if it gains you no traction in the arena of sociopolitics. So here is where the sector system turns the tables. In one clean stroke -- by merely declaring itself!-- the non-feminist sector delivers a revolutionary message that feminism is not the world. By sheer self-announcement, non-feminism occupies space in the world and demands to know what the hell feminism plans to do about this. It is as if non-feminism were saying to feminism "what the hell makes you think you are the only game in town?" In the end, the message of the non-feminist sector to the feminist sector, is a simple, non-negotiable DEMAND FOR SOVEREIGN CO-EXISTENCE.

And what does this mean in terms of everyday practice? It means you are entitled to proclaim openly, even loudly, that you are not a feminist, to go your jolly way unmolested, and to quietly pass the balance of your days in a like manner. At first, this might not sound like anything much, but I can assure you that the moral dimensions are critically significant. And in time, those dimensions will fan out into other dimensions.

As a non-feminist, you are nowise bound to answer to any feminist for your personal indifference toward feminism. That fact is immensely important. On the face of it, there is no better warrant to be so interrogated by any feminist, than to correspondingly interrogate said feminist in non-feminist terms. What gives them the right, anyway? Who do these people think they are?

Remember, that you have told them nothing save that you are not a feminist. And that reveals very little about you -- in fact virtually nothing! And so long as you say no more about yourself, they cannot possibly know more. THEY might think that it says a lot about you, that you would verbally disown feminism. But they are just plain wrong! For they cannot possibly know what another person understands by the word "feminism" if that other person does not explain what he understands by it. So they are out-of-bounds if they merely presume that the non-feminist means the same thing by "feminism" as THEY do, and they are a thousandfold out-of-bounds if they derive any moral imputation from such a circumstance.

We have a special counter-feminist name for this feminist "presumption of shared meaning". That name is feminist subjectivism. Feminist subjectivism embraces the fullness of feminism's narrative authority, and may be understood as the sum total of stories which the feminists tell themselves about themselves, and so are constrained to tell others. Among such "stories" may be included the many conflicting, ill-defined, and incoherent understandings of the word feminism. Thus, feminist self-definition comes under the broad umbrella of feminist subjectivism, and will be found to be pivotal.

Feminist subjectivism combines readily, and rapidly, with the feminist conceit that feminism is the world -- or at least, that feminism authoritatively interprets the world. Thus, it is nigh on impossible for a deeply indoctrinated feminist to accurately assess people and circumstances in the non-feminist world -- which, truth to say, lurks around every corner! Given that those external objects are not permitted to operate under their own laws and narratives -- or not acknowledged to do so -- they are transformed by the feminist gaze into a projective hallucination of feminism itself, and feminism becomes, for its participants, a house of mirrors with no windows.

Feminism's projective hallucination is simply the worldly gamut of people and situations interpreted to fit feminist theory, and as such, it composes the actual fabric of the wall. Such is the transformation wrought by the feminist gaze. To phrase this more elegantly, the projection is not projected onto the wall -- it IS the wall. It is objective reality subjectivized, which is precisely what makes it hallucinatory. It is like a fantastical soap-film of deluded understanding which clings to the surface of people and situations, falsifies their nature, and blocks the feminist gaze precisely at its opaque boundary -- so that the world beyond becomes impenetrable to feminist comprehension.

But the opacity works only in one direction -- from the inside-out. From the outside-in, however, the wall is transparent, even non-existent! In consequence, we on the outside can see those on the inside very, very clearly, yet cannot be truthfully seen by them!

And everything we do means something different to them, than it does to us. And so they would have us believe, that whatever they think we are doing . . . is in fact what we are doing! You see, they have never bothered to consult us about this! Apparently, they know more about us than we do!

Very well. Their delusion about us is the "original sin" in this scenario, the initializing transgression that started the whole charade rolling. Yes, they started it! They have built their supposed higher understanding upon a theoretical foundation that is far from settled, and therefore open to dispute. But they will not (because they cannot) acknowledge this, and not to mince words, it means that they are living a lie. And since they are living a lie, they cannot afford to see or comprehend anything that would give the lie to that lie. That is why they cannot see past the hallucinatory wall of their house of mirrors, and why we can see them with more authority than they can see themselves. We are not encumbered by a deception from the outset.

That is also why they have sewn us into the fabric of their hallucination -- fraudulently turning us into something we are not, and making that falsification binding upon us. They have, to coin a new word, hallucified us -- even though we are REAL and know that we are real! And the more we struggle to break free from this trap, the more surely we "become" what the eye of feminist subjectivism insists upon seeing -- because, so far, they have the worldly power to "make it stick". We are both real AND the figment of another's disordered imagination, and it does not please us to be trapped in such a paradoxical hell.

So much for the evils of feminist subjectivism. It suffices to understand that this can't go on forever, and can only culminate in violence and destruction -- that the house of mirrors will be shattered without mercy, but that said shattering will not go unaccompanied by a general shattering of everybody and everything. In short, a pandemonium from which none will find haven -- that is, unless we take considered steps, and right soon, to forestall such an eventuality.

Very well, the new recruit to our scene is at the very least not a feminist. That is neither asking, nor expecting, too much. I hope I have made clear by now, that people other than feminists are permitted to furnish a definition of feminism according to their own criteria. I say this simply because the objective reality of feminism is as real as the subjective reality of it, because that objective reality is knowable only by an objective seer who walks an objective path of knowledge, and finally because feminists themselves, of all people on earth, are the least amenable to such a path.

To suggest that we are "misrepresenting" feminism is itself a misrepresentation. We are not misrepresenting it, but rather RE-representing it. It is our weighty conclusion, that the feminists themselves cannot be trusted to represent feminism accurately beyond the limits of their own sector. I mean, that while the feminist word about feminism is undoubtedly true within the moral gravity-well of the feminist sector, it merits no credence anywhere outside that perimeter. Such are the fruits of feminist subjectivism. Accordingly, what a feminist says about feminism, though it be the sweetest of nectars within the feminist domain, at once becomes the untreated effluent of a sewer when it overflows into the non-feminist sector. Feminism's writ does not run beyond feminism's border, and that includes both narrative authority and the power of definition. Again, feminism is not the world.

And so you, my recently-arrived friend, face a question that we all face at some point in our counter-feminist careers. You have confirmed in your own mind that you are not a feminist, and you now propose to sink operative roots in non-feminist territory. But have you thought long and hard about what it really means, to be a non-feminist? Algebraically, what does it mean to be not X? Clearly, you must know the value of the term X. And in the social algebra which presently concerns us, you must likewise know the value of the term feminist. Or more to the point, the term feminism.

So it is not enough simply to know that you are not a feminist. You must, in addition, have a clear, precise conceptual model of what this thing feminism actually IS -- so that X becomes a known quantity. And finally, in order that you will not be at cross-purposes with your non-feminist cohorts, your conceptual model of feminism ought to bear a marked similarity to their conceptual models -- so that you and they shall agree upon the value of X, and shall proceed, as it were, by an algebraic understanding of things. I go now to enlarge upon this.

The non-feminist sector is populated by a variety of humans of both sexes, who cover the spectrum of human nature, and about whom no moral generalization is either possible or politically relevant. The non-feminist sector -- or as habituated insiders would more tersely say, the sector -- includes folk who are in varying stages of political awakening. Some of them do not yet know that they are non-feminists; the question has not yet migrated to the forefront and become vital for them. Such ones are distinguished chiefly by the nascent elements of a worldview which, if fully fleshed-out, would urge some manner of political confrontation with feminism. But, they haven't quite yet gotten there.

However, there will come a time when the inert non-feminist turns into an activated non-feminist, or if you prefer, a partisan of the non-feminist sector. This is when confrontation becomes imminent. The partisan will gravitate toward the sphere of real-world practice, and will need to direct her endeavor toward a target of operations -- a defined region of sociopolitical space. So the need arises for a pragmatic template by which to chart this defined region. And when all activated non-feminists have mastered this template, we say that they have gained critical consensus, or more precisely, target consensus. The character of their separate endeavors may vary tremendously as per ways and means, but it is imperative they converge upon the same target of operations with the necessary esprit de corps.

Briefly, they must be unlike the blind men in the fable, for they must see the elephant. And that is especially true if they are working on different parts of the elephant, in which case they must communicate and coordinate.

Target consensus is founded upon a common understanding of what feminism IS, and this understanding informs all decisions about what to strike, and when, and how. And counter-feminist analysis claims to provide the master template, the parting of the waters, the necessary objective vision of reality that will generate target consensus and render activated non-feminist projects operable.

The non-feminist revolution is every imaginable thing that is willfully opposed to feminism. It is found side-by-side with every imaginable thing that is simply not feminism. These two categories are both not feminism, but the former is activated while the latter is inert. And the non-feminist sector is the territory which they cohabit. It is critical to understand that this territory is in no sense a "movement", but only a container of everything that is not feminism -- only some of which is presently trying to damage feminism.

And the non-feminist revolution itself is likewise not a "movement", but a motley, sprawling aggregate of separate and distinct motions that are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. However, these separate motions are in the process of finding each other and synchronizing their efforts. We call this a "revolution" because it serves to turn the tables, and if there were another word more all-embracing than revolution - we would use it.

As simply as can be stated, the goal of the non-feminist revolution is to bring about feminism's moral isolation by driving a wedge between feminism and non-feminism, and by reducing feminism's presently vague and fuzzy borders to a sharp line that anybody can clearly discern. This will embrace a multitude of operations, both intellectual and political, and will prove fatal to feminism if properly carried out.

The present treatise does not aim to bring the newcomer to a point of target consensus. That is a task the reader must herself gradually bring to fruition in her own way. But I have posed for consideration, in a merely rhetorical fashion, the question of the reader's non-feminism. I have urged the reader to ponder what that non-feminism might actually consist of, and I have stressed the importance of aligning such mental ingredients with those of other non-feminist partisans, in furtherance of our work.

The newcomer has likely heard of certain individuals known as "MRAs", and been made aware that many of them, at any rate, have a rather piquant reputation. With respect to these . . "MRA" people, altogether too little, and too much, has been said. So at the risk of saying either too little or too much, I will venture another groat upon the heap: that any non-feminist man or woman who is "all fired up" about the idea that men are human beings with human dignity and human rights, may properly consider himself or herself an MRA.

But for the feminists, who are the dullest clods on earth and have no idea what is going on, the term MRA is simply an emotional lightning-rod for their barely suppressed guilt, and for their growing anxiety about feminism's future.

On that note I conclude this treatise, trusting that the reader has gleaned something of value by the study of it.

Note: I should have provided this earlier, but better late than never. The following cyber-pamphlet furnishes a ton of back-story and amplification for the above-posted article:

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Patriarchal Toonz -- Czech It Out!

Notice, in the title, that I am using the word "patriarchal" in an offhand manner which might seem to imply that "patriarchy"-- whatever that is! -- is possibly not such a bad thing. And if I understand the feminists correctly, this makes me misogynistic. Did I get that right?

Anyhow, the subject of this post is music. And music is a powerful force in the universe; very few people understand just HOW powerful! That brings us straight back to the subject of "patriarchy". To be sure, music is power. But as counter-feminists, we are also aware that "patriarchy" is simply a feminist codeword for male power of any kind!

So today, we are considering two powers in combination: that of music, and that of maleness. Examples of this combination are plentiful, and I will now share just one, captured in the excellent YouTube video below:

We have here a trio sonata (heavy on the oboes!) by the Czech composer Jan Dismas Zelenka -- who came from Prague, and spent most of his life in Dresden. Or was it Leipzig? I forget. That bewigged fellow in the video is most likely not Zelenka; to the best of my knowledge, no likeness of Zelenka has come down to us. His face is lost to us, and so we have only his splendid voice.

Zelenka is one of those unjustly forgotten Baroque geniuses -- and there are tons of them, awaiting rediscovery. Zelenka seems to be undergoing such a revival himself -- and high time for it, I say! I will certainly be adding Zelenka to my CD collection, alongside Telemann, Vivaldi, Telemann, Tartini, Telemann, and their like.

Today's selection is good, rich manly stuff. The music is hauntingly ethereal and cerebral, but all the same muscular and virile, brim-full and overflowing with testosterone! It is furthermore tinged by a certain wistful melancholy that marks Zelenka's music in general, so unlike the buoyancy of the incomparable Telemann! But melancholy, when so sublimely voiced, brings not depression but peace -- like a glass of fine wine! For truly, there is no more certain road to mental illness than a fatuous longing to live in happy-happy land every minute of every day, and to banish every tiniest cloud from the sky the instant it shows itself. You should rather banish to Gehenna those accursed nitwits who will not permit you to not smile without asking you what is wrong!

Jan Zelenka lived from 1679 to 1745, a time very different from our own, a time when men knew how to be men, and never thought twice about it! Yes, I say they knew how to be men -- as opposed to bootlicking feminist manginas on the one hand, or idiotic macho buffoons on the other! Uninhibited male gusto, and brio, and genius, were the order of the day in earlier days, and this was mirrored in all things. The vampire that we know so well, had not yet fastened itself.

Our musical selection today is, let me say it, pure patriarchy, by which I understand pure male power -- no more and no less. But again, it is male power combined with musical power -- the unchained male passion for life in the undefiled fullness of its potency, operating by laws inherent to itself, and synergistically voiced as rhythm and melody. Men today are not men; and the more square-shouldered they try to be, the less manly, in truth, they become. I hate to use the detestable feminist cant phrase "performing masculinity", but regrettably the shoe fits. And of course, I chiefly blame feminism for this detestable state of things.

Real men, who really did exist and occasionally still do, understood more than just manly strength and heaviness. They understood, as well, grace, lightness and wit!

AND . . . they knew how to wield these things as deadly weapons! We, in our present hour of decadence, may profit by their example.

Enjoy the excellent patriarchal music. I must put aside these light diversions now, and forge ahead with serious work. ;)

The embedded video may be accessed directly at YouTube as follows:

Saturday, December 11, 2010

From the Memory Vaults

And might it really be just that simple?

Shoving an error message in their face?

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

A Reference to Julian Assange For Your Brief Amusement

My thanks to George Rolph for the sharing the following.

This is from the Huffington Post, of all places -- admittedly, not a publication that I read much. The article is handy, however, because it addresses the Julian Assange debacle -- which I have certainly kept up with, but (gasp!) haven't blogged about!

"Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone -- there is an entire fraternity at the University of Texas you need to arrest immediately. I also have firsthand information that John Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, went to a stag party -- with strippers! -- that his girlfriend wanted him to skip, and that Mark Levinson in Corvallis, Oregon, did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER."
And the author of this piece -- are you ready? It is the notoriously narcissistic, crybaby feminist Naomi Wolf! Mind you, Naomi is past her prime and not so high on the radar screen as erstwhile. But hey, she can still knock 'em dead, as we see presently. Right? But here is the link to the full article:

Now, this one comes straight from the department of "consider the source". The funny thing is, that Naomi Wolf's expressed opinion on the Julian Assange case so very closely matches my own! Truly, I would take exception to very little of this -- why, it could easily have been written by one of our more temperate MRAs! All except the bit about "suffragette foremothers", anyway.

To me, it almost sounds like Little Ms. Fire-with-fire is positioning herself -- or rather, re-positioning herself. And I don't even claim to know if she is consciously doing this, but on the objective surface of matters, something of the sort surely appears to be happening.

Anyhow, Naomi is practicing satire. She does it well, and yet . . . in so doing she reveals more about the true face of feminism then she is perhaps aware! The caricature of a ditzoid victim-feminist which she enacts for our entertainment, is in fact a chillingly accurate portrayal of what feminism in its naked essence, when pushed to its logical extreme, actually amounts to. Does it not occur to Naomi Wolf that what she narrates is no fantasy -- that INTERPOL is actually behaving in the way that she describes, that Swedish police are actually behaving along similar lines, and so on? And has it never once crossed her mind that feminism has been a critical guiding factor in the genesis and efflorescence of this whole imbroglio?

I will leave aside the distinct possibility that earthly powers are out to nail Julian Assange for more compelling reasons. After all, Naomi pays no mind to this.

So, Naomi Wolf plainly wants to distance herself. What she describes is not her feminism, you understand! And so she invites the lot of us -- moderate MRAs included! -- to join in the big, bright, happy club of Those Who Know Better, and to smirk happily along that primrose highway toward a big, bright, happy future of "true equality". . . or some such. Well, thank heavens I am not a moderate MRA!

You might gather that I don't think much of Naomi Wolf -- and that could be a whole essay in itself. But now let's hear from somebody else who doesn't care for Naomi. Only, this person takes aim from an opposite compass bearing. The party I will next introduce, blogs on Wordpress under the monniker of Hellonhairylegs -- that's "hell on hairy legs". And Hellonhairylegs is by self-description a radical feminist -- did the name give you a clue, perhaps?

In this blog post from almost precisely two years ago, Hellonhairylegs reams Naomi Wolf for her bestselling 1994 book Fire With Fire:

I left a comment on "Angry Hairy's" blog, and this presently awaits moderation. So for the sake of posterity I share it below:

How interesting that Naomi Wolf apparently "isn't radical enough". As a non-feminist outsider, beholding the discourse, as it were, 'from afar', the compression of perspective gives the illusion (to my eye, anyway) that the distance between Naomi, and the author of the present blog, isn't really much at all. Call it feminist subjectivism v. non-feminist objectivism.
And now, if I didn't make it clear above, here's at it again. In feminist terms, Naomi Wolf and Hairyhell have quite a gap between them. And it's true that if you are standing close-up, within the perimeter of the feminist world, you'll find this gap wide enough to accomodate a fleet of 18-wheelers, shoulder-to-shoulder. But the feminist world is small, and the distance which separates our world from their world is immensely greater than the space between a pair of squabbling insiders. Yes, objects viewed from a distance always look closer together.

Hairylegs shouldn't trouble herself that Naomi is creating a binary between Liberal and Radical feminism. That binary is and always has been false -- as Hairyhell would undoubtedly agree! For whether you call it a binary or otherwise, it is what it is. The future of liberal feminism is, and always has been, radical -- because that is the direction in which the logic naturally unfolds! Naomi Wolf rightly recognizes that women are a de facto ruling class. And the only reason that Hellonlegs doesn't recognize this is because, to her, women are not yet enough of a ruling class -- they don't quite rule sufficiently for her liking; she wants to secure MOAR power for them.

So finally, I don't want to see Naomi Wolf OR Hellonhairylegs in the driver's seat of sociopolitical power. They will both take us to the same place in the end, even if Naomi (a supremacist lite) drives slower and pays better attention to the road.

But, giving credit where credit is due, I was genuinely entertained by Naomi Wolf's opinion piece on Julian Assange, and I agree with most of it.

Sunday, December 05, 2010

A Letter to Salon.Com

Yes. That is what they call them at Salon.Com. Letters!

One does not write-- ahem!-- comments at Salon.Com. No, one writes "letters", forsooth! Classy, you know! That is how Salon.Com rolls, yes indeedy!

Snif, snif!

So yeah, like, anyways, I wrote me one o' them-thar. . . letters! Just like a regular classy dude with rhetorical discipline and stuff, right?

But wait a minute, I guess I better send you to this particular Salon article, because I just know that all you fine folks in CF reader land want to read it too. (No, I'm not talking about feminist readers; they're not fine folks! I'm talking about all you other folks!)

All right, here's the Salon article at ya:

Is Female-On-Male Violence on the Rise?

And here is Fidelbogen's. . erm . . . letter about that article:
To answer the rhetorical query which the title of the article poses at the outset: NO. Female-on-male violence is not "on the rise". Quite honestly, I don't believe it has altered much, one way or the other, since the DV moral panic campaign was initiated roughly a third of a century ago.

This piece was clearly written from a feminist perspective, and throughout its length it consistently ducks-and-dodges, bobs-and-weaves, and fancy-dances this way and that in order to evade the looming question of Feminist Guilt.

Unbiased statistics have long suggested that men and women are about equally to blame for domestic violence, but feminist campaigners have consistently ignored such figures in favor of more shoddy data which props up the official paradigm: that men are violent perpetrators who initiate 95% of all DV for the purpose of "patriarchal power and control".

It is a paradigm which shows ominous signs of cracking and crumbling under the slow pressure of non-feminist publicity over the course of years. That matters are reaching a critical point is eloquently attested by the very existence of the present article, which seems crafted for the purpose of damage control. A shift in strategic thinking is apparent -- from ignoring contrary information or denying the truth of it, to allowing (regretfully) that it just might be true, yet avoiding the massive political implications that such an admission ought to raise for discussion.

And the author accomplishes said avoidance by a truckload of rhetorical waffling, shuffling, and noodling which is intended to sound "thoughtful" and "reflective". Sigh! It is painful to read, and even more painful to write about.

But to return to the beginning: female-on-male violence is nothing new, and no worse than it ever was. The only new thing nowadays, is that the world is finally waking up to this, and that those responsible for propagating the lop-sided myth of "male violence" must soon take the stand in their own defense, and face the music.
All right folks, so that is how it's done, okay? And I even took the trouble to register as a Salon member, in order to write this! So now it is your turn; what are you waiting for? Have yourself a workout, and build some swing in your punch! Biff! Pow! Socko!

Just be sure to include, somewhere in your missive, the phrase "feminist guilt". Extra points, if you can work in the phrase "feminist subjectivism". But always remember to keep it classy for the Salon crowd, okay?

I would encourage you to preserve these letters, and paste them in the comments here at CF!

The best part of this, by the way, is reading ALL of the . . letters. One by one. Plenty of those Salon readers were mighty harsh upon the po' little authoress Lynn Harris, mighty harsh! It is one of the cutest things, to hear all those people who would never dream of calling themselves MRAs, sounding more and more like MRAs all the time!

Do you suppose the day is not far off when we can nonchalantly sidle up to those people, throw a populistic arm around their shoulders, and insinuatingly say to them "just between us MRAs. . . "?

And then have fun watching them squirm??


Addendum: The following pertains:


Friday, December 03, 2010

A New Blog That Does Not Like Feminism

His name is Legion! Tremble before his world-shattering power! And behold the tracks of uncountable passing feet which multiply mightily across the dusty terrain of war!

All right. The name of this blog is Fighting Feminism, and the subtitle gets right to the point:
"Is feminism a hate movement? YES! IT IS!"
What you will find here, are current news stories of an anti-male character. That means that the material will be of pro-male interest, correct? Also: keen, penetrating commentary will be found to accompany this material! The author writes from England, and so the blog has a bit of a UK flavour. But I assure you that the author has his eye upon the whole wide world.

The purpose of the blog, is to serve as a repository of timely items that can easily be referenced and linked to. It is, in short, intended as a resource.

All right. Go now and get busy with fighting feminism:

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Feminist Subjectivism in Action

This may be of greatest interest to those who follow the twistings and windings of counter-feminist philosophy rather closely. Advanced students, in other words. I am taking for granted that such students do exist.

The phrase feminist subjectivism crops up around here quite a bit, and today I stumbled upon a stellar example of the phenomenon in question. In fact, the example is so good that I couldn't dream of not sharing. Briefly, we here confront a person who seems to be a feminist, which is to say, a feminist triumphalist. And this person harbors an intellectual deficiency that virtually every feminist I've ever known is afflicted with, namely, that he can't or won't recognize that people outside the circle of feminist indoctrination have a different view of feminism -- and many other things! -- than do people inside that circle.

This citizen's name is Gregory Pettigrew, and he blogs at LiveJournal under the monniker of Etherial. I will send you now to the LJ post under discussion, which is short and contains 2 links. Be sure to follow the second of those links in order to fully appreciate what is going on here:

You will see that Gregory has linked to my very own CF post explaining the nature of patriarchy. And he sweeps my entire thesis off the table with a short, dismissive backhand, as follows:
"That is, of course, not remotely what patriarchy is."
But of course, he has no authority to say that, does he? Well, does he? What fountain does HE think his authority flows from, anyway? Where does he get HIS pontification license, eh? What gives him in particular the right to tell the rest of us what patriarchy--remotely or otherwise!--is or is not?

All right. If he had paid closer attention to my essay, he'd have understood the real point of it: that I was factor-analyzing feminist semantics from a non-feminist point of view. But you see, these people lack the gift to see themselves as others see them. However, I am one of those "others", and I am gifted to see these people as they cannot, or will not, see themselves. See? So I am able to make good their lack, and in that respect I render them a service!

Yes. Every house has both an inside and an outside, and if you don't "get out much", you will never learn what your house looks like from the outside . . . will you? Very well, Gregory devotes two or three short paragraphs to explaining what "patriarchy" (according to him) really is. And when I study Gregory's description, I feel myself in the presence of -- let me say it -- a cultic understanding of the world. Honestly now, I can't think of a better name for what I am reading!

What Gregory describes, is not so much the real world as a consensus about the world that he shares with a certain peer group. The configuration of notions which he offers up, along with the "spin" he sets upon these notions, is only arbitrary or interpretive, and often of arguable veracity:
"As a man, Patriarchy is my enemy. Patriarchy says I don't get to cry at movies unless they're about sports. Patriarchy says that I must act like a predator to find a mate. Patriarchy says that I must be better than my spouse at just about everything, except cooking, cleaning, and raising the kids. Patriarchy says that children belong with their mother, even when the mother is an abusive psychopath. Patriarchy says that I am sick and wrong for even thinking about being my children's primary caregiver. Patriarchy says that I am sick and wrong for being bisexual. Patriarchy says the only emotions I get to feel are anger, pride, and shame. And Patriarchy insults my abilities by giving me an unfair advantage over women."
My chief quarrel with Gregory is NOT that I disagree with what he is saying, but that I do not feel he has truly said anything, and that I am somehow burdened with an implicit requirement to take his speech seriously -- I mean, to discharge an opinion or adopt a moral standpoint toward something that is, frankly, nothing. I feel that Gregory has fobbed or foisted this on me. And I don't take it kindly, because I think it is asking too much of anybody that they should be called upon to think or feel something about nothing.

The droning, deadening, hypnotic reiteration in "patriarchy says . . patriarchy says" is the oldest technique in the demagogue's manual -- Hitler and Goebbels used this little trick all the time! One flatulent asseveration after another after another, ad nauseam! Pure, pompous windbaggery, and pure, unadulterated nothing! Why, you would damn near think patriarchy was a living person who could literally say all of those amazing things which, according to Gregory, it is forever saying to us!

All right, so according to Gregory, patriarchy, a personified non-person, is mandating a crapload of different things. And if you scan the paragraph, you will indeed find a cluttered ragbag of violations which somebody is allegedly inflicting on somebody, somehow, somewhere, at some time -- although none too clear as to particulars! However, we are assured this is all the doing of . . . patriarchy!

When I read all of this, my eyes glaze over. In some cases, I can't even conceptualize what he is talking about -- it is entirely abstract and untethered from anything I find existentially meaningful. In other cases, I do know what he's talking about, but I honestly don't give a rip -- for example, crying at the movies: I've never done that and never wanted to, and cannot understand why anybody would! And in still other cases, I can see no evidence that the things in question are actually occurring -- or at least not uniformly enough, or on a grand enough scale, to justify the hype they've been invested with.

I should add that the passage highlighted in red is a very dirty land grab: it tries to steal a grubby half-acre of moral high ground to which feminism holds no title.

So again, I believe we are reading something which describes a cultic understanding of the world -- a selective understanding, a cherry-picked understanding, an understanding held in common by certain people who take their understanding for objective truth, and from this conclude that they occupy a privileged position of hegemonic normativity. But these people are not like you and I; they are very different from us, and for that reason, they work a hardship on us and introduce tortuous complexities into our lives. They believe that they "are the world", in a way that they themselves find meaningful, yet fail to comprehend that the rest of us, also, are the world.

Such. . . is feminist subjectivism.

It is as if a conceptual or cognitive event horizon separates their world from ours, that no communication is possible across that barrier, that we are under no obligation to get sucked in, and finally, that they have no moral right to drag us in.

No. We cannot reasonably require everybody on earth to fathom what the hell people like Gregory Pettigrew are talking about, when they spin such cobwebs as they do. And further, we are not amiss to believe that quite a few reasonable folk could, by altogether valid and honorable pathways of ratiocination, arrive at a markedly different understanding of the world that is entirely respectable on its own merits. Simply put, feminism is not the only game in town.