Feminists Have Lousy Accents!
What's that, never heard of TED? Well neither had I, until today. Basically, TED looks to be a pack of internationally networked New Age-y pontificators with a business edge, rather deep pockets and, no doubt, connections in high places. Oh, and they evidently think feminism is peachy. For example, look at this video featuring the infamous Hannah Rosin -- you know, the one who waxes smug about the end of men? Yes, that Hannah Rosin! As you will see, Hannah annunciates the grim news for men very clearly -- with the help of visual aids, no less! But in doing so, I believe that she renders us a service she is not aware of. However, go and watch the video:
The first thing that strikes me about Hannah Rosin, is that she makes for obnoxious listening. I don't care in the least for Hannah's accent and vocal delivery -- it is pure metro east-coast brassy and, to my sensibilities, highly overbearing and even psychically invasive. It lances my ears and drills into my brain -- which is about right for a feminist I reckon, since their entire mission is exactly that: to drill into your brain! And further, they are said to be strong, powerful women. . right? So maybe I'd better just "learn to handle" that type. . ya think?
But compare the aggressive, grating voice of feminist Hannah Rosin with my own mellow West Coast sound, which is slow, thoughtfully measured in its cadence, and settles far more kindly upon the ear -- wouldn't you say? Oh yes, Fidelbogen the MRA has a much better accent than Hannah Rosin the feminist!
But the most important takeaway point from the Hannah Rosin video -- and from everything else about Hannah Rosin -- is what it says about the state of matters between men and women. Hannah, a feminist if ever there was, has the generosity to inform us that women are doing just fine, and that men, contrary to received wisdom, are on the skids. And although we are rightly offended by Hannah Rosin's undertone of sadistic gloating and schadenfreude, that very tone, ironically enough, counts as "value added" to everything else she had given us. She has damned herself, damned feminism, and so given us something that will pave our highway to freedom. Or rather, she has added a generous truckload to the heap of such material that we already had.
And so Hannah Rosin has ripped some bodacious planks out of feminism's preaching platform, leaving feminism less to stand upon. How extremely generous of this feminist, to publicly declare what we have long known anyway: that "the power dynamics between men and women are shifting very rapidly." I guess that makes it "official", eh? So they'll find it a damn sight harder to lecture us about our male sins any more, seeing how their sad old story of women's oppression is looking a tad bit threadbare nowadays!
In a way, things are looking both better and worse for men. Granted that in terms of material prospects and social standings, the picture is decidedly grim. But for those of MGTOW persuasion, able to embrace the new "lunar freedom" and heave that worthless bag of rocks off their shoulders, it will offer exciting possibilities for self-development, alternative culture building, and existential homesteading on the "new frontier". It will also inspire them with sass and audacity to smite the enemy, and fuel the growth of that charisma which is so vital to the business of recruiting. The question is how far, and in what way, are we willing to forgo the life of conventional rewards and pleasures in return for something more. . . spiritual? Or if not that, at least creatively unconventional and adventurous?
But seriously: men are getting a raw deal with no lubrication and it is growing steadily worse. This is purely and simply a fact. We are being royally shafted in so many ways that we are not merely "second-class citizens" -- we aren't even citizens at all any more! Full stop. TFH (The Futurist) is famous for saying "if we had a men's movement", in order to express his principled disenchantment. I am fond of saying something a bit similar. I like to say "if we had a social contract". The point being, that we presently DO NOT have a social contract! That has been the case for quite some time now, and when we hear such feminist-incriminating tripe as we do from people like Hannah Rosin, it further validates this even while it rubs salt in the wound:
Now, to say that there is no social contract, means among other things that there is no external obligation for you to act ethically. The source of law, you would say, does not reside in the world outside of yourself. Therefore, where else could it reside but within yourself?
Any social contract is, of course, a social fiction and a superstition. In order for a social contract to work, it is necessary for people to believe in it implicitly, as an objective force to which, at the same time, they freely assent. No social contract can stay in force for long when a substantial part of the people feel aggrieved and alienated. They will conclude, perhaps rightly, that there is nothing in it for them -- or worse, they will feel it is positively inimical to their well-being. At such point the spell will break, and the "magic", hence the superstition, will evaporate. This is apt to be an ugly, untidy process -- a "warre of all against all", as Thomas Hobbes would say.
As a man in today's world, there is no case to be made that a social contract exists for you -- or at least, none that you are bound to respect. In light of present conditions, that superstition frankly ought to be long gone. And presently, all that stands between us and the Hobbesian state of nature is, firstly, that so much of the superstition does in fact remain in effect, and secondly, that so many men -- although unencumbered by illusions -- are still regulating their conduct from intelligent principles within themselves.
It is much the better for women that so many men are thus regulating themselves, for since we have no social contract, no man is externally obligated to any woman in any way. No man owes any objective duty to any woman. None. No man is under any imperative to treat any woman ethically whatsoever -- save only that this imperative flows from a moral law within him, a law of which he himself is the sovereign arbiter.
The feminists would like us to believe that men have some such objective duty toward women -- for example, to "oppose misogyny". But such a concept is pure imagination. It is true that any man may choose to comport himself as either a rational philosopher in his dealings with women, or as an unbridled reprobate, or as anything on the intervening spectrum -- but no external agency has any bearing upon this! All that remains in these times is the physical power of the state to coerce formalistic obediance to its dictates. Since we have no social contract, we have no instrumentality that would command the heart and mind -- or what some might call the conscience. Hence, to speak of any so-called "duty", toward women or anything else, is mere wind. Duty comes from a moral law within you, or it comes from nowhere.
So, I thank Hannah Rosin for killing the social contract even deader than it already was! This is far from being wasted work: a lot of people still don't know it is dead, and such efforts as Hannah's might drive the message home in few thousand more heads. What this all means in the long run is that we are steadily wheeling ourselves into a position where we can insist that the other side negotiate with us. They have always refused to negotiate, and you know what? That refusal, precisely, is the rope that will eventually hang them!
But now I would like to introduce you to another celebrated feminist -- one whom you have undoubtedly heard of anyway, so this is not strictly an introduction. This celebrated feminist is, well . . . the celebrated Eve Ensler, authoress of a stage production known as The Vagina Monologues. Eve is featured in a second TED video, which I link below. This video is titled "Embrace Your Inner Girl". You might think that sounds rather loopy, and . . you might actually be correct! Judge for yourselves:
You might notice that Eve Ensler has pretty near the same accent as Hannah Rosin, just a shade milder. Still, it sounds overbearing and solipsistic as hell, and prolonged exposure is like getting run over by a truck.
As a pillar of the early 21st century zeitgeist, Eve Ensler's signal contribution to the annals of civilization is, that she has organized a cult following of young females who like to gather in auditoriums and yell "cunt, cunt, cunt, cunt!" Now surely, one ought venture no objection to such a proceeding -- at any rate, not on the grounds of utility or morality. I would make bold to aver that such behavior is merely eccentric.
Aye, what signifies it to the rest of us, that crowds of young women, gripped by a mental contagion we cannot fathom, might gather in public halls of an evening and so comport themselves? Surely it is no concern to the world at large, for eccentricity, within bounds, ought merely to provoke a passing smile.
Significantly, I say passing smile -- meaning transitory. This does not bespeak any prolonged engagement, but rather something that passes quickly in passage or transist toward something else. For the attention you and I might spare to such mysterious doings ought properly (as the poets say!) to suit the measure to the matter. Just that far, and no farther.
So, whatever transpires in that temple is but a voluntary matter among the assembled worshippers, who will suit their own measure to their own matter as they deem proper: they alone and not, I beg to remind you, anybody else. To the worshippers in that temple, their mystery is manifestly a matter beyond all measure, while to the rest of us, speaking plainly now, their mystery manifestly lacks matter and may, for all we care, remain a mystery. Let that not be forgotten.
Eve Ensler's speech in the linked video is roughly twenty minutes of lyric psychobabble laced with obscure ideas that sound cultic. You will not truly know what she is talking about, yet her talk will sound so poetic and so compelling that it will feel as if she is really, truly saying something -- and you will find it hard to interrogate the message, even when that tiny voice in back of your head whispers:"Snake oil! Snake oil! Snake oil!"
People like Eve Ensler succeed in their game because they bombard you with factoids or fuzzy notions faster than you can possibly screen them for veracity, let alone disagree with them. This knocks you into a psychic paralysis where you are helpless but to allow what they are hoisting on you--or at least table your misgivings and not challenge any of it! And as one item after another slides past your perimeter and piles up around you, you sink deeper and deeper into a slippery, steep-sided well from which escape is well-nigh impossible.
But study the way any feminist operates individually, and you will straightway understand how feminism operates as a collective. It is altogether scalable from micro to macro.
Thus, you cannot "argue with" a feminist, or with feminism at large, in the classic way that argument is understood. If you are stuck in the audience at an Eve Ensler speech, for example, you are trapped in an echo chamber where everything is rigged against you. Your best plan is to stay out of echo chambers altogether, and if you arrive in one by accident, walk out of it first chance you get. And if you find, as so many of us now do, that the entire world is becoming a feminist echo chamber and there is no walking out of it, then you will have no choice but attack the speech in whatever form, written or spoken, it confronts you.
And your best plan is to follow the advice of Karl Marx, relentlessly challenging and critiquing everything you hear. Feminism, as you ought to know by now, is built upon a foundation of mingled truths and lies that have been repeated ten-thousand times, and piled layer upon layer ten miles deep, for nearly half a century. You should not even dream of "arguing" you way out of that hopelessly tangled mess, because every possible argument is now an argument on feminist terms -- that is just how far they have co-opted the frame of reference. So rather than defending a thesis or position of any kind, you should damn the torpedoes and dig right in, right where you stand, and challenge nearly everything the speaker says the minute he says it. That is how you escape the echo chamber when the entire world has become an echo chamber -- you sap the foundation of everything they are saying by every means at your disposal. Thus, nothing like "argument" ever occurs in the first place, because it never gets off the runway in the first place!
Don't take anything on faith. Demand proof continually. Be an eternal skeptic. Be an agnostic. The phrase "but is that really true?" ought to be poised on the tip of your tongue, ready to be sprung in to action at any moment. If the speaker tries to slip a feminist dogma past you, pull him up short by saying: "yes, I've heard that idea put forward occasionally!" If he says, "men are violent," shoot back with: "which men? Give me their names!" Undermine his worldview in every way large or small, and never let up. Disallow his most basic presuppositions. For example, if the speaker is using patriarchy theory, stop her dead cold and demand to know WHY she is using patriarchy theory. Then make clear that you are not a subscriber, and ask that she not use patriarchy theory when she is talking to you -- simply as a matter of courtesy!
Do you get the idea? Do you understand the method of attack I am sketching here? And most importantly, do you comprehend the strategy applications? Do you grasp that all of this can be applied both one-on-one, AND in a macro-political way?
So, go back, listen to Eve Ensler again, and mentally put into practice what I have described here. Also, bear in mind that we haven't got a social contract, so you don't even owe Eve any favors or courtesies of ANY kind in the first place!
Then, enjoy the rest of your day.