Monday, January 31, 2011

Russian Documentary on Antifeminism:
Now in English

The following e-mail arrives from a European correspondent -- who is affiliated with the IGAF, as you will gather. I will give the message here and let it speak for itself:
"Hey Fidelbogen

"We just finished producing the English subtitled version of the Russian IGAF report. If you find it useful, please spread it throughout the Anglosphere to let all men and women know that antifeminism is definitely rising up and to let feminists on the whole globe despair.

"Just to give you some background information:

"1. We are no native English speakers - so expect some mistakes.

"2. We are also no professional video makers - so please don't be offended when the quality is not exactly Hollywood-style ;-)

"3. This was originally a Russian report made for Russian TV. First it was translated into German (by some of our dudes who grew up in Eastern Germany under Soviet rule ...) and then it was translated into English. The makers are not like typical Western journalists (liberal/leftist/profeminist) but they aren't exactly veteran antifeminists either - it's a neutral report about feminism in the West from a non-Western perspective. However, in comparison to the gynocentric crap we are used to, it makes you feel like you're watching an antifeminist TV show. Oh and by the way - just ignore their little Russia-propaganda part at the end ;-)

"4. We put our logo and some of our beliefs about antifeminism at the beginning of the report. While not originally being part of the report, we still wanted to give the viewer a basic overview over our motivation behind antifeminism. However, this is not a promotion video about the IGAF itself or about organised antifeminism in Switzerland - it is "just" a journalistic report from outsiders. Still, it is the first professional documentary about organised antifeminism ever created as far as we know.

"That all being said, here you go:

Part I:

Part II:

Yes, it is time to THINK GLOBALLY. I would urge all of you activated non-feminists (oh very well: anti-feminists!) to follow his advice, and make this thing "go viral" in the Anglosphere, just as I am sure they are doing likewise for the Eurosphere. But now, I will embed both YouTube segments so you can watch them here:



Sunday, January 30, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 5

Adam Kostakis has posted Gynocentrism Lecture 5:
"Among the worst mistakes that freedom-loving people can make is to stereotype feminists as a small, motley crew of angry lesbians who have long since ceased to be relevant. Take note: this stereotype helps them. . . .I must repeat myself: this stereotype helps them. . . .Let that sink in for a moment. Every time you have belittled feminists as a bunch of cranky old hags that nobody takes seriously, you have helped to obscure their program and indeed, their very existence as a form of organized power. Belittle them, you must - but do so in a way which exposes, not obscures! For feminism is far from being a relic of the past. The feminist movement is taken very seriously indeed by those with the power to enforce its core aims . . ."
You know, it's funny. Even the feminists themselves kvetch perennially about the kind of stereotyping that Adam Kostakis describes here. Even they -- especially the young, naive third-wave types like Feministgal -- think that everybody is stereotyping feminists as hairy-legged lesbians. But that is not true. What IS true, is that only SOME people stereotype feminists in this way. But I know for a fact that the smart, cutting-edge MRAs do nothing of the kind. They make it their business to know their enemy, and believe me . . . they do!

No, our enemy is in fact largely invisible -- and we damn well know this! So feminists, stop speaking my mind for me, because you do not know what I am thinking. Do not stereotype me as a stereotyper! I know you FAR too well to stereotype you. Gads, you must think we're all stupid, or something! In fact, we know you better than you know us -- and better than you know yourselves. Whether you like it or not.

As I made clear to Feministgal somewhere on her blog, feminism as a sociopolitical organism could never have advanced far at all if most feminists really did resemble the hairylegged hellion personna. If that were so, then they would be far too easy to spot from a distance, and they could never sneak up on anybody in order to get all those anti-male laws passed, or worm their way into HR departments in order to establish "pink-listing" systems, or provide sufficiently attractive bait to young males whom they wish to "set up" for some type of false accusation.

No, I do not stereotype feminists. Or at least, not in the classic hairy lesbian way. I DO stereotype them in more subtle ways, however, based upon the core commonalities which operate within feminism as a whole. But it is debatable whether you could actually call what I do "stereotyping". Stereotyping is really a form of sampling and averaging -- which is why it gets things wrong so often. But I would insist that there is no such thing as "stereotyping" triangles, for example, as three-sided geometerical figures. I say that because there is no possibility of being wrong about such a thing.

But yes, I do "stereotype" feminists as participants in feminism -- for I cannot choose to believe that a feminist is a non-participant in feminism any more than I can choose to believe that a triangle is not three-sided.

This in its turn derives from an anterior "stereotypification": namely, that I "stereotype" feminism itself according to principles that are, once again, as rigorous as the generalization that a triangle is three-sided.

But Adam is right; the hairy lezbo stereotype DOES help feminism, because it serves as cover or camouflage. Or, if you will, as a decoy. If the naive feminists were smart, they would realize this and encourage it! And should we non-feminist insurgents pretend to fall for it, and fool the feminists into thinking that we are just as dumb as they think we are?

But go now to enjoy the latest from Gynocentrism Theory:

Friday, January 28, 2011

To Whom it May Interest

I have been informed that an English-subtitled version of the Russian news documentary (about IGAF) is in the works. And here I went and learned a whole lot of German when I could have just waited! Shucks! ;-)

Postscript: Maybe I am wrong about something here. Perhaps it is only an English translation in document version they are working on, and not a new edition of the YouTube! But we shall sea.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

IGAF Featured in Russian Documentary

Here is something that most Americans will never hear about. In fact, most Europeans won't hear about this either. It is a documentary, aired on Russian television, about the IGAF and about the men's movement in Switzerland. As you might expect, it is in Russian. However. . . the YouTube version has subtitles in German! Yes, I know, you were hoping for English! Well, take what you can get and be glad of it, my friend. . .

First, Part One:

Next, Part Two:

I happen to be lucky because I know a fair bit of German and Russian, and between the Russian narrator's voice and the German subtitles, I can mentally process the grist of what is being presented. I also resort to Google translator as needed. So, I learned quite a bit from watching these YouTube segments.

So I will say this: the documentary is good, balanced, even-handed journalism with no feminist angle whatsoever, and on the whole comes across as sympathetic to the pro-male side. The plight of Rudolf Oswald, a Swiss father brutally separated from his children in the scenario we know too well, is quite poignant. Rudolf has lived in his motorhome for twelve years, roaming around Switzerland from campground to campground and sometimes barely able to keep gas in the tank. He has tried legal means of redress -- including international appeals at the European Union level -- but all to no avail. He is now almost sixty years old, and in very poor health. Yes. . . his is a familiar story, repeated with infinite variations of detail in many countries. Such things are really happening and well. . . as you might guess, I blame feminism for this. The feminists either started it, or very clearly don't want it to stop. Or both. Either way, they're in it up to their earlobes. So, I figure we don't owe feminism any favors, or any respect whatsoever. Which, naturally, goes without saying!

As for that slimy, patronizing, big-haired "pastor" in the swank part of Zurich, well. . I wish there was some way I could reach him by reaching through the computer screen. . if you catch my drift!

I hope the documentary will be worth your while despite the language barrier. If nothing else, it is interesting to know that such media exposure is taking place -- and intriguing to know that it is taking place in Russia, of all places!

Saturday, January 22, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 4

Adam Kostakis, that inexhaustible violinist and balalaika player, has posted the fourth of his weekly lectures on gynocentrism theory:
"We must not be swayed by feminist attempts to deny the universalizing tendency inherent to feminism. In their attempts to win the debate over what feminism is, feminists are notorious for abridging their own ideology to a nub of its whole, and presenting their support for - and your dissent from - feminism as resting entirely on a single issue. Let me give an example, in which you are confronted by the Appeal to Franchise. You have just stated that you do not support feminism. Your feminist opponent's next move is to reduce the entirety of feminism to women gaining the right to vote - thus implying that you must oppose this, since you claimed to oppose feminism. You must simply remind all onlookers that feminism is about more than this and cannot be reduced to a single item as she has tried to do. You can openly state your support for that single item - in this case, the vote - while nevertheless maintaining your antipathy towards feminism, this being in no way reducible to women's right to vote.

"Essentially, your conscience is clear, and you are free to label yourself a non-feminist - and even, an anti-feminist - sans the implication that you therefore support every single thing that feminism opposes."
How craftily he closes still further in upon the territory of feminist subjectivism. Why heavens, next thing you know he'll be telling us that non-feminists are free to define feminism according to alternative criteria, whether the feminists approve of this or not! Mercy sakes, what is the world coming to, when non-feminists get to speak their own true minds about feminism?

But go now and read this week's lecture in its entirety:


Note: the following is recommended as foundational reading in conjunction with the above:

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Men's Network in Sweden - Can You
Believe THAT?

I am informed by a Swedish correspondent, that a "men's network" has recently sprung to life in Sweden. That's right, Sweden! By all accounts the most radically man-hating and feminazi country on all of planet earth!

Mind you, my Swedish correspondent is not one to mince words about Swedish feminism -- especially not when talking to a foreigner like me! By contrast, the Mansnatverket website, as you will observe, is bland, conciliatory and utterly vanilla -- almost supinely so! But I reckon they know what they are doing in a country like Sweden; they surely know they are travelling in a mine field, and that if they want to gain any distance whatsoever they must tiptoe through the tulips. Well, for the present, anyway. We'll see later if Swedish men throw the mask off! ;)

The remarkable thing is that such a group is forming at all in a country like Sweden. But the fact that such a group is forming right now is an especially telling sign alongside all the other pro-male activity that is springing to life in so many other countries.

Check it out, courtesy of Google Translator:

Feminists Have Lousy Accents!

I will send you away to watch a couple of videos on the "TED" website. After that, I'll comment a bit, as my custom is.

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.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Mystery Solved

The exaggerated hit traffic on this blog continues into its second day. And . . . it is increasing!

However, a commenter has tipped me the clue about what is happening. It appears that self-immolation -- setting yourself on fire as a form of protest -- is suddenly becoming rather popular, and in fact, spreading in copycat mode. It has happened mainly in North Africa so far, but an episode has also been reported from France.

So. . self-immolation is now a hot topic, burning fiercely in people's minds, and they are avidly seeking information.

I did a Google search on "self-immolation, tunisia". See for yourself what it brings up:

"self-immolation, tunisia"

Oh my, what a windfall this has been. For reference, my original blog post about Vasilica Iulian Grosu and Thich Quang Duc, which is pulling in the present torrent of web-surfers, can be seen here:

Labels: ,

Monday, January 17, 2011

Spreading Like Wildfire

Something extraordinary has been happening recently. For some time, I have been getting an abnormally large hit count on a certain CF blog post from mid-2007. Here is the post I am referring to; go and have a read:

As I say, this exaggerated flow has been going on for a while -- at least a week. In some mysterious way, the word got out. But today, all hell broke loose. It is like the dam crumbled and the flash-flood came roaring down the canyon all at once with no warning. As of this minute, the web stat reporting cycle is barely ten hours old, and the blog has already gotten 162 unique visitors.

The story told in that blog post, about a man who set himself on fire, is an appalling drama to be sure. A human interest story, as they say in the journalistic trade. And evidently a whole lot of people agreed with that assessment -- all at once! I do not know who these people are, politically or otherwise. And of course, I do not know why they all got here so SUDDENLY. What mechanism triggered their abrupt and massive arrival? It is a mystery.

But arrive they did. So, I reckon I ought to give the process a feeble boost of my own, by directing regular readers to that story, so that they too can ponder upon the significance of such a development. Good reading to you all!

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 15, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 3

Adam Kostakis has posted lecture number three of Gynocentrism Theory. The pace is quickening, the plot is thickening, and Adam is entering upon territory which I, in particular, find compelling. That is, he is undermining feminist subjectivism by challenging feminism's pretended right to self-define. As we see:
"Amidst the smoke and mirrors, a chorus of shrill voices from all directions can be heard to proclaim, "it's not our job to educate you about feminism!". . . . . Fine - then we shall have to cast around for ourselves, burrow for gems of knowledge, and procure our own judgments on what feminism is. And since feminists themselves have disavowed their role as our educators, the conclusions which we reach shall require no sanction from them. If it is not their job to educate us about feminism, then it could hardly be anybody else's but our own, could it?"
Well, granted that it's not feminism's job to educate us about feminism, I don't honestly think it is our job, either! I mean, what a friggin' nerve these people have, to imply that we MUST get educated about feminism . . . at all! If we undertake anything along that line whatsoever, we are actually doing them an enormous favor and showing them way more respect than they deserve! So they ought to be grateful, and not look a gift horse in the mouth. . . wouldn't you say?

All right, get thee hence accordingly and read the rest of GC Lecture No.3. Then, share the link with someone who might benefit from the study of such material:

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Battle for Feminism's Soul - Part 2
or : CF12 Redux

Here is something I have never done before. I have never embedded a podcast for a second time. But then, there is a first time for everything, right?:

Yes, an important part of this business is repetition -- as any enemy propagandist will tell you! What's more, items buried in the archives are not so apt to reach the public as current content. Since I have done so much work in making foundational things clear, and since those foundational things bear repeating -- and right often! -- it is only natural to recycle, and maximize the benefit.

Therefore, I have set this old podcast at the top of the stack because I know that a lot of readers will not learn about it otherwise. And they really ought to learn about it, because it speaks of matters that are both pivotally important and, of late, very much "in the buzz".

As always, here is the address where you can download your own copy of the MP3 file. If you wish to be of help to the non-feminist revolution, you can propagate this via CD-ROM, thumb drive, iPod, Reddit, e-mail, URLs printed on slips of paper or posted in forums, or cyber-feed methods of any sort.

Addendum: The podcast talks quite a bit about female supremacism. So. . while all of that is still echoing in your brain, you really ought to visit the following article at A Voice for Men:

Also, you really ought to download the following 136-page PDF file -- which throws even more tabasco sauce on what you have heard in the podcast and what you have read in the Voice for Men article:

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

How to Read a New York Times Article

I present for your reading enjoyment the following excerpt, taken from a e-mail recently sent to me by a men's rights activist in England. It summarizes some very important matters that warrant careful study and reflection. At the end, you will find a link to a recent New York Times article, which serves as study material to illustrate the principles that have been explained.

By the way, the New York Times article (by Charles McGrath) mentions the MRA world in passing, by making allusion to both Paul Elam's A Voice For Men website, and the Misandry Bubble article. We MRA types are described as "lurking around the edges of the male studies movement", as you will read in the NYT article. But first, the anti-brainwashing tutorial:
"This is actually a nice summary and example of the way Marxist brainwashing works. It is fascinating to read between the line of stuff like this but also, to carefully watch the messages we are bombarded with on a daily basis through TV, radio and the press. If we are dumb enough to spend most of our free time there, that is.
"One of the messages from this piece is a classic that we have all seen. The trick though, is to see what we are not told. For example. Men arguing against prejudice against them and becoming angry about what is being done to their brothers is called, "misogyny." What is missing is the argument that women doing the same thing are guilty of misandry. This keeps the dice loaded against the men in the mind of the reader, viewer or listener. In fact, the word "misandry" is almost never used in articles about feminists. The accusation of hate against males by women is never made, unless it is to shoot it down.

"If the reader takes the time to deconstruct articles like this one and put to one side of all the Marxist, pro feminist messages it contains and likewise, all the anti male messages, he or she would be shocked. Of course, to do that effectively, one must have an understanding of what Marxist/Feminism is and how brainwashing works. (Brainwashing, incidentally was perfected in the old Communist bloc and used constantly. It was tested as a theory on prisoners of war, particularly during the Korean and Vietnam wars and represents psychological warfare against an enemy).
"When most people want to try and understand those concepts who do they go to learn? Do they go to those with a healthy critical viewpoint of Marxist/Feminism who know how dangerous it is or, do they go to those aggressively selling it? Nine times out of ten the latter is the case. The result then, is that they become even more brainwashed.

"Brainwashing works by continually repeating the same messages over and over again in slightly different ways, while at the same time convincing the hearer/viewer/reader who is the target for negative mind changing that their thoughts are lies, stupid and backward and need to be changed in order to think "correctly." Constantly undermining the confidence of potential rebels with negative messages prevents rebellion. "You are too small." "You are not powerful enough." "You cannot do this alone." "No one else thinks like you." "No one will help you." Etc., etc., etc. On the other side, attention is paid by the brainwashers to convincing the hearer/viewer/reader who is the target for "positive" mind changing, that their thoughts are "right," "powerful," "true" and so on and that they have a lot of support and "everyone agrees with you." "You are right." Etc., etc.,

"Men and women born before the brainwashing began are referred to as "grumpy old men, or women" and... "Men/women of a certain age." "Dinosaurs." "Past it." "Reactionaries." "Living in a mythical golden age." And on and on. This is to prevent contamination of the "new thinkers" (mostly the young) by the "old thinkers" (those who were pre-revolutionary and who have memories of what life was like under freedom).

"Vehicles for brainwashing include popular TV show such as soap operas. Movies.(Visual) Music, radio plays and dramas and radio soaps (audio) and any and all forms of printed media from school books to comics. (Mental). The message given through these medium may be positive or negative but all will uphold the forced political viewpoint being fed into the minds of the subjects. For example: if you wish to end support for the Christian Church then popular shows will parade "Christians" in various negative ways. . . as hypocrites, paedophiles, thieves, rapists and so on. The media will concentrate on any bad "Christians" it can find and exaggerate the depth of the problem by printing the same stories over and over again in slightly different ways. Comedians will constantly attack "Christians" and "Christianity". On and on it goes . . .

"Positive brainwashing only works with people who have limited personal experience of a different reality. Someone brought up before the Marxist/Feminist revolution will be much harder to reach and if they resist, almost impossible to reach. However, someone "educated" in the time since the revolution began has already been primed to accept the message so they will receive it gladly and unthinkingly.

"Anyone armed with this understanding who now deconstructs articles like this one in the light of that understanding, will begin to see how this stuff works."

Monday, January 10, 2011

What I Wrote on Another Blog

Here is a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Oh, the animal rights people will hate me for saying THAT, eh?

But yes; two birds with one stone. I get to make a quick-and-easy blog post that is zippy and zesty, plus I get to introduce a new blog and send some traffic to it. This new blog constitutes, as I would aver, a strategic locus of interstitiality, so for that reason alone I am quite certain that you will want to look into it!

It is, of course, the blog of Lady Catherine:

Musings of a Pro-Humanist Woman

All right, I left a comment on LC's latest post, as you will find out if you follow the above link. When you read that post it will give you the full context, however, I share the comment below. I think it touches on a couple of important things:
"I actually think social conservatism is terrible and hurtful to others. "

It depends on what you are calling 'social conservatism'. So. . I am not sure what to make of this statement.

As for FOTC, her critique of the so-called MRA movement is done in smorgasbord style: she picks what she wants to put on her plate, arranges this artistically, and calls the final composition "the MRM" as if she were describing something objectively real -- which, to some extent it is, but to another extent, it is not. That makes it a half truth, which, in my considered opinion is considerably worse than a full lie.

And no, my own analysis of feminism does NOT commit this fault.

ALSO. . . . FOTC fails to consider that the "MRM" is only one piece of a much, much broader picture. That "picture" is, of course, the non-feminist revolution as a whole.

"The MRAs I really respect like Fidelbogen(excuse me he's a non-feminist :-)) and Paul Elam don't have a misogynist bone in their body."

Thanks for pointing out that I am a non-feminist! ;) Of course, I am also a Male Rights Agitator -- I can't deny that the descriptor fits pretty well what I do, so I might as well wear it, eh?

As for not having a misogynistic bone in my body: I ought to flesh out that characterization a little bit more. While I neither affirm nor dispute this statement, it is critically important to add that I do not care in the least if anybody THINKS that I have a misogynistic bone in my body.

As a non-feminist I am not bound to answer to any such charge, because I am not bound by the social construct within which the charge is framed. I consider "misogyny" and "misogynist" to be feminist terminology, and as such, permanently tainted.
I must now contradict my stated policy in the comment, and admit that I do, in fact, have a misogynistic bone in my body -- to be exact, the second phalange in my left pinky! It is dreadfully misogynistic. And how do I know this? Because the lab results came back a few days ago. But as we all know, feminists haven't got any sense of humor -- especially not the dry, English kind of humour which I, as an American, am imitating here. And that is why I am outing this wicked morsel of information to all the world!

Sunday, January 09, 2011

The Intersection of Patriarchy Theory
and Female Accountability

What offsets feminism from its host surroundings, is the essential simplicity of feminism itself.

Feminism merely spawns complexity in order to conceal its underlying mindset and camouflage its intentions, but the unifying equation which underlies the complexity may be tersely stated: Feminism = Female Supremacism.

However, this equation must not be nakedly stated, for it would be socially unpalatable and politically indiscreet to appear to advocate female supremacy. What's needed, is deniability. Accordingly, feminism as a sociopolitical organism must undertake a number of covert and distributed operations, in order to move forward circumspectly along the multiple pathways of its intentions.

And so feminism exploits every inherent tendency in the world that might accelerate the world toward a feminist—read female supremacist—state of existence. To put that another way, feminism harnesses those tendencies: horses roaming at liberty in a pasture will not pull your wagon—you must harness them.

In the end, the critical question is not "who exactly is or isn't a feminist?", or even "what exactly is or isn't feminism?", but rather "who or what, directly or indirectly, accelerates the worldly agenda of female supremacism?".

"Feminism" is best identified by the totality of its operations, and by its "fruits". Look for anything that either directly or indirectly strengthens women at the expense of men.

I don't mean to suggest that people or things correctly identifiable as feminists, or as feminism, don't exist. I mean rather that feminism as a cultural phenomenon is greater than the sum of its parts or of its conscious membership, and that the separation between feminism and the rest of the world is like a duotone rather than a boundary.


As I have stated elsewhere , feminism has fuzzy borders. In the vernacular of postmodernism, feminism is imbricated. There are many people or things which mightn't be purely feminist in themselves, yet they accelerate the feminist agenda all the same, because they transmit or validate feminist memes.

Feminism thrives and grows because it taps the immense reservoir of human venality, cupidity, fear, conformity and other psychic crud—especially the female half of this reservoir! Without access to this reservoir, feminism as a movement and as an ideology would crumble and blow away in the wind.

Now, the feminist sociopolitical organism couldn't keep existing solely on the back of such naive and passive support as I have suggested. In order to get going (and to keep going), it needed (and continues to need) an active cadre of self-identified indoctrinated believers—preferably in seats of influence. The organism cannot live without a brain—and a brain needs administrative capacity, otherwise, what's the point?

And so the indoctrinated operators (identifiable as feminists) find ample work, whatever their vocational standing.

And their work. . . is what? It is, to drip-feed the memes of female supremacism into the collective mind through channels large or small. Briefly, to plant suggestions. For although a suggestion is not the same as a command, there is at least a chance it will be taken up. Or, which is equally good, propagated by word-of-mouth!

And when suggestive indoctrinations trickle down the chain from voice to voice, they shade by degrees into enculturations, and therefore into unconsciousness. For culture, as we know, is propagated in naive oblivion. The original composition of a compost is discernible only in the outermost layers. . .

To recapitulate: feminism as a sociopolitical organism is set in motion, and kept in motion, only because indoctrinated operators work to make this happen. The world has gotten poisonous for men only because these pioneering activists and ideologues have worked to make it that way, blazing a trail which larger numbers have followed and trampled into a broad highway.

If not for the pioneering operators, there would be no operation. Their collective presence has the effect of a magnet, which generates a field greater than its own dimension. The field, in turn, activates anything of a ferrous nature within its range.

This field would neither spring into existence, nor continue to exist, were it not for the existence of the magnet. And while it is literally true that the field is not the magnet, it is beyond dispute that field and magnet are jointly comprehended under the rubric of magnetology—together they compose a unitary phenomenon.

This metaphor of the magnet roughly explains why there is "more to feminism than feminism". The indoctrinated operators are feeding certain organizing ideas into the world—propagating them in all directions. And these organizing ideas are implicative or supportive of the occult dogma of feminism— to wit, female supremacism.

The idea of patriarchy is the skeletal framework that holds the entire slamboozle together because, one way or another, everything hangs upon this idea. Patriarchy "theory" runs all through feminism (albeit more commonly implied or assumed than openly stated), and without such a doctrine feminism wouldn't amount to much.

Female supremacism implies moral license for women, because it implies that women are quintessentially more "right" than men, and therefore entitled not only to the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but to extra perks and pamperings as well. But female supremacism by itself is merely an "attitude", and insofar, has need of an "analysis" to back it up. Patriarchy theory provides that analysis.

Patriarchy theory is the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, galvanizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow. . .

Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight.

The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.

The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life. (The recompense in question being, of course, a restitution of some abstractly-understood thing which "patriarchy" has originally stolen—or so theory would have it.)

Under such a scenario individual lives, motivations and reflexes are negated and subsumed by an ideological requirement, and women are converted into moral robots in the service of a zero-sum game.

Yes, the proclivity of feminism is to bestow moral robot-hood on women. And the razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the line that divides the non-feminist sector from the entire feminist zone of influence. That bright line, precisely, is the boundary.

And the day that feminism commences to preaching that bright line, robustly and full-bloodedly, is the day that the femplex goes into remission. But feminist preachers instead smear this bright line all over the landscape and make it a fuzzy duotone, because the dawning of that day is the last thing they want to see.

For feminism, you understand, has amazingly little to say about ethical behavior toward men. Hear the feminist silence roar! Their sparse words upon that subject are perfunctory and pro forma—rhetorical trinkets at best. In theory, feminism makes moral robots of all women, for it would have women believe that immoral behavior toward men is precluded from the realm of possibility. Were it otherwise women would, in theory, possess moral agency. And with moral agency would come responsibility—to wit, the primordial possibility of transgression.

But the sequestered intention of feminism (read female supremacism) is to endow women with power minus responsibility. For if women were to assume the burden of ethical behavior toward men, they would ipso-facto relinquish feminist power over men, by which I mean the power to deal with men arbitrarily—and female supremacism, in the form of perpetual revolution, could advance no further.

I, the present writer, am pro-choice, meaning that I believe in choice for women: ethical choice. I further believe, as a general thing, that choices have consequences, and that women should not be shielded from the consequentiality of their choices. For to experience the consequentiality of one's choices is an element of freedom not to be neglected and, which is more, indispensable to spiritual evolution. And I believe that women should undergo as much freedom as men would undergo, for I wish to see an efflorescence of their spiritual evolution. Can't we all benefit from such blossomings?

Saturday, January 08, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 2

Adam Kostakis has posted the second in what will be a long series of weekly lectures on his new blog, Gynocentrism Theory:
"In spite of its radical rhetoric, the content of feminism, or one could say, its essence, is remarkably traditional; so traditional, in fact, that its core ideas are simply taken for granted, as unquestioned and unquestionable dogma, enjoying uniform assent across the political spectrum. Feminism is distinguishable only because it takes a certain traditional idea - the deference of men to women - to an unsustainable extreme."
Anyhooo . . . I've got e-mails to write, so I will send you along now:

Friday, January 07, 2011

Is 'Boycott American Women' a Feminist False Flag?

Perhaps you have heard of a blog, recently commenced, by the name of Boycott American Women. The title, I am sure, reveals the genre.

Now, I grant that any man on earth is entitled to seek a woman anywhere on earth where it shall please him to so seek. But while I am fully aware that this theme has been popular among certain segments of what you might loosely call the men's rights sub-sector, it is not a theme which I, myself, find politically advantageous to address in my writings. Accordingly, you will find the Counter-Feminist blog silent upon such matters.

At any rate, the author of Boycott American Women (or BAW) has left comments at various MRA websites requesting that they add his blog to their link roll. I don't know how many have complied with this request, if any, but I know that I was not among them. I feel that there is a glut of such writings already, and that the non-feminist revolution needs to "raise the curve" in certain respects, in the interest of rhetorical discipline, intellectual crystallization, and branding.

So again, I have not linked the BAW blog, and have no intention of ever doing so.

But I find the BAW blog to be of interest for other reasons. To be quite plain-spoken, there is something about it I don't like. To me, the odor of phony baloney wafts far too strongly from it, and I am not alone in that appraisal. It seems altogether too pat, too neat, too glib, too potted, too boilerplate, too self-parodyingly lowbrow, too much like a set-up job. Moreover, certain quirky inconsistencies, which I'll not take the trouble to go into, stand out to my critical gaze.

And I find it difficult to understand, by-and-large, the purpose of such a website. What is it meant to accomplish? This is not apparent on the surface, which might seem to hint that the blog itself is more than meets the eye.

Briefly then, I have a sneaking suspicion that the publisher of the BAW blog is a feminist who has created this website for tactical and propaganda purposes, as a ruse -- although I could be wrong. But you may go to BAW and make your own evaluation:

But now, the plot thickens. The popular feminist website Feministe has strangely taken notice of BAW and posted about it (on 12-27), and the commenters are having a merry old time using BAW for mudflinging practice in the time-honored feminist manner. Go have a read:

Again I say, that all of this has fallen into place far too . . conveniently. Why on earth would the Feministe people find out about BAW so very, very soon after its debut? What would lead them to learn of it so quickly? Why the hell would it appear in THEIR comment section, of all places? And more importantly, seeing that BAW is so relatively obscure, why would they even condescend to take notice of it whatsoever? All in all, this seems, well. . . disproportionate.

All of this, combined with the "phony-baloney" factor, inclines me to speculate audibly about such things with the intention that the world at large shall hear it. And if I am wrong about this case in particular, I am certainly not wrong about such things in general. Such things do happen.

And I feel it is wise policy to put into circulation the simple common acknowledgment that such things do happen. This will help to foster a healthy skepticism -- on the part of all, but especially on the part of potential supporters -- toward manifestations of this nature. In such manner we may set a pre-emptive onus of imputation upon our adversaries, and innoculate ourselves against forces that might tend to skew our branding.

ACHTUNG, BITTE!: If you got here from the link on Pandagon, go have a gander at THIS:

Amanda Marcotte Says You Want to Rape Her!

Thursday, January 06, 2011

The Linguistic Front in the Feminist War

Today, I will share a short treatise that was sent to me a couple of days ago by an MRA, or "antifeminist" as he would describe himself, from the mysterious, exotic heart of continental Europe. That's the Eurosphere . . as opposed to the Anglosphere. Most of my readers are from the Anglosphere, so I think they will enjoy the international flavor.

The author of this piece goes by the cyber-name of Manifold, and he publishes a German language blog entitled 'Die Söhne von Perseus' . Yes, aren't we all the sons of Perseus, working to decapitate the snake-haired Medusa that is feminism?

Feminist Destruction of the German Language - an Antifeminist Review

by Manifold

Definition of Feminism

Feminism is a broad term with a lot of aspects. In order to avoid confusion and to keep a coherent understanding, I define feminism as having four important aspects. The institutionalized aspect which affects laws, education, court rulings and politics in favor of women and at the cost of men, the zeitgeist dominating aspect which results in media reporting on an anti-male and pro-female basis, the academic aspect consisting of pseudoscientific ideologies such as gender studies (henceforth summarized as “genderism”) which propagate an anti-masculine gynocentrism and the individual aspect culminating in the misandrist attitude of some women towards men in general.

Modern antifeminism deals with all these four aspects of feminism.


Feminism institutionalized itself (“Staatsfeminismus”) affecting laws concerning divorce, child custody, domestic violence and court rulings on a pro-female and anti-male basis. It also uses the state to promote women’s interest at the cost of men’s well being. It uses pseudoscientific, totalitarian ideologies such as genderism (“Gender Mainstreaming”) with the aim of abolishing the sexes in general and masculinity in particular. Feminism dominates the zeitgeist which leads to the fact that feminist lies and views were spread by the media without halt until just recently, when a resurgent antifeminism began to question feminist “moral authority” over almost every aspect of public and private life.

Antifeminism provides a detailed analysis of every aspect of modern feminism combined with facts and arguments to dismantle feminist belief systems. Modern antifeminism is a tool used by many different groups which are opposed to feminist ideas and influences. Men’s rights activists, masculists, PUA-activists and many others use it to articulate their views of the negative features of feminism in Western societies. However, the motivation behind antifeminism is quite different for each of these groups.

Men’s rights activism uses antifeminism to fight the main obstacle on the road to men’s rights which is institutionalized feminism and propagates the abolition of the discrimination of men. Masculism applies a global view to the problem and combines men’s rights activism, the protection of masculinity and antifeminism to establish true equality – meaning same rights and responsibilities for men and women without exceptions. PUA-activists fight against the feminist criminalization of male sexuality and try to set themselves free of feminist programming concerning the sexes.

Language Destruction – Feminist Motivation

Like every totalitarian ideology, feminism tries to manipulate the way people perceive reality and their manner of thinking by trying to alter the language people use. Their prime motivation of manipulating the German language is threefold:

1) To make women “visible“
2) To eliminate masculine forms
3) Revenge – annoying men with language as a Swiss feminist once put it.

Feminists perceive masculinity as an eternal threat (“rape culture”, “hegemoniale Männlichkeit”, “patriarchy”) which surrounds them everywhere they go. This is no different with the German language which relies heavily on the masculine genus, especially the words with a more active meaning are mostly masculine.

Instruments of Linguistic Destruction

There are several methods feminists and their sympathizers use to destroy the German language.

1) “Athleten und Athletinnen”/”Arzt/Ärztin”/”Soldat_innen”/”ein(e) Lernende(r)” – always mentioning the female form of the word, even if it does not exist (“Feuerwehrfrauen”).

2) “AkademikerInnen”/”Sportlerinnen” – removal of the masculine form.

3) “frau” in place of “man”/”jederfrau” in place of “jedermann” – replacing of generic masculine forms with sexistic female forms.

The Error in Feminist Thinking

The main flaw in feminist thinking is the fact that the biological sexus and the grammatical genus are not the same. Feminists do not separate these two completely different linguistic concepts. German has three different genera (Maskulinum, Femininum, Neutrum) but only two sexes (Masculinity, Feminimity). Even asexual things are associated with a genus by feminists.

Many German words include both masculine and feminine meanings, such as “der Mensch” (man and/or woman can be meant), der Gast (male and/or female guest) and “der Flüchtling” (both male and/or female refugee) are examples of the German Androgynum – the fact that a word can have male and/or female meaning depending on the context.

When feminists cry that they want that female forms to be mentioned also, then one has to answer that the Androgynum is not an explicit male form because the biological sexus is not the same as the grammatical genus.

With the demand to eradicate the Androgynum by forcing female forms into the language, sexism is not abolished – on the contrary, it is introduced into the German language because as a consequence every word is perceived as having a biological sexus while Neutrum-words are perceived as asexual such as “das Kind”. But the Androgynum had no connection with the sexus – all people were meant with it without meantioning their sexuality. The feminist abolition of the Androgynum leads also to countless repetitions which annoy readers and listeners alike.

Feminist language destruction disables the German language to express certain relations logically. The sentence “Frauen sind die vernünftigeren Autofahrer” (“Women are the more reasonable car drivers”) makes no sense when every word is perceived as having a biological sexus. “Frauen” is female but the word “Autofahrer” would be understood as only male. But female drivers cannot logically be the more reasonable male drivers, as this sentence suggests. The much hated Androgynum includes both sexes and would allow to logically express the meaning of this sentence.

It also makes teaching the German language much more difficult and gives each word a political meaning. It lets all texts written before 1990 appear to be male-centric and female-excluding, while in reality, the Androgynum meant both sexes without distinction. The German language loses aesthetic value while no new or additional information is given.

All these molestations of the German language reduce the readability of texts and even women confess that they find it embarrassing.


Due to all these arguments, feminist language destruction must be stopped immediately. German – the language of poets and thinkers - is too old and too beautiful to let it be politically manipulated by manhating dykes. It is therefore the duty of every antifeminist to fight against this terrible kind of language rape.

Sunday, January 02, 2011

Something "Old" Which is Up-To-Date

An easy post! That is what I like. I wrote most of this almost four years ago, so I don't need to write it again! All right: the following is a comment I left on a feminist blog called It is in response to a post by blog authoress Tekanji, a not-overtly-hateful feminist of the geeky bore variety -- a closely related species to the notorious "earnest" feminist. (I would say they are in the same genus.)
fidelbogen says:
March 20, 2007 at 1:24 pm

“Privilege is feeling entitled to always be included, no matter what.”

I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I have heard plenty of similar statements from various feminists, generally along the line of “you men think this is all about YOU. Well it’s not all about you. It just isn’t! Get over it!”

Of course, I find that statement intellectually fallacious: In fact, it IS about men to SOME extent at least – although I’m sure it is about other things as well. Point taken.

But as for “not being included” – fine! I will remember not to ask to be included – not that I need much reminding on that score.

I can assure you that what the counter-feminist center undertakes in terms of future projects will in no way depend upon “inclusion” within feminist culture or feminist discourse, nor upon mirror-equivalent mimicry of same.

So, write me down as one who does not request inclusion.

The theme which I took up in this little essay, way back in early 2007, is becoming more mainstream and commonplace among current MRAs. To which I say: About time! I say there are quite a few feminist "demands" that we can grant not only with no pain to ourselves, but with considerable profit! As the above serves to illustrate.

As non-feminists and counter-feminists, we are saying to feminism: "Damn straight we don't want to be included in your world. Now, stay out of OURS!"

The term "counter-feminist center" may seem a bit obscure. I know it is to me, now. But to my recollection, counter-feminist "center" means the distributed, loosely linked center of intellectual gravity around which the non-feminist revolution, as a whole, revolves.

The original post and thread on the Shrub blog may be seen here:

Saturday, January 01, 2011

The Dawn of a New Era

It happens but rarely in this life, to be a herald who sounds the trumpet. But today, I am right honored to be just that kind of horn player!

The intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has been long a-building, and many have been the pioneering philosophers who have contributed to this ongoing effort over the course of years. Yes, I should know, for I have been one of them! We have all, in our ways, piled stone upon stone, building on the work of those who came before us.

And this thing of ours began how? It began with ordinary men -- men who knew that something was not right!

These men knew that a foul wind was astir, and that it blew from all directions. Understandably, they could not trace it; they could not unriddle the mystery of it; they could not reduce it to order. And finally, they could not comprehend what to do about it. For in the midst of this tempest they wandered in darkness, through an unknown landscape where entirely new forces prevailed, where old maps were useless and compass needles vacillated crazily in search of a magnetic north that had simply vanished.

Again, ordinary men knew that something was not right. And how did these men know? Well, some got their knowledge the hard way, through personal suffering or even tragedy. And others? Well. . they just knew. For it is only natural to heed your nose when a foul tempest strikes from all directions, yes?

So knowledge dawned, by degrees, upon men in growing numbers. And these men, largely by the grace of the internet, began to find each other and to share information. The most precious gift they acquired was the knowledge that they were not alone. And knowing this, they let the torch beam of their pooled comprehension play randomly upon the alien landscape where they found themselves, and they commenced by stages to know something of its topography, of the laws which formed it, and of the forces which governed their own place within it.

Every step along that road of knowledge not only brought renewed conviction that something was not right, but yielded growing evidence of what, in particular, was wrong. And bit by bit, the accumulations of analysis would crystallize into synthesis, leading to more analysis and more synthesis, layer by layer.

And so in time, we have witnessed the growth of understanding as a sequential progression of logic beginning in the microcosm of personal experience, and rippling ever outward into greater circumferences. Simply put, we have gained, through hard-fought battles of clarification, a view of the big picture. And here we pause for breath while we take in the panorama.

Yes, the panorama seems to swirl for a minute, but very soon settles into focus. And gazing out upon it, it dawns upon us little-by-little that we have arrived at the Next Level, that the game from henceforward will be very, very different indeed. We are ready to cast off the "mind-forged manacles" of the past, and face the future with a different set of implements.

In sum, the intellectual crystallization of the non-feminist revolution has reached a milestone, and is now set to grow exponentially, as never before.

Today, the first day of the new year 2011, marks the inauguration of a bold new website in the field of counter-feminism and pro-male advocacy. I expect this new website will become notorious, even infamous, and brew quite a storm! The author of this website is Adam Kostakis -- and Adam is a new man in every way. And although you've not heard of him, be assured, oh yes, that he has heard of you!

Now, it has been my good fortune to work closely with Adam Kostakis over the past few months, and I guarantee that he and I are of one mind upon the thought that feminists have no sense of humor!

But cutting to the chase: Adam Kostakis is a mysterious Slavic revolutionary from the dark hinterlands, an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, an accomplished violinist who plays tortuously difficult Tartini sonatas on his vintage Stradivarius and lives in a dark, baronial castle atop the basalt cliffs overlooking the Yakima River Canyon in eastern Washington state, USA. In addition, Adam Kostakis wears a monocle, clicks his heels like a Prussian junker, and carries a manly duelling scar across his left cheekbone. All-in-all, patriarchally considered, quite the deuce of a fellow!

Adam has spent years in his tower pondering the work of the MRA philosophers (including my own!) and generally scrutinizing the MRA scene, and he believes the hour has struck in which he too must enter the lists and cross swords with the femplex. As an arcane doctor of epistemetaphysiology, Adam Kostakis has a superbly synthesizing mind which he has brought to bear upon the business now in hand. And Adam has formulated an innovative world-paradigm that will compose the efficient philosophical foundation for the non-feminist revolution as it moves ever deeper into the post-argumentalist phase of the feminist war.

Adam Kostakis's website is a blog which bears the straightforward title of Gynocentrism Theory. Starting immediately, Adam will make known his counter-feminist teachings in regular installments, or lectures, to be posted on a weekly basis. The whole wide world is invited to attend these lectures, but non-feminist partisans, at all levels of training, are particularly invited. For it is such folk especially whom we hope to inspire with a new modality of thinking, feeling, operating, and being-in-the-world.

Adam's blog has been in preparation for several months, and the lecture material stands ready well in advance. Adam has submitted numerous manuscripts to me for critical perusal and advisement, and this work, for me, has been a pleasure indeed!

What you will find is a grand new synthesis that builds upon the best MRA traditions of the past, and yet surpasses them -- keeping what is profitable while purging away the dross, in a way that combines both conventional and unconventional strategies. Welcome to the New Level, and brace yourself for the power boost! We lay the foundation here for a new political understanding and a new model of disciplined preaching -- a stabilizing center of gravity amidst the intellectual chaos which, until now, has prevailed in both the pro-male men's movement and the non-feminist sector as a whole.

Scattering memes in the wind, steady as we go . . .

Go now: