Sunday, February 27, 2011

Pedophilia Hysteria!

Kiddy-fiddling. It happens all over the world, apparently. The thought of it makes my flesh creep and turn green, and I know that the flesh on most of my readers would respond likewise.

For a change, here is a blog article which broaches the fact that women do it too. And it is written by a woman. A Swedish woman, no less! The article offers a good rundown on the various sexual double-standards, in both culture and the media, which cluster around the reportage and discussion of child sexual abuse.

All right. As any MRA will quickly point out, male offenders get slammed a lot harder -- along with men collectively. Overall, female offenders are treated more leniently, and women as a group are in no way on the hook for such behavior. That is, we are commonly made to understand that male pedophilia is something which "men" do, so that when a man gets caught, then he in his singular person symbolizes "men", while for some strange reason female pedophilia is never something that "women" do, so that when a woman gets caught she remains merely that singular person -- and somebody is sure to recommend therapy.

So typically, the feminists will slobber and shit themselves in ecstasy when a male pedophile hits the headlines: "Men did this!!"

Needless to say, child abusers are a miniscule fraction of total male population -- there is zero evidence to prove otherwise. But here, let's put that in perspective in a way that sounds eminently plausible. Assuming a present male population of 150 million in the USA, let us suppose that just one in a thousand of that number will commit pedophilia in his lifetime. Do the math. That works out to 1,000 men out of every million. Multiply by 150 and you get 150,000 present or eventual pedophiles out of the currently existing male population. In absolute quantitative terms, that is a lot of people. Can you visualize such a crowd? It is an impressively large sea of humanity -- more than enough to keep the headlines busy and populate the sexual offender registry alongside all those innocent guys who fell victim to feminist-instigated legislationary man-trapping. And yet, it is still just a spit in the pond compared to the overall male population!

And I would not doubt, not in the least, that the proportion of pedophiles among the pro-feminist men's movement, measured as a percentage of the total, markedly exceeds the figure for men in general. Keep an eye on those fellows; there is most certainly something very, very "off" about them!

Another thought: what percentage of the adult lesbian population do you suppose has the moral capacity to "good rape" (as Eve Ensler would say) a female child? Or again, what percentage of the hetero female population would take advantage of little boys for sexual purposes? If we were to find these numbers comparable to the figure for male pedophiles, should it mollify the severity of our judgment to be informed that, after all, the perpetrators were "girls"? And would that make it somehow less endemic to femaleness than the male counterpart might be considered endemic to maleness? By what logic would it be possible to uphold such a conclusion?

I am driven to wonder why our society has gotten so obsessed with pedophilia in the last quarter-century or so. Is there anything new about the sexual exploitation of children? Has the world never seen such things before, or if it has, ought we reckon that more of it is currently happening than any time in history? What's up with this recent obsession, anyway?

I feel confident the world contains, all adjustments factored, no more and no less sexual abuse of children than it ever did. I say confident because I am convinced that no better case, under no better warrant, can be ventured.

That said, it saddens me to continue. For I see little else in our present-day pedo-hysteria than a shabby cloak for something that hardly bears looking into -- something akin to a moldy disease in the collective psyche. I mean, that pedophilia as such is not the real issue here. The sexual abuse of children, nasty though it be, is nowhere near so diabolical as this culture of frenzied witch-hunting and rabid moral hypocrisy which has grown up around it, spreading its vituperative poison into every limb of the body-politic. The latter overshadows the former by an order of magnitude -- both on the objective scale of evil and in point of sheer volume. Think Lord of the Flies. Think "kill the beast, kill the beast, kill the beast!" Yes, it is along those lines! Dark drool from Gehenna. Pustulence. Horrid, primordial stuff.

But to a feminist of either political wing, right OR left, it is all good. It is all just another move in their war against men, and they would dearly love to see actual pedophilia become more common, or to somehow learn that it actually is quite common already. But if they can't enjoy either of those scenarios honestly, they will continue seeking ways to manufacture them through fraudulent manipulation of data and mass psychology.

The feminists don't give a bloody spit about female-perpetrated pedophilia of any kind, because men are not the guilty parties in such transactions. And lack of male guilt equals no political ammunition against men, not to mention it is politically counterproductive to throw a spotlight on female guilt. And even though the feminists are said to be looking out for women they don't, on average, give a bloody spit about female victims of pedophilia unless the perpetrator is male. Finally, the feminists don't give a bloody spit about male victims of pedophilia unless the perpetrator too is male -- in which case the feminists perk up like magic and become all compassion for cherubic little lads falling into the lizard claws of those catamite NAMBLA perverts!

Yes, even if "not all feminists are like that", feminism as a sociopolitical organism exists ultimately for the purpose of promoting female supremacy. And along that road, feminism as a sociopolitical organism aims to inflict upon men every persecution which it is feasible to inflict within the constraints dictated by political expediency -- by which I mean, the need to wear a respectable mask. Such is feminist mind-rape culture.

And feminism, as a sociopolitical organism, doesn't give a goddamned rip-snort how much human misery and social wreckage it collaterally generates in the process of wrecking men. That truth is becoming more and more plain to more and more people, and those people will rise up and build a brick wall in feminism's path. In fact, if you listen closely, late at night when the world is still, you might catch the faint scraping sound of trowels on mortar in the distance. Did you know that most feminists are inordinately fond of the wine known as amontillado?

But enough for now.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Destruction of Families is a
Humanitarian Victory?

The following was sent to me by a father's rights activist, in an e-mail titled "A Small Reminder of Why We Engage in Battle." I recommend reading the linked article because it might raise your hackles, and that is generally a good thing -- especially if it is newcomer hackles that get raised. For there is no better way to gain recruits than to raise newcomer hackles -- pointing in the right direction, of course!


Here is a sample from the linked article:
"Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”
" 'In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights.'
"'Day after day, Mexico experiences a process of this diversity and there are those who understand it as a crisis, because they only recognize one type of family', one of the speakers on the panel also told the audience.
"The comments followed close on the heels of the World Meeting of Families, which was held in Mexico City in January, and which strongly reaffirmed the importance of the traditional family and its indispensible role in transmitting values to the next generation. It was opened by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who observed that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births were contributing to the rise of violence and crime in Mexico."
This is straight from the department of 'I Am Not Making It Up'. And I am really hoping that some feminist reader will get in here and explain -- or "femsplain" -- what I have just shared. Make clear to us, please, how feminism officially stands in relation to what the article narrates.

When feminists are confronted with possibly inculpatory things that pertain to feminism, they are famous for acting puzzled and asking "how does this pertain to feminism?" Now, I don't know if I should chalk that up to feminist subjectivism, or to blame it on willful ignorance, but either way it is not my job to teach counter-feminist analysis or plain objective reality to feminists who are are bloody thick. They have had years and years to read and ponder, to sort and sift, and to let the countless messages of countless MRAs sink in and grab hold. We have addressed their questions a thousand times over, with more eloquence and nuance than any sane person ought to hope for, and we are not obligated to do this any longer. Enough is enough. It is our turn to ask questions now: this is not argument or debate; this is interrogation.

So once more, will some feminist get in here and make it clear as hell why the topic treated in the article either definitely does or definitely does not pertain to feminism? What does "real feminism" have to say about this matter of families going to pieces -- not only in Mexico but in many other nations as well? Do feminists applaud this trend? Generally speaking, do feminists feel it is a good thing that families are falling apart? And do they think such a trend ought to be promoted as policy? Do they believe it is a feminist project to make this happen, or at least boost it along now that the process is under way? Do "real" feminists believe that anything at all ought to be done to reverse this trend and stabilize the traditional family structure before the trend slides any further? Or are they happy to let it slide and slide, and do they welcome whatever future world might arise in consequence?

What about this Arie Hoekman fellow? He certainly is a big important mucky-muck with a powerful global organization, isn't he? The United Nations is a powerful global organization, isn't it? And Arie Hoekman must be a mighty big mucky-muck indeed if he can jet around the world under United Nations auspices and hold press-conferences and make amazing statements such as "the breakdown of family structure is a victory for human rights." I wish I could do such things, but then, I am not a big important mucky-muck; I am just a little old nobody.

Now, I wish that my feminist reader would inform me if, in her or his considered opinion, this Arie Hoekman fellow just might possibly be a feminist? He surely does toss around that classic feminist word "patriarchy" . . doesn't he? And he doesn't sound a bit like he is joking about it . . does he? So under the circumstances, do you reckon that Arie Hoekman might be an MRA or something like that? No, I didn't think so!

Here is something to give you an idea of the powerful global stuff this big mucky-muck is mucking around in, when he is not talking about the patriarchy and lauding the breakdown of families:
Now I would like to share some more citational material with you. The following is a list of brief statements that various feminist writers and pundits have made at various times in the past. Study them, and try to see what they have in common:
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971)

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April, 1981)

“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right--these institutions are real and they must be destroyed. (Andrea Dworkin)

"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." (Andrea Dworkin)

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- (Linda Gordon, feminist)

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- (Robin Morgan, feminist, defender of Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- (Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW)

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable." (Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women)

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).
Very well. We had wondered if Mr. Arie Hoekman was possibly a feminist. But the statements cited just above are all from people whose feminism we are little inclined to doubt. And all of these statements are strongly marked by their hostility toward either the family or the institution of marriage. Would not you, my feminist reader, say so? Would you, my feminist reader, care to inform us that the speakers on this list are not feminists, or that their statements are not hostile to marriage and family?

And what do you, my feminist reader, think about this idea of wrecking families and marriages? Are you cool with that program? Are you fine with that plan? Is it a horse you would put your money on? Do you think that wrecking families and marriages is truly a bright idea, or do you dimly suspect it is a bright idea that will lose some luster down the line? These are important questions, so I would recommend thinking carefully about them.

At any rate, Arie Hoekman seems to think that family-wrecking is a swell plan that would accomplish swell things for human rights. He is not in the least bashful about saying this; he lays his cards on the table and even throws in the "patriarchy" word as a feminist might do. And all the above-listed feminists appear to be of one accord with Mr. Hoekman that the family has got to go. So I reckon the entire lot of them are animated by the same humanitarian sentiment, yes?

But let us enquire further into cause and effect. That families and marriages are collapsing in many countries is widely acknowledged. And that many feminists, in years and decades past, have openly annunciated their fond hope that such a thing would happen, is a matter of record.

So lay those things side by side on the counter-top. Firstly, that the crumbled state of human biological families has gotten the seal of veridicality from a high United Nations official -- who not only attests to the factuality of it in feminist rhetorical terms, but welcomes it as a good thing. And secondly, that so many feminists have openly advocated the destruction of the family for such a long time, clear back to the days when the family was still in fairly good shape.

We must diligently task ourselves to know, or at least audibly to wonder for the world's benefit, if there is any connection between these things. What were those feminists really doing when they called for the destruction of the family? Playing intellectual parlor games? Tossing ideas around for the fun of it? Breaking wind out of their mouths? Did they or did they not really mean what they were saying? Were they or were they not serious?

Is there anything my feminist reader would like to say about that?

And more significantly, is there any moral, causative or karmic nexus whatsoever between those prescriptive feminist utterances and their seeming fulfillment years later, attested under color of feminist rhetoric by the United Nations official Arie Hoekman? Or was it mere coincidence that those two things "fired off" in such a sequence?

Is there anything my feminist reader would like to say about that?

And what of those feminist or feminist-condoned innovations in the realm of family law, divorce law, domestic violence law and so on -- all of which inflicted such grievous damage upon the family unit during intervening years? Did the same feminists who openly called for the destruction of the family take a hand in any of that? Or does some utterly unrelated group of feminists bear the responsibility here?

Is there anything my feminist reader would like to say about that?

And now that the collapse of marriage and family has gotten so very commonplace, does Arie Hoekman plan to lift a finger against it? That is a silly question: of course not! And what about the feminists who prescribed all of this years ago: are they lifting any fingers? Aren't they happy at the way things turned out -- just as well as if they had caused it themselves?

But hey, this is all for human rights. So I reckon it must be a good thing. At least that is what the hip, cool people with the latest advanced ideas have told me. And by gosh, I reckon they must know. . .

Thursday, February 24, 2011

A Gold Mine of Information and Quirky Attitude: Quite a "Find"!

Here is something that I stumbled upon in the course of attempting to stumble upon something else:

It is Chapter 129 of a very long (obviously!) book -- only some of which seems to be available at the website. The political orientation appears to be pro-life religious conservative, but unlike anything else in that line I have ever seen before.

The author writes scathingly and piquantly about something that he (she?) calls "neo-feminism", and from the description given, I think that most of us could agree to call this plain old radical feminism. Yet the author seems bent upon "redeeming" what he is pleased to call "true" feminism:

"There are several major inconsistencies that are central to the very spirit of the Neofeminist movement. These inconsistencies cannot be excised without destroying the essence and basic philosophy of the movement; the inconsistencies are an integral, vital and inseparable feature of Neofeminist thinking.

"The Neofeminist movement was created when traditional feminists began to apply double standards to their thinking. Eventually, the movement came to rest on these double standards and use them as its foundation. Therefore, if Neofeminists jettisoned their inconsistencies, their movement would lose its heart and die or revert back into a true feminist movement."

Wow! This ALMOST sounds like something that I myself might have written! All except the bit about "true feminist movement". I would personally never say anything like that. In fact, according to me, "neofeminism" itself IS the true feminist movement. As true as it gets.

All right, so head on over there and enjoy that. It is long, but I think you will find it richly entertaining and chock-full of stuff you'll find useful to know about.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The Counter-Feminist Now Speaks Greek!

Consider the following paragraph, written in the modern Greek language:
Το θηλυκών-ρατσιστών κίνημα μίσους που ονομάζεται «φεμινισμός» πρέπει να ανοίξει για να απολύμανθει με το ηλιακό φως υπό το βλέμμα του κόσμου που θα κάνει μια αυστηρή λογιστική καταμέτρηση για τις τραγικές παραβάσεις του.
All right, if you have no idea what that is talking about, I don't blame you. Ah . . . but happily, I just happen to know what it says. Translated into clarion Fidelbogian English, it says this:
The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
Now THAT sounds familiar, as well it ought, for it is the same dire red paragraph which appears in the page header of this blog, just below the title. And I am honored that an overseas MRA took the time to translate that into modern Greek in order to share it with his Greek readers. And included a link to the Counter-Feminist also!

So, how could I not return the favor? Here now, I link you to the website of the Panhellenic Masculine Association.

All right, I know what a few people are thinking. But no: panhellenic does not mean a league of "Greek" college fraternities. It means "everywhere in Greece". I'm talking about Greece the country, folks! The one that sits at the lower end of the Balkan peninsula, between Italy and Turkey. Yes, that Greece! The Panhellenic Masculine Association is an MRA group that ties together all of Greece.

And guess what? Here is another Greek MRA website which has also linked to the Counter-Feminist. It is called 'Anti-Amazon', which is certainly Hellenic-themed, don't you agree?

However, I am not sending you there just to stare blankly at those "runic" characters. Heavens no! The linked page, as you will presently discover, contains a very worthwhile article from the IGAF, which our Greek confederates have helpfully translated from German into English -- so you can savor every nuance!


Monday, February 21, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 8

Once again, as every week, Adam Kostakis delivers a new installment in his feminism-dissolving lecture series. We have arrived at lecture number eight, from which I now share a sample that I find especially pertinent:
"Note that there is no inherent limitation to the concept of rights; there is no in-built brake system. There can never be a point where we say, "now we have all the rights." There will always be potentially more rights that we could possess. That is not to say we categorically should possess more rights. The full possession of all conceivable rights would be an inconceivable license - total autonomy, in which all claims would be permitted. This would mean that the individual with license would be free to violate the rights of others. In this case, the rights of others would be meaningless whenever they encounter the licensed individual. Logically, all people cannot have total possession of all rights, because each would be permitted to infringe upon the rights of all the others - which means that nobody's rights would be secure, and the strongest individual or group would be entitled to establish arbitrary rule by physical force alone."
Quite fittingly, the title of the lecture is "Chasing Rainbows". Have you thought about rainbows much lately? I know I have; in fact, I am doing that right now. Rainbows are pretty to look upon, are they not? And a pretty business it would be to go in pursuit of one.

Have you ever thought about how to catch a rainbow? Can you possibly stalk a rainbow as a hunter would stalk a deer in the forest? Oh, but some philosophers would insist that rainbows are pure imagination -- meaning that they do not exist. I think I might be one of those philosophers myself. Seriously, does a rainbow have any weight, any mass, any material substance? And does a rainbow have any physical location? For example, can you establish GPS coordinates for a rainbow? No, I am virtually certain that you cannot.

Wise scientists inform us that rainbows are created by the refraction of light through water droplets, as through a prism. But that does not enlighten us about where the rainbow is located. Does it hang suspended "in the air" by wondrous magic? Does the arc of spectral colors dwell precisely in a particular atmospheric sheet with a certain vertical distribution? Or is it simply, as the poets might say, in the eye of the beholder -- or even in his neurons? The funny thing is, that hallucinations answer readily to such a description.

Now it happens that I have some experience in the rainbow-chasing line, for I tried this once myself. Yes, I literally went in pursuit of a spectacular rainbow that I saw when I was out driving, because I had nothing better to do and I wanted to try the experiment just to satisfy my curiosity. I drove mile after mile through lush green countryside, keeping the rainbow in sight while attempting as best I could to navigate directly into it -- or as directly as the layout of county roads permitted. The 'bow was a damnable beast, however, and it had no evident linear perspective. And it would not behave as any fixed landmark ought to do; it did not grow larger as I approached it. No, it stayed exactly the same size, as if moving ahead of me in the willful design of keeping its distance.

I must have kept at this for twenty or thirty minutes. Then all at once the rainbow disappeared when the clouds shifted and cut off the sunlight.

Too bad. I had really counted on arriving finally in a cow pasture with a column of colored light descending directly into the middle of it. I had hopes that I could walk right up to this column, to stand within it, to be bathed in that prismatic illumination, and to find amidst the plops of cow shit that fabled pot of gold we've all heard about -- with a leprachaun standing nearby, pointing to it with a dramatic, sweeping gesture of his arm.


Thursday, February 17, 2011

Behold: The Sleeping Dragon is Waking Up!

Yes, the global fermentation of men is indeed that: global. By which I mean, it is happening all around the globe. Check out the organized protests which Chinese men in Hongkong are now staging:

Verily the sleeping dragon bestirs itself -- as I predicted it would a few years back. And I think it is poetic and fitting to see this happening in China, given that dragons have special meaning in traditional Chinese culture. And it is gratifying to see this happening in the non-West. Things are happening in India, too!

It frustrates me that I have been unable to watch all of this video, owing to dropped-connection issues that will not quit. At any rate, I hope that these men are moving their politics beyond the rhetoric of "men are not being cared for" and suchlike sayings, to the crystallized understanding that they have been specifically targeted AS men; that war has been declared upon them AS men; that something more actively malignant than mere absent-minded neglectfulness lies at the bottom of what oppresses them. I really, really hope that their rhetoric becomes increasingly militant -- in common with men around the planet.

Yes, I want to hear them loudly naming feminism as the guilty agent in the present crisis. And not just feminism, but GLOBAL feminism.

All right, moving west, it might amuse you to hear what the European segment of the dragon is up to. It seems that certain father's rights activists in Switzerland got fed up with a certain government minister who was dragging her feet about pushing a shared-parenting bill through the legislature. So, they got the creative idea to mail her several tons of big, heavy stones! Now, I would say that puts a whole new spin on "shrugging a worthless bag of rocks off your shoulders", yes? Read the story here in Google translator:

Tonnenweise Pflaster-Steine für Sommaruga

Moving even further west, we arrive in Mexico. The following is a Reuters news clip about a men's rights demonstration in Mexico City:


You know, it has just occurred to me that the world is full of men's rights activists who have never once in their lives heard the term 'MRA'. In fact, I would even make bold that on a global scale, MRAs who don't know what 'MRA' means . . are in the majority!

That puts it all in perspective, don't you think?

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

A Photograph of Feminism's Future

Note the diversity of colors and textures in this brick wall. As the feminists would say, it is not monolithic! ;)

The Occult Nature of Feminism - Redux

I am re-posting an old Counter-Feminist post because I feel that the reintroduction of what the post talks about, at this particular time, is what the zeitgeist requires. This item was originally posted in the way back glory days of October, 2006, when the blog was not even a month old.

Yes, I get all misty-eyed and retrospective sometimes, don't I?

This post is old, but as new as you wish to make it. And we are getting to a point in the evolution of things where the applicability of this material becomes more and more evident. That is, we are, of late days, getting more and more to grips with nitty-gritty business of just this very sort.

So, in the interest of drilling and drilling until we split that nerve wide open:

define feminism as follows:

A special advocacy movement for women which incorporates hatred of the male sex as an occult driving force.

Such characterization begs justification—a task (one of several) which I have set for myself. I am aware that many self-described feminists see themselves as people of good will and would feel aggrieved by my clear description of feminism as a hate movement. I understand their position and get no fun from trampling on their susceptibilities, but a higher imperative operates here: the truth must be told even if it stings.

The present description of feminism, as I hope to show, comports very well with the pragmatic truth of our world. Feminism deploys estimable principle as a kind of window dressing or rhetorical skin. To peel back this skin and probe the concealed workings of the underlying organism shall be our present endeavor.

To begin: feminist ideology is incoherent. It has meant so many things in the mouths of so many women's advocates that it appears to mean everything and therefore nothing. But not quite nothing; women's advocacy is a constant, even if a colloidal suspension of mutually exclusive things are advocated. Feminists themselves have admitted that there are "many different feminisms" and I shall not dispute them. I believe they speak accurately.

From feminists themselves I have only heard one declaration that comes near to a coherent description of their movement, namely that it seeks "equality" between men and women. This desired outcome of sexual equality appears to be the sole wire connecting the many beads of women's advocacy. Otherwise the women's movement appears to be a free-for-all, a scattered constellation of clutter with no particular center and no especial perimeter. I say appears, and my choice of words is considered.

The principle that feminism seeks sexual equality should theoretically instill coherence into the movement. Yet given that equality is an essentially contested concept, lacking coherence outside the realm of mathematics, it can offer nothing better than mud beneath the mud. "Equality" emerges as a fuzzy, shifting object—one that can never be entirely nailed down because men and women can never be fully "equal" in every possible situation or every conceivable nuance of meaning which the word might be understood to convey. Consequently, the feminist ideologues can go on churning out new demands for "equality" until hell freezes over—a bottomless bag of tricks!

So much for coherence. Our examination leaves only the aforementioned rhetorical skin, a mere surface coherence which upon closer inspection proves disingenuous. We end with a nagging suspicion that feminism preaches "equality" only for public relations' sake while covertly meaning something altogether different.

This altogether different "something" is what presently holds our interest. I shall contend that, despite appearances, feminism does in very deed embody a deep organic consistency. However, the plan of this consistency cannot be clearly exhibited until we brush aside (rather brusquely) what feminists say about themselves and see the facts flat-on, with vision unencumbered by doctrinaire models of political discourse. From such scrutiny a picture emerges. Not a pretty picture to be sure, but one that explains the world in a way that is usefully frank, and frankly useful.

Feminism hides (occults) its nature by what we shall term cognitive fragmentation.

Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism pretends to be many different things so that the controlling core of the movement appears to be just “one kind” of feminism among many. This follows from our earlier statement that feminism lacks coherence. Rather, it embraces many jostling particles which by logic ought to exclude each other. Yet certain binding forces prevent the mass from flying altogether apart. These binding forces keep feminism compact enough to operate as a political entity on the field of power.

By means of cognitive fragmentation, feminism turns what might seem a drawback into a distinct advantage. Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism appears to be this and this, and that and that, and that other thing over there too! No end in sight! Consequently the women's movement can work on a hundred different projects from a hundred different directions, with each module enjoying immunity from most of the others. Thereby the movement as a whole gains deniability. The right hand "knoweth not what the left hand doeth" or else pretendeth not to know.

Yes, feminism harbors many schools of thought and shades of opinion, many sects and coteries.
Often these appear harmless; when their adherents are challenged regarding the occult nature of feminism as a whole they can easily pass the buck by declaring, “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!”—a perpetual round-robin of “they went thataways!” The radical feminist “bad guys”, so it appears, are always just over the hill. Then they're over the next hill, and the next . . .

Yes, the world contains many kinds of feminism
some better, some worse. And it contains many kinds of feminists: we could measure the feminist population purely as a cross-section of human nature without even taking ideologies into account. And a reasonable thinker might well expect to find, somewhere in that woodpile, a veritably “bad” feminism along with a number of correspondingly bad feminists engaged in its practice. This does not broach the borders of the fantastical. To suppose that such bad feminists veritably do exist, neither violates the strictures of probability nor warps them by a single iota.

It is critical to understand that feminism did not float down from heaven on a gold plate. Feminism is by every measure a product of the human condition on planet earth, complete with the trimmings you might expect. The dirt, the deceit, the sham, the shadows, the smoke, the mirrors . . . and all the rest.

The phrase "not that kind of feminist" has revelatory importance because the speaker confirms the existence of "that kind of feminist" in the first place. Even feminists themselves acknowledge "that kind of feminist" as a real part of the world.

Feminism occults its operative core by making that core appear as only one “kind" of feminism among many. You are encouraged to ignore it, to overlook it, to lose track of it, to think positive thoughts
while scanning the entire smorgasbord of feminisms in a distracted manner . . . .

Cognitive fragmentation literally fragments the knowledge of the observer, placing the observer in a state of false consciousness as concerns feminism
unable to cognize its occult unity. Think of this as a variation on "divide and rule"feminism divides itself in order to rule the target's mind by dividing his awareness.

Cognitive fragmentation operates also within the mind of the individual feminist, as a prophylaxis against cognitive dissonance.

Here is the modus operandi, as trenchantly as can be stated: any critique of feminism will be met with either screaming histrionics, or a cool assurance that the critique is invalid because the thing it criticizes isn't really feminism. Feminism is adept at sliding out of its skin like a snake and slithering away intact.

Granted that many feminisms exist, it is remarkable how they all appear to converge toward a realization of female supremacy, as if this were a one-point perspective goal on the time horizon. One might suppose the feminists to have agreed upon a division of labor. Whether this happened on purpose or whether it “just happened” seems a point of secondary interest. Either way it happened and keeps happening.

Anything that seeks "more for women" can be harnessed to the wagon of female supremacism. Even if the "more" in question seems innocuous and not the least man-hating, it can theoretically put women in a stronger position
which marks a step closer to the goal! Man-haters are fine with that sort of thing.

It requires no particular audacity to see a conspiracy in all of this. Etymologically, to con-spire means to breathe together
although a metaphorical kind of breathing is meant, suggesting a group of people mutually attuned to the point of synchronous aspiration. If conspiracy seems too strong a word maybe “connivance”, “collusion” or "complicity" would be more to your liking. Whatever your preference, you will find it illuminating to understand feminism as an affair of kindred minds working in concert across a range of vocations. To understand it otherwise would favor an imbalance of probability.

This range of vocations gives the feminist machine its orchestrated character, its pervading sense of holographic globality
which to the average male feels like something condensing from the air and percolating from the cracks in the earth. It is the feeling that plenty of ordinary men got during the 1990s, of being backstabbed or violently ambushed for no rational, discernible reason. One day the average fellow woke up in the middle of a Kafka novel. Everyman as Joseph K.

At an extreme, feminism's mission will be accomplished when any woman has the power to lead any man around by the nose
anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Which is to say that any third-rate female could lord it over the finest man who ever lived. That is what they really want, and all of their activisms, all of their insistences, all of their campaigns both large and small, point incrementally toward the fulfillment of this goal, however far in the future such fulfillment may lie. That this goal will never in all likelihood be realized, matters not; they can still dream of it and plunder aplenty along the way.

Yes, the world contains many different feminisms and they all belong to the same elephant. A blind man would overlook this.

Monday, February 14, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 7

Adam Kostakis, from his dark baronial castle high above the dry, serpentine canyon of the Yakima river, has done it again. Yes, Gynocentrism Theory lecture number seven has been unveiled to the world since Saturday, and that was. . . oh . . . two days ago!
". . . . The word 'feminism' can refer to more than one thing. Most obviously, feminism the movement is the not precisely the same thing as feminism the ideology; rather, the former is driven by the dictates of the latter. Feminism the ideology is a victim ideology, which means that it exists in defense of a certain class of people which has been designated as the victims . . . .The movement, however, is not an inorganic entity which mechanistically fulfills the needs of the ideology. . . The ideology cannot be permitted to die – there is far too much riding on it, namely, the movement, and whatever goodies its principal actors have managed to get their paws on. As with many people, the threat of redundancy is enough to bring out a hard-line conservatism, which insists, in this case, on the existence of brand new oppressions still to be overcome . . . . Feminism is not merely a movement any more, but an industry - aptly referred to by some as the sexual grievance industry.

"Should this industry crash, it would leave a hole in the purses of career feminists nearly as large as the hole it would leave between their ears. The alternative to continued state support for the overcoming of new oppressions is almost unthinkable. It would not only mean an end to men subsidizing their own persecution - it would also threaten to leave a psychic vacuum in the minds of professional feminists. Whatever would they do, should they be deprived of their blood money?"
Lecture number seven is one that you won't want to miss, for it touches on a lot of important points. Most usefully of all, in my opinion, is the matter of perpetual revolution -- that feminism will die if it does not remain in forever in motion, and that the only way it can do THAT, is to draft more and more of the non-feminist world into the service of its illusionary narrative. By this means, unreality spreads and spreads -- and that can only be a recipe for disaster, since reality is bound to bite us on the ass eventually. And the longer that bite gets postponed, the harder and bloodier it will eventually be. Be warned, all and sundry!

But go now, and read Gynocentrism Theory Lecture Number Seven:

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Sad Stuff to Brighten Your Day

This story, you might say, is a two-time winner. All right, a "toofer", if you will. It's a story about a woman who allegedly murdered her child in 1957.

Now, we all know about the statistical data which indicates that women are more likely than men to murder their children. We likewise all know, that feminism revolves around blaming men for everything whenever possible -- after all, that's what patriarchy theory is for! ;)

So have a read of the following, and make note of the red-highlighted bits. Then, figure out exactly why and how patriarchy made her do what she did. The genius of feminism lies in the craft of blaming "men" in lieu of blaming any particular man -- which isn't always feasible. So perhaps one of my many feminist readers will be kind enough to log in and give some pointers to us neophytes on how to do this like the pros?
"Ruby Klokow, 74, of Sheboygan, was charged this month in the 1957 death of her daughter, after her son came forward to police in 2008 with stories of horrific childhood abuse. Klokow was due to appear in court Wednesday afternoon for a preliminary hearing. . . .

". . . . The case is proceeding now because of James Klokow Jr. The 55-year-old went to police with stories of his mother regularly beating him, choking him and kicking him in the legs with steel-toed boots so often that he still has knee problems. He spoke of his mother breaking his arm and nose. He said she once forced him to stay in the basement for so long that he quenched his thirst by lapping water from the floor. He also described his mother covering the head of his mentally challenged younger brother with a bag and striking the wailing boy's toes one by one with a hammer.

"But despite the physical torture, James Klokow told investigators, one of the worst pains he endured was his mother blaming him for his 7-month-old sister's death."
Mind you, I am not saying that Ruby Klakow was or is a feminist, but . . . some things are just too glaring to overlook, you know? Forgive me, but I'm the kind of person who looks for patterns, parallels, correspondences . . .

Now read the complete story, here:

And when you are done with that, here's something extra at ya:

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

One More Time: We Have No Social Contract

Here again is an old Counter-Feminist audio, on a subject which is sadly not yet old. Some day we shall look back upon this as an ugly dream from which we have awakened into a glorious morning. That day is not yet, and oh how I wish I could tell you it is only a dream. But no, it is far too real. The audio, by the way, is titled 'The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent, and in this case, the "innocent" means any man who is falsely accused of rape.

Most talk about RAPE misses the point that rape is the least prosecutable of crimes. There is no way to punish more rapists without destroying more innocent men in the process. There is no "solution" to rape:

No, we have no social contract under a state which permits any such status quo as the podcast describes-- and that only scratches the surface of why we have no social contract. As a man, you are burdened with so many state-sanctioned anti-male abuses that you have ZERO political obligation to look out for women's issues in any way unless, for some quaint reason, it is your morally sovereign pleasure to do this. Yes, women are on their own. And people (such as feminists) who would hector you about any imagined moral duty toward women frankly deserve to have their faces spat in! Which I would be glad to see somebody do. Literally. These people are your enemies; they hate you and they want to destroy you. They are largely to blame for creating the mess that presently engulfs us all, and any instructions or marching orders from them will only make the problem worse. So they have the moral authority of braying jackasses, they don't deserve a crumb of respect and, apart from the aforementioned gob of spittle, you owe them precisely nothing.

And again: we have no social contract:

Next, I would like to see a few of you download and read the following book by the 19th century American philosopher Lysander Spooner (depicted). It is called An Essay on the Trial by Jury, and was published in 1852.

The central thesis of this book is that juries are a form of jurisprudential tribunal, with a power analogous to that of President, Congress or Supreme Court. However, the thesis applies as well to any country where the English Common Law is in effect -- with modifications, of course. But the critical thing here is the veto power over law which juries are said to exercise -- yes, I am talking about that very same "jury nullification" which some have been discussing of late. This book by Lysander Spooner has plenty to say, and most lucidly, upon that subject, and so I recommend it to one and all.

Go here to download:

Radio Programme in England
Takes Aim at Feminism

The following e-mail was forwarded to me by a correspondent in England, who originally got it from his correspondent -- also in England. In fact, correspondent number two is the producer of this radio show:
"At last the latest edition of Mens Matters is being broadcast on
ExpressFM 93.7 at 1900 GMT on Tuesday 8th February 2011.

"You can listen on line at

"Amongst the topics in this episode will be:

"1) A discussion on family justice with a man who lost his daughter to an abusive mother.

"2) An interview with a guy called Idris Francis who exposes how the organization that represents the top police officers in Britain (Association of Chief Police Officers) is anything but non-political.

"3) There will be an element of music and comedy for those who enjoy some light relief.

"4) Towards the end of the show is a clip of an actual police raid on a house to take a baby from its parents. In it, besides the police, there are three other individuals – the mother (who is naturally very distraught), the father (the calmest one there) and an angry woman who is very opposed to what the police are doing. Guess who gets arrested?

"This is the only station in the UK that takes on the controversial subject of feminism and its effects and highlights the vulgar neglect of men and children when it comes to natural human rights.

"Every show of Men’s Matters has the threat of censorship hanging over it. The program endures delays and sudden cancellations without my knowing about it. Often the ‘Listen Again’ version on the internet, which is the most popular way that people around the world listen and is put out on the internet a few days later, will have several minutes removed, but not by me. For example the December 2010 edition was actually 53 minutes long, but only about 40 minutes were played.

"I am very pleased to announce that a complementary internet radio show (without censorship) has opened in the USA. It’s produced by Avoiceformen and I hope everyone will make sure that it thrives.

"Regards to all wherever you may be!"

All right. If you want to listen to this radio show, go to the following address:

When you get there, click on the thumbnail graphic at the bottom of the page which says "Express 93 FM" and "Men's Matters". This will open up another thumbnail near the top of the screen. If you click on the second thumbnail, it will open up an audio widget that will stream the 44 minute show.

It looks like the audio segment of a child-stealing police raid has been censored by the powers that be, just as described. At any rate . . .

This radio show is an absolute must listen. However, I ought to issue a trigger warning: If you are a feminist, you will find this very hard to take, and it might give you a brain aneurysm. Very well, you have been warned!

Monday, February 07, 2011

GC Theory - Lecture 6

Adam Kostakis, in his baronial tower overlooking the serpentine Yakima River canyon, has dispatched (via akashic wireless) the sixth of his many lectures on the new epistemetaphysimological science of Gynocentrism Theory. In witness whereof, I share the following extract:
"What is really interesting about all this, is that our new concept of domination - as unjust hierarchy, to be opposed and attacked - has been put to use in a specific direction: as a sponsor for true despotism. The single most obvious red flag marking the road to despotic rule is the encroachment of the public sphere into the private lives of individuals. Despotism is precisely the type of unjust hierarchy with which we identify domination; yet if the latter term is broadened sufficiently, to encompass all areas of private life, then a crushing and brutal dictatorship is the inevitable result.

"This is the context in which we should understand the feminist slogan which has had the most staying power: the personal is political. Note that (according to the slogan), the personal is not only a matter of interest to the political; it does not form part of the political; it is not of equivalent importance to the political. It actually is the political. The two terms are presented as though they are identical, interchangeable.

"The personal is political.

"If this is true, then there does not exist the smallest space of privacy which is a matter for the individual alone – that is, over which the individual is sovereign."

Adam is spot on, for the feminist slogan that "the personal is political" is the devil's gospel if ever there was. And among the many blessings that may be expected to flow from the non-feminist revolution, is that which blessedly restores the private space of private life, thought and feeling to the control of the private citizen. And from this seminal blessing, further blessings will unfold in logical progression in the fullness of time. But. . hearken now to the latest from the serpentine epistemetaphysimological canyon:

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Feminism FAQ

Here is another instant classic that will make the rounds quickly, and be used as ammunition to throw at feminists in the course of arguments -- that is, if you even think arguing with these people is worth your while at all any more. (Thank you, George Rolph, for bringing this material to my attention!) The Feminism FAQ pulls together many threads of anti-feminist knowledge that we have been gathering for years. Before I send you there, here is a sample:

Do men oppress women?

No. Men and women, just as the sexes in all species, do not have any dominance relationship. Competition is intra-sexual. See Moxon (2008).

Did men oppress women in the past?

No. Women are the privileged sex in all societies, past, present and future, plus any conceivable society. Social justice has always been with a view to the same outcome: to care for and protect women and children in general and to privilege a small minority of men (who have had to expend effort maintaining their position in the dominance hierarchy). On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it was portrayed in the film) (Baumeister 2007). Men have always taken the most degrading jobs and it has always been men who have died fighting for their country.

Do men harm women?

No normal man is motivated to harm a woman. In partner violence, physically violent men are far more deviant than physically violent women (Magdol, et al., 1997). Violence by a man against a woman would lead to loss of status and serious consequences through ‘policing’ from both men and women making it maladaptive. Dutton and Nicholls (2005), Dutton (2006) and Dutton and Corvo (2006) give a complete demolition of the fabricated feminist position by exposing the consistent misreporting errors in feminist ‘research’. Meta-analyses of gender-neutral studies show that women are actually more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence in Western countries (Archer 2000, Fiebert 2007). In domestic violence, women also commit more severe assaults than men (Straus 1999, 2004; Straus and Ramirez 2002). Surprisingly, the British Crime Survey (Finney 2006) found that equal proportions of men and women reported having experienced stalking.

As you can see, it is just the sort of information that many people will block with a mental brick wall and flat-out refuse to believe; the same class of borg-bots who flatly refused to consider, for example, that the Duke lacrosse defendants were innocent! But the darkly fascinating part is, that such willed ignorance seems to be rooted in something even deeper than ideology or politics -- so that in a back-handed, twisted way it might even be said that bio-essentialism itself motivates the disbelief in bio-essentialism!

Yes, the Feminism FAQ is well worth reading and sharing, and the bibliography is excellent:

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Cultural Theory: Materialist Feminism

A miniature university lecture in YouTube form. If you are interested, you can follow up with related videos by this same prof:

The seminal book by Friederich Engels, mentioned in the lecture, can be downloaded as a PDF at the following address:

The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

An online version of Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, also mentioned in the lecture, can be found here:

A short PDF book called Lying in a Room of One's Own, published by the Independent Women's Form (IWF) can be downloaded here:

Friday, February 04, 2011

How to Lie Like a Feminist

Anti-feminist videos are now proliferating at YouTube like delicious mushrooms in a pasture! Any time you go away for a while and then check back in, you will be wowed by the growth which has occurred in your absence.

Here is one for your enjoyment:

The maker of this video makes the same point, at one point, that I have always made. And that is, that the feminists would love nothing more than to see MORE rapes, more violence against women, and more female misfortune of all kinds. Then they wouldn't need to lie so much, and the existence of feminism would seem to be validated.

The feminists will undoubtedly get their wish in at least one department. Namely, that so-called "misogyny" -- meaning, male disaffection toward women -- is bound to grow and grow under the conditions now prevailing. Yes, the feminists are doing everything they can to ensure that "misogyny" grows and grows. That way, they can create more feminist programs, spread more anti-male hate, and pass more anti-male laws -- all of which will fuel yet another round of "misogyny" growth. And on and on it goes.

Feminism is a tapeworm in the social body, and we must make it our urgent business to expel this parasite.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Hugo Schwyzer and Michael Kimmel are Now MRAs!

Hugo Schwyzer and Michael Kimmel, professors at Pasadena City College and SUNY Stony Brook, respectively, have
decided to turn their coats, and their backs, on feminism. These erstwhile staunch pillars of what is called the pro-feminist men's movement, will henceforth be contributing their professorial gravitas and savvy to the pro-male men's movement instead. The two have informed me in confidence that they will stay on in their teaching posts as though nothing had changed, yet will, as Kimmel put it to me recently, "work to undermine the feminist agenda by subterfuge, merely pretending to support it while planting mixed messages between the lines."

Schwyzer in particular has confided to me his "complex feelings of guilt" for all of the time he has spent boosting feminism and "filling the minds of young men and women with dreck." He then quoted an obscure passage from the book of Ephesians, which I forgot to make note of, and concluded with the statement that "a great weight has departed from my shoulders -- almost like casting off a worthless bag of rocks!"

As you will surely remark, we have not failed to use the occasion as a photo opportunity. However, I would ask you, my readers, to keep this in confidence. Okay? We don't want to blow Mike and Hugo's cover, see?

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

One In Four-Hundred-Seventy-Six!!

Think how funny it would be if they had to change their tune at 'Take Back the Night' rallies. How if they were forbidden to chant "one in four, one in four!" any longer, and were told that henceforth they must always say "one in four-hundred-seventy six, one in four-hundred-seventy-six!" ?

I don't know, somehow that hasn't got the right rhythm. . has it? It seems to me, that you couldn't properly march to that . . could you? Too complicated. Not sprightly enough.

And since brevity is the soul of wit, it wouldn't work to scream "one out of four-hundred-seventy-six women get raped in college!!" . . would it? It seems to me, that you couldn't properly get in people's faces with that. . could you? Too complicated. Not punchy enough.

All right, consider the following:

"The "1 in 4" claim has been made with reference to rape, sexual assault, and attempted rape. Although there are legal distinctions to be made with respect to these forms of sexual misconduct, females untrained in legal nuances can be led to believe that they simply have "one chance in four" of being raped during a college student career.

"The problem is that the "1-in-4" chant bears little relationship to reality. A review of OU enrollment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. That's a little less alarming than 1-in-4. The remainder of this article describes the methodology for arriving at this estimate."

This is from a report published in 1998. A skeptical researcher, one Michael Wright, dug up the data about campus rape at the University of Oklahoma, and arrived at conclusions which, for many of us, are hardly surprising at all.

After a GENEROUS allowance for possible under-reportage, Michael Wright arrived at the campus rape odds suggested above, that any given female student has a 1:476 chance of getting raped during her undergraduate career at that school.

However, we must reflect that Michael Wright may well have been too generous in his under-reportage allowance, and we must also reflect that some of the reported rapes may have been false reports.

So, I think we are safe to round the figure off to one-in-five-hundred. That sounds reasonable, if still a bit on the conservative side. Certainly, it is easier to remember.

All right, now I would like you to read the entire report, here:

When you are done, please archive copies and share the link with others, okay?

And then, get thee hence to the False Rape Society -- especially if you've never heard of it -- and spend several hours absorbing what you will find there:

In conclusion, let me say this. Michael Wright's study only covered one school in the entire USA, so we mustn't make too much of it. It is likely that the University of Oklahoma -- in Norman, Oklahoma -- is not the norm. Odds are, it is a solitary island of tranquility in a stormy ocean of sexual violence. This is doubtless owing to a special quality in the Norman, Oklahoma air. I am certain that every other campus across the nation has a rape culture where female students are getting raped like gangbusters every day! Right? Right??

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

That Worthless Bag of Harsh Lunar Rocks

Here once again is an old podcast on a subject that is just as "new" as you wish to make it:

And as always, personal copies are available for download:

Now, this pod talks about matters harsh and severe. But you must understand, that there is nothing prescriptive about any of it. The talk voices no desire to make the world a certain way, but merely asserts that the world already IS that way, like it or not. Again, this is not prescription. However, it is prediction if you consider that the status quo which it talks about could easily grow worse -- meaning that such growth is predictable in light of certain trajectories.

Yet by far, the talk is descriptive rather than predictive. I lay stress upon present objective description, rather than prediction, because I wish to leave open the possibility that we can still be masters of what the future might hold. It need not be as grim as I am suggesting if we make the needful adjustments to our collective understanding, and shape our policies accordingly. Briefly then, I wish to avoid the worst. Because finally, that is what counter-feminism is all about: keeping the bad stuff to a minimum.

But in order to do THAT, we must get to grips with both the essentiality and potentiality of the badness which now confronts us. And that means we mustn't sugar-glaze things, and mustn't worry about scalding and scandalizing the lying souls of our enemies. And so we surely must, as my salty, Harry Truman-esque grandfather used to say, grab the bull by the tail and look him straight in the eye!

The. . badness . . is outlined in much greater detail here:

On another note, I cannot resist sharing with my readers the following:

Looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, does he not? Indeed, I believe it is ze Gubernator of Calee-faw-neea heemself!

Personally, if I were doing my own version of this, I'd make it not a traditional manly dude in a tie, but some wild, bearded, anarchist critter. You know, more of a "lefty" archetype. That would impact the enemy psyche in a more subtle, ambiguous way -- don't you think?

I tip my hat to Manifold, from whose blog, Die Söhne von Perseus, I lifted this.

The Thirsty Sponge Has Spoken

You know that you have hit a hot-button in the collective psyche, when you post something on your blog and the hit traffic to that post begins immediately and continues dramatically.

Such was the case for the English-subtitled Russian documentary which I featured yesterday, in YouTube form. The hit count bottle-rocketed almost from the get-go!

Clearly, a lot of people find this very, very compelling. For them, it is heavy stuff.

Vox populi.
The people have spoken, even if it isn't yet precisely clear what their voice is saying. Still, it speaks loudly. We know that something is cooking.

Anyhow, if you are "onside", I would appreciate it if you would go directly to the YouTube website where those videos originate, to drive up the view count and give it a "like". That would help. In fact, why didn't I think to say this originally? But, here are the links:

And enjoy your day!