Monday, May 30, 2011

Meet Monika Ebeling -- A Woman Who
"Gets It"!

Here is a translated snippet from the German online journal Welt Online:
"The city of Goslar is currently showing the world how the “gender wars” look from Lower Saxony. For about one and one-half years now, there has been an ongoing fight over the city’s Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Monika Ebeling. The peak was reached last Tuesday: the Leftists in the city council submitted a proposal to remove her from office, supported by the SPD and the Greens. The accusation: the 51 year-old was only concerned about the suffering of men, and not about the suffering of women. The CDU fraction’s leadership countered by accusing them of conducting a “witch hunt”."
So much for "equality". . . eh? But then, if a substantial bloc of people are NOT concerned about the suffering of men, it is only natural, reasonable and non-evitable that a counter-bloc will coalesce into existence, at some point, which is "equally" not concerned about the suffering of women! And I cannot in good conscience raise any objection to such a development, when and if it occurs. For such a development would serve to make things symmetrical (if nothing else), and symmetry may be counted as a form of "equality", don't you think so?

Mind you, I am NOT saying that Monika Ebeling is unconcerned about the suffering of women -- that would be presumptuous of me. But in light of both the political context and the likely trajectory of its future evolution, I deem it morally acceptable to not be concerned about the suffering of women. Certainly, there is no social-contractual obligation for any man to feel any such concern, much less act upon it. And I shall retract this statement when and only when certain objective political imbalances have been corrected. "Equality" is a bitch, don't you think so?

Let me add that I speak only of women in the abstract. As to any individual woman, my concern with her individual suffering will be indexed to my opinion of her as an individual, and what she is worth to me as an individual. I am the final court of appeal in all such judgment calls.

I thank Michael, of Germany, for bringing this story to my attention. You can read the full version (in English) here:

http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/female-equal-opportunity-commisioner-is-pushed-out-of-office-for-supporting-equal-opportunity-for-men/#comment-16095

Addendum:

Michael, mentioned above, has just left the following comment on this post:
"Goslar is quite a small city, and probably this story wouldn't have gotten so much attention without MRA groups making it public. And then a funny, new thing happened: A LOT of big newspapers and magazines (German equivalents of "Time" or "Newsweek") reported and commented about it, asking the Goslar city council "What is going on here? After all she's an equal opportunities comissioner and why isn't she allowed to support men?" Some articles even disapprovingly pointed to "networks of old-style feminists" being the cause of firing Monika Ebeling. So basically, the main stream media called a spade a spade and got away with it. This is new, and it could well be those "old style feminists" in Goslar are still pulling their hairs out as we speak for making the mistake of firing Monika Ebeling. They got more attention than they bargained for, and not in a good way.

"There is change in the air. Feminists and their doings get perceived in a much more different and critical way than 2 or 3 years ago. And undoubtedly this is because of the men's rights movement and its increasing influence onto public opinion. It's working, people! :-)"

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Intermezzo



Here is a "little ditty" that makes my heart light. Good, kickass finger tappin' stuff!

Did you know that the Little Ditty is is the highest and most perfect form of music in the universe? Yup! In fact, the Little Ditty is to music what haiku is to poetry. Forget about your operas, your symphonies, your heavy metal, your electronic trance music, yada-yada-yada. Give me a Little Ditty, any time!

And G.P. Telemann, that peerless music master, surely could craft a Little Ditty like no-one else who ever lived!

Warning: high cranial adhesive factor -- you know . . . it sticks in your head!

Total Information Awareness

Friday, May 27, 2011

New Video - The Futility of Conversing
With Feminists



You may download a pure audio (MP3) version of this at the following address:

http://www.4shared.com/audio/lW4O_ZY2/CF17.html

Thursday, May 26, 2011

A New Pro-Male Website That You Need to Look Into

Today, I would like to introduce a brand new blog by an activated non-feminist partisan who has joined our movement only within the last twelve months. But don't let that fool you -- he's mighty quick on the uptake, and has garnered more practical expertise and insight into the requirements of this game than many an old timer who has been around for years. Such is my conclusion in light of his current offerings, which I have thoughtfully perused.

The blog now contains four entries in total, and so far reminds me of a level foundation, set upon bedrock, with exactly the right cement mix poured and dried and ready for the next stage of construction. I have bookmarked this website, and will be monitoring the development of it in the weeks and months ahead. I make no doubt that, once you have seen it, you'll wish to do likewise. Go now:

http://mastenshipsresource.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Havoc and Destruction



When conditions are just right for certain things to happen, then quite predictably. . . certain things will happen. In fact, very much like the weather. Ask a meteorologist and you might receive, pardon me, a long-winded dissertation concerning warm and cold air masses, moisture, barometric pressure and so on. Yes indeed. In the realm of weather -- whether this be meteorological or metaphorical -- it wants only the needful objective conditions, combined in a particular "recipe", to cook up interesting things. And in the varied permutations of earthly possibility, it will at times transpire that trouble is on the menu. Hey, it happens!

Words to the wise. What more can I say?

Burrowing Ever Deeper Into
Feminism's Guts

An interesting e-mail arrived earlier today, and I share it herewith. To clear up a bit of mystery at the outset, this is all in reference to a post on a radical lesbian feminist blog which my correspondent had the goodness to make known to me yesterday. You will doubtless wish to study this website as closely as your stomach will permit, and share it with as many as you are able, in order to make them understand what Real Feminism is:

bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/bev-jo-radical-lesbian-writing/#comment-73

But here is the e-mail:
"I am writing from my business account. The following goes to show you how these “womyn” actually try to get rid of the logic of men.

"I was smart enough to actually save the entire post with comments, adding comments to the bottom of the sheet as they cropped up. If you perform a side by side comparison of the web page and the saved page you will find that this “womyn” actually deleted a post that placed her argument in a negative light in a logical fashion. She also used the classic example of “you can’t prove what I say is not true, so no matter how outrageous my claims, it must be true”

"About me----
I’ve put several hundred hours into the study of feminist western culture since my completion of military service in the Army last year. I’ve scoured the web, and paid attention to the news (which streams to my desktop 24/7).

"My initial motivation was to find out why military wives cheat as much as they do.....but oh boy...did I fall down a rabbit hole. That RED PILL was a real kicker. I have seen what prominent MRAs and MGTOW have written for years. I have seen the backlash on the feminist web-blogs. I have seen both sides of the argument. In my research, I began to realize that the best thing I can offer up (other than placing URLs@Urinals) was my expertise in researching.
My father always used the “teach a man to fish” adage, and I have found that to be a truism that flavors my scholarly studies of a variety of fields.

"So I have begun to spend more time on the Feminist blog sites taking notes and deconstructing these arguments myself. I have seen the lies, and the purgatory men live with everyday, often without knowing it. I have seen the white knights atop the hill, dispensing feminine “justice” to their brothers and offering them up as sacrificial lambs upon the altar of political correctness. I have watched the unfolding of the slow and sometimes labored limbs of the MRA movement in response to the threats. I see the outcome as destroying any sense of the gynocentric culture that has existed for the last 2000 years. I see a lot of good women suffering because of the movement of an odious ideology cloaked in the skin of the “fairer” sex.

"Unfortunately, there will be collateral damage. There is no way to avoid this. This will not stop me from doing what I must to educate others on the dangers of feminist thought...or lack thereof. The sooner we can deconstruct femini[ist] ideology to the world at large, the less damage will be done to society economically and socially.

"I will continue to perform research and post wherever I can the fruits of my labors. I will be baiting out these feminists on their own sites and adding the results to my notes. I will place my mind to task as if there is an insurgent confrontation in front of me. I will teach others in my personal life of the precipice we stand upon.

"I fear not for my own personal or financial safety. I have nothing to lose on on a personal level other than my dignity, integrity, and honor. No one can remove those things from me.
I don’t mind being the feminist whipping boy.....I am who I am, so I ascribe my real name to all my opinions. Let them come. Let them try to break me.

"Feel free to use these words as you see fit. Send them to those who you consider allies, and let them know they have yet another brother in arms, one who is willing to identify himself forwardly without fear of retribution.

"Thank you for your insight, and for sharing your views."

And I responded in the following terms:
Thank you very much for your communique. It is good to see such a one as yourself on board with the cause, and since you have given your go-ahead I will post most of your message on the blog. I have no doubt that many will find your eloquence inspirational, and that it will send a ripple of dread through the ranks of the enemy.

There are not many who have the patience or emotional fortitude to wade through mile after mile of feminist swill as you appear to have done, and for doing so, I commend you. You have probably uncovered plenty of "goodies" that deserve the widest possible exposure, and I hope you will share some of these either by e-mail, by online comment, or by any form of dispersion to either the activated non-feminist community or the world at large.

"She also used the classic example of “you can’t prove what I say is not true, so no matter how outrageous my claims, it must be true” "

Does she not realize that THAT dog swivels and bites in both directions? I love it when these people give us such "opportunities". Overall, it is clear that our little dearie has declared war on men, so I dearly hope she doesn't take it the wrong way if the other side shoots back. Which is likely to happen -- wars are funny that way!

I hope she also realizes that she has freed "men" from the obligation of being "good". Since she clearly considers us "evil", then she has no moral or logical leverage to demand anything "good" from us. Whoever wishes to be a primitive Christian and practice the "imitation of Christ" with these people is welcome to turn the other cheek and see if that kind of spiritual magic works any miracles. But for my own part, I do confess that my code of morality follows a different pattern.

But again, make no mistake: this is the true, pure, quintessential feminism. It is the "real" feminism -- as feminist as feminism gets. It is NOT the radical "fringe" of feminism. It is the radical CORE. The polite, earnest, mainstream feminists are in fact the "marginal" ones. THOSE feminists don't amount to a hill of beans ideologically, but if they persist in acting "innocent", and covering for the radfems, then their effective guilt swells proportionally. I, for one, don't mean to cut them any slack.

But such feminists have an easy way out if they choose to take it, and that is, to openly RENOUNCE FEMINISM, in word, in deed, and in name. If they do that, then the heat will no longer be upon them and they can live quiet, honest, productive lives.

Re: the file attachment -- I was unable to open it. But my computer thrives on PDFs.

Regards,

~Fidelbogen~


I will bulk out the present blog entry even more now, with the following comment that I left in reply to another comment on an earlier post:
Thank you VERY much for sharing that. Sometimes, I think I have seen it all -- which invariably means I am due for a timely refresher.

I was only able to read approx. 4 screen-scrolls worth of that. . septic bilgewater. . . before I got too burnt out to continue. I mean, after a certain point they make their point, and after that, what's the point?

But I will have a go at it again later, you may be sure. And I will be mining this for ideas for a good long while to come.

I found the following especially telling:
"And they KNOW their desire for violence is part of how they are biologically different from us, in mind and body. Ironically, and tragically, it’s Feminists who are the ones most often claiming that male violence is “socialization.” For years, most Lesbian Feminists agreed with the mainstream media that males were not intrinsically evil, and that their misogyny was a result of socialization – “He raped and killed all those women because he was sexually abused in childhood.” If that was the case, wouldn’t most women be serial killers? Male animals aren’t socialized to rape and kill, but they do. The evidence is there. Men know it. They know they are innately different from females."
This completely trashes the purported pillar of feminist thought -- the idea that "gender" is "constructed".

Yet it reveals something far deeper and more politically insightful, namely, the true inner structure of feminism itself -- the face behind the mask.

The fact is, that feminism has only ONE consistent guiding principle -- namely, the destruction of males and maleness.

But in order to make this happen, they need to pursue several lines of policy concurrently -- and those lines logically contradict each other.

These radical lesbians are OPEN female supremacists -- in other words, the most "pure" form of feminists you will encounter anywhere. And I sincerely appreciate their honesty.

The classic "old school" feminists who preach gender constructivism, are needed in order to break down male space and male power structures by forcefully injecting women among men. But this policy screeches to a halt when it comes time to address the question of women's moral accountability toward men.

That is where the radical bio-essentialists (such as we see here) are standing ready, to carry the ball further down the field and through the goal posts. They are made for this job because they are quite willing to promote the idea that MEN ARE INHERENTLY EVIL, and that women are not morally accountable to them.

Feminists such as these occupy key positions in academia, in various professions and industries, and in government, and they are working diligently to promote the kind of thinking which you see displayed here -- but in a suitably veiled and indirect form, often using the techniques of critical theory to clear the way so that it will become progressively easier to implant such philosophies without raising any eyebrows.

Again, I thank you for sharing.

Some of this shit, I kid you not, would even make Mary Daly blush! :(

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Behold the Kind of People We
Are Dealing With



Here is part three of a YouTube series, from that notorious documentary about political correctness called Indoctrinate U.

This is not directly about feminism, but operationally right next door to it, in a way that you will not fail to comprehend. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just watch the section beginning at 4:38. In fact, watch that part over and over, at least ten times back-to-back with undivided attention, until it burns indelibly into your brain.

I don't know about you, but I ever-so-dearly wanted to reach through my monitor and . uh . . do something to that repulsive little fascist toad -- and you know just the toad I'm talking about!

Yes, yes, I know, "fascist" is a cheap smear word -- of the same calibre as "misogynist". But as long as I can use it for an equal opportunity smear word, then smear and smear alike, I say! That way, we can smear it so far and so thin that we smear it down to nothing.

Anyhow, if you feel like it, you can click through to the YouTube channel and watch the entire 9 segments of the documentary. In fact, I would advise you to do so.

The Planetary Reach of Our Movement

It bears repeating that the non-feminist revolution is going global.

Well no, our movement isn't going global -- it always was global. But now, it is growing conscious of its globality, and starting to function with the interconnectivity befitting such a condition.

You have doubtless heard of a pro-male lobbying organization called the NCFM -- or, National Coalition For Men. This group started in the United States, but now it is opening chapters in exotic places like Australia, and Bangalore (India).

Maybe they should call themselves the International Coalition for Men now.

All right, so cue the drumroll. The NCFM is at it again. This time, they want to open a chapter in, of all places . . . Sweden! Yes, you heard that right. Sweden, the most feminazified country on the face of the planet, will have an NCFM chapter IF Carl Augusstson (NCFM liaison for the Republic of Georgia, incidentally!) gets his way. Ahhh....Sweden! Now that is the prize plum in which to plant the NCFM flag, don't you think so?

The following brief article at the NCFM website will get you up to speed on this:

http://ncfm.org/2011/05/action/ncfm-liaison-pursues-establishing-ncfm-chapter-in-sweden/


Oh.. and just how feminazified is Sweden? Review the following classic exposé:

counterfem.blogspot.com/2011/03/swedish-feminism-gutted-good-and-proper.html

Music Upload to YouTube



Time for some more energy from that higher sphere.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Juicy, Savory Stuff for Your Reading Pleasure

A few days ago, the Australian collaborationist leader Michael Flood paid a visit to one of my older posts. I made mention of this at the following more recent post, which offers more particulars:

Michael Flood Makes Correction

As you will observe, if you visit the above link, I got some comments on that post which offer more information about Michael Flood. I am posting the entirety of this (slightly edited for typos), from which you may weed and reap as you see fit:
"Anonymous said...

"Flood quotes Connell all the time in his papers- ad nauseum. Its obvious Connell was a primary influence on the formulation of his ideas concerning men. Hence the similarity in thier misandric discourse.

"Interesting that Connell and Flood both suffered gender misgivings which, no doubt, fuels their misandry- Connell hates the male part of himself and hence made himself into a female, and Flood has admitted in an interview that his being bullied by males at school was the defining defining moment of his life.

"Destruction of other males for and by these two individuals is an urge never sated- it must be indulged over and over again to vent their primal dissaffections. Every published paper from them results in a blood-soaked battle scene and they are manning the guns- no males (except dissaffected ones) are hoped to survive.

"3:22 PM

Delete
Anonymous "Anonymous said...

"A note on "protege":

"The definition- One whose career is furthered by a person of experience, prominence or influence.

"In this sense Flood is indeed a protege of connell, albeit an indirect one, because his career is not only furthered by numerous re-deployments of Connell's discourse on males, but also because he is afforded career brownie points by doing so. You don't have to study or be helped by someone in-the-flesh to be their protege.

"BTW, Flood's mention of being bullied at school - I believe he said this bullying was the defining moment of his "manhood", not his "life". His writings should be understood in this light.

"3:59 PM

Delete
Anonymous "Anonymous said...

"Oh look, there's a whole argument raging around Flood's misandry and dishonesty here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flood#Sources_for_criticism_of_men.27s_or_fathers.27_rights_groups

"I notice in the older archives some editor raised a mention that he exaggerated male statistics of violence and that major Australian media outlets caught him out and made him give a public retraction:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flood/archive1#Blatant_misrepresentation

"Flood began to edit the Wikipedia article as an anonymous, removing the well cited material. (Its actually against Wiki policy for an author to edit their own entry!).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flood/archive1#Conflict_of_Interest

"When it wasn't going to his liking he then threatened legal action against Wikipedia if they published the truth about him: "I am seeking legal advice regarding whether the entry is defamatory," and "I will report back to you on the legal advice I receive. However, in the meantime, I think that the entry should revert back to the much shorter version I proposed. Sincerely, Michael Flood." He goes on to threaten them with legal action a few more times:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flood/archive1#Partial_and_biased_representation

"Naturally Wikipedia managers jumped to attention and came to his aid, deploying a few hand-picked feminazi personal assistants to take over the editing of his site. Good threat, Floody! Its amazing what you can make happen when you use threats. Now he sort of 'owns' the article.

"No wonder his own students think he's got a hate problem and that he's corrupt."

------------------------------------------------

For what it's worth, I have a first hand narrative (which I cannot verify) of a Michael Flood anti-MRA shenanigan which involved. . . er. . . e-mail fraud, I guess you would call it. Apparently this happened several years ago. As I said, I cannot verify this -- so it is only an "allegation".

You know, the way I read the surface of events here, Mikey is in a bit of trouble or at least "feeling the heat" in some way -- as witness the fact that he felt driven to post a comment on my blog, and too, that such a website as mine even got onto his radar screen in the first place. At any rate, I know damn well that the non-feminist revolution is gathering strength at a "scary" rate, and becoming noticeably more focused, aggressive, and effectual. And I know that people such as our Mikey here, are well aware of it.

Now let's turn to a completely different subject. If any of you have not heard about the dedicated feminist activist who wrote a hand-wringing, angst-laden article when her very own son was (it seems) falsely accused of rape, then it's high time you got over there and sucked up every drop of it. And when you are done, suck up every drop of the reader comments too. After that, archive the whole works.

Now, the ElephantJournal.com owners should have bloody well known that posting such a story in today's MRA-infested world would be like dangling bloody meat in shark-filled waters. Ah well, chalk it up to lessons learned . . eh? As you will see, both the story and the attitude of the site owners are a load of sensitive, nuanced horse manure that dances lightly around the real issue -- to wit, feminist guilt.

We have been talking about these issues for YEARS. Over and over and over again! But do you think they would listen? We tried being polite about it. No luck. Then we tried being nasty about it. No luck then, either -- and they called us all manner of amazing names: misogynistic, patriarchal, "bitter". On it goes.

So now that raw, unmerciful feminist reality has brutally ramrodded this into at least one of their feminist heads, my own reaction is stone-cold, acid-dipped and utterly cynical. Yeah. . . it's about fucking time -- and thanks for nothing, idiot!

But the comments were running approximately 6:1 in favor of the non-feminist side, and the commenters are in the main angry, hip, intelligent, highly focused partisans who write well and pull no punches. It made my heart proud to watch them at work. The following bit is a gem:
"The fact that this article even exists (aka... supposedly "ex" Feminist is still trying to sway public opinion)... tells me all I need to know. They aren't going away any time soon, 'cause they're still talking instead of eating humble pie and shutting up."
I posted several comments myself. And earlier today, when I tried to post again, I found that I was placed on instant auto-delete. Well, honestly now, I didn't think my comments were harsh enough to stand out from the crowd. And in a way they were "better", because as always I carefully avoided any statements that could readily be constructed as "misogynistic".

Here for the sake of column filler, is one of my own comments at ElephantJournal.com:
Yes, women do indeed lie "sometimes" -- in fact, quite a lot. But the myth that women DON'T lie is what empowers the feminist false rape industry. THAT is the point at issue here, and that is the point you wish to obfuscate by tossing red herrings into the discussion.

The blame for the present crisis settles squarely onto the shoulders of feminism. Feminists have created the situation, and feminists continue to duck responsibility for it, or to make excuses for it, or to trivialize it in one way or another. More and more people are aware of such feminist behavior and are speaking their minds accordingly. It shall not be possible to stem the rising tide.

One more thing: we all know that X number of rapes go unreported. Yet it serves no purpose, other than emotional manipulation, to repeat this over and over. Certainly, it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER upon the adjudication of evidence during a rape trial. Either the defendant can be proven guilty to a clear and convincing standard of evidence in a given case, or he can't -- and spotlighting the issue of unreported rape in that context is utterly irrelevant.
Well, it's time to wrap up this post. I hope I have given you some value for your reading time.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Another Male Voice Against Feminist Lies



This chap Tom Lemons also has a website which you can see here:

http://www.falsedvireports.com/

Well all right, I just discovered the following, and it chimes so perfectly with the foregoing that I cannot NOT place it here alongside:

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Yess! Here is How We Like to Wreck 'Em!

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Michael Flood Wishes to Make a Correction

Michael Flood, the thought leader of the pro-feminist men's movement in Australia, has left the following brief comment on an earlier Counter-Feminist post:
I'm described as Connell's "protege" and as learning my craft under Connell. Not quite. Connell was at a different university. Sure, her work's been very influential, but I never had the honour of being her protege.
Cheers,
Michael Flood.
http://www.xyonline.net/category/authors/michael-flood
To get the context behind all of this, you should go now and view the CF post that I am referring to, here:

counterfem.blogspot.com/2011/04/youtube-that-you-must-watch.html

Political Landscape - Redux

I will now re-post an article which I wrote almost exactly four years ago, in which I describe the Orwellian future I see lurking on the horizon. Keep in mind that this was four years ago, and I was making predictions. Well, it looks like the world is indeed slouching along the lines which are sketched here. And the non-feminist revolutionaries are saying similar things everywhere you look, as if in confirmation of my own insight.

Something I feel rather bad about, is that I never wrote the part two which I had projected. That means that the following does not fully deliver on what it sets out to explain. I am thinking especially of the part early on, where I mention that perpetual revolution might be extended through artificial means. Although I hope that I will write part two, and that re-posting this will inspire me to the task, I will give a quick summary of that subject here.

Very well. In brief, the overclass will be cemented by a combination of fear, vanity and greed, and in this manner keep the feminist-dominated power structure solidly in place. We can expect nothing revolutionary from that quarter, and everything reactionary. The only possibility for revolution will reside in the underclass, but the extension of feminist power into that realm (in a kind of 'column' formation) will keep underclass men and women at war with each other so that they will never unite against the overclass or the elite. Feminism will be a false friend to underclass women, who may embrace feminism in a deluded notion of "sisterhood". But their feminist "sisters" in the overclass will only inflict upon them classism in its timeless form. At the same time, the underclass will be kept in a "dumbed down" condition, stupified by drugs, popular culture and other soul toxins, socially atomized, economically impoverished, and deprived of effective historical memory. This will render them unable to organize around their collective interests and even unable to comprehend those interests. Among such muddled masses, feminism's perpetual revolution may churn forever -- or at any rate, for a more extended time.

But now, here is my original article:


The Political Landscape Which Lies Ahead -- A Road Map for the Future

Everybody should have a crystal ball. It is good to look into the future, don't you think?

Today, if it won't impose on you too much, I would like to gaze into my own crystal ball, and describe what I see there—or at any rate, what I think I see there. You never know, it might prove useful. And don't forget that "prediction" a pivotal part of counter-feminism. So let's get busy with some predictions, shall we?

In the treatise that follows, I will cover some rather new ground. And although I am discussing the future, I am also talking about many things that are current in the world this very minute, so that quite a few of these "predictions" are in fact nothing of the kind. They are already old and familiar. However, we all know that the present is the seed-bed of the future - what is presently "so" may in time become "more so". Bearing this is mind, and bearing in mind likewise certain algorithms of historical occurrence which play and re-play perennially in every drama that involves the human animal, we may venture in all confidence to compose our canvas in broad strokes that won't go far amiss.

I have elsewhere spoken of feminism as a perpetual revolution, and have made it clear that the end of perpetual revolution would entail the end of feminism as well. Moreover, I have implied, without fully addressing the subject, that perpetual revolution carries the seeds of its own demise. However, although I still believe this is the case, I am able to envision certain conditions under which the dynamic of perpetual revolution, hence feminism as a whole, may be artificially fueled and extended - and longer, perhaps, than people like us might wish to endure! Let us not underestimate the evil intelligence of our enemy - which in many ways resembles that of a highly adaptable virus. Let us rather anticipate that they might have covered the bases more thoroughly than we wish to think, and prepare for the possibility that they have done so in fact.

The extension of perpetual revolution would occur, as I project, in the context of a three-tiered social power hierarchy. This three-tiered hierarchy would consist, from top down, of 1.) A primary ruling class called the (male) Elite, 2.) A secondary ruling class called the Overclass, and 3.) A more-or-less immobilized proletariat at the bottom of the heap, simply called the Underclass.

The Male Elite makes a tiny percentage of the total population, the Overclass a significantly large minority, while the Underclass is distinctly the largest human reservoir of the three. In the midst of the three-tiered system, feminism plays a complex, catalytic role which our talk will enlarge upon.

The transitional zones between these power layers will appear fuzzy when viewed at close quarters, but distinctly sharper from a distance. While there is a limited degree of permeability—or "upward mobility" to use a classic term—it is significant for our purposes, that mobility between zones is growing markedly more difficult. Something very like a caste system seems to be developing.

The Elite

It should first be understood that the purpose of this entire system is to secure the overlordship of the male Elite.

For if in truth there be any such thing as that "patriarchy " which feminist theory postulates, the male Elite could well indeed merit the title. Thus considered, the irony is quickly apparent in the feminist application of this word to thoughtlessly tar multitudes of men whose veritable power amounts to very little.

The most important thing to understand about the male Elite—or more simply the Elite, since many of them have mothers, wives and daughters after all!—is that they do not think or view the world in anything like the same terms as most of the human race. This is particularly striking in the case of political or ideological categories.

Labels such as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, left, right, Marxist, fascist, socialist and so on, barely exist at all for members of the Elite. They view the world from a different optic entirely—wired to different emotive triggers and bound by loyalties we needn't hope to unriddle. Consequently, the Elite are able to play all sides of all fences, with equal pragmatic indifference, in the variable service of their instrumental needs. This in practice makes them inscrutable puppet-masters and, from our point of view, even solipsistic: they are distinctly not us, therefore we cannot read them as ourselves. Such aloofness, such catlike alterity, comes naturally to them and is really no mystery at all: it is the consequence of being SO powerful that you can afford to live in your own world and remain oblivious to more generally held sources of meaning.

Simply stated, the Elite are the high alpha males of the world. The tip-top layer of the pyramid. Through their vast and densely networked lock-down on banking and politics, they control the foundational conditions which determine how our lives will go. Lesser powers cascade from their greater power. Yes, they are a boy's club. And they are getting better and better at their game!

I'll not spend much time talking about the Elite; they are in many ways the least interesting portion of my subject, given how they are so remote from the sphere of action that we know. Suffice to say that they are an intricate world unto themselves, by no means monolithic, and that all of this makes them proportionately more difficult to fathom from beneath.

The Overclass

The next level down, in the three-tiered system, is what we have termed the Overclass. In point of numbers this class far outweighs the Elite. In marked contrast to the Elite - who would rather keep a shadowy, elusive profile—the Overclass constitutes the everyday face of the ruling power structure.

The Overclass may be understood as the delegated contractual workforce of the elite, responsible for administrative tasks and various domains involving intellectual creativity. Globally considered, they are the upper managers and consultants.

In cultural terms, the Overclass has certain distinguishing features which mark them off from the Underclass. Most apparent to the eye, is that they are well-financed and well-heeled. They have, moreover, an unmistakeable air of ease and security about them. Their lives are not worm-eaten by debt to any great degree, and being well-connected and well networked, they have a host of fallback options when things go awry. On the whole, their lives operate smoothly—they are sheltered from the vicissitudes. They have greater access to the means of self-realization in many forms, along with better food, better health care, more aesthetically pleasing physical environments, and a lower degree of stress all around. Finally, they have the means to obtain postsecondary education; consequently, they are more likely to have done so—which makes them "better educated", at least along the lines that are apt to secure political advantage in various forms.


An interesting recent development is the rise of the so-called "bobo", or bourgeois bohemian, class. This has been a result of cultural tectonic shiftings in the earthquake decade of the 1960s. The bobos, being a vital element of the Overclass, are certainly a powerful sector in the presently emerging world order. This phenomenon would make an interesting study all unto itself.

However, as counter-feminist agents of change, what chiefly holds our interest is the relationship between the Overclass on the one side, and feminism both ideologically and politically, on the other.

The Overclass is heavily indoctrinated with the feminist world-view. This has been the case for some time now—it is so, and becoming more so. Infiltration of feminist ideations into the world of postsecondary education (and all education for that matter) has been one of the main vectors operating to convey this line of influence into the targeted region. Another, running in tandem with the first, is the steady, plodding encroachment of women into vocational areas which are either well-paid, politically influential, physically undemanding, or all three. This process is still underway; it is by no means complete or even nearing completion.

Along with the influx of politically naive women into the sectors mentioned, it is rational to anticipate the arrival of ideological feminists in certain numbers—or even feminist cadres. Hence, an ongoing replication of the feminist political machine by both formal and informal methods, gravitating always toward a theoretical point of saturation. The objective balance of probability in no way excludes such development—it is no less rational to anticipate such development, than to anticipate the contrary.

What is happening in the workforce is happening simultaneously, if in varied fashion, in other domains—many of which make their impact across the board, in both the Overclass and the Underclass. The propagation of the feminist world-view, along with the rapid extension of the femplex, is not easily contained within a particular demographic - nor would any such containment comport with feminist purposes. However, what IS easily contained, or at least regulated, is the mobility of male population from the Underclass into the Overclass.

Consider once again the infiltration of women (and consequently feminist women) into the generally desirable sectors of the working world. The upshot of this is to convert large and growing regions of the vocational landscape into effectively female-dominated, if not feminist-dominated, territory.

Next, consider the widespread propagation of anti-male bias in the realm of law, jurisprudence, criminal justice procedure, policies, regulations, and codes of various kinds. Such things have happened, and will continue happening. Such things have crept in the night, and will continue creeping in the night. Feminism's perpetual revolution does not stop rolling until somebody or something sabotages the track and derails it.

So, in large areas of life, males have undergone something very like the totalitarian process in which selected classes of people are listed as "objective enemies". Under feminism, men are objective enemies. Such is the psychic miasma that creeps slowly, slowly, invisibly, and never sleeps. If the miasma has not yet crept into every possible corner everywhere, this is not owing to any lack of ambition to eventually do so.

Such is the present condition of the Overclass. It is not feasible to exclude males from the Overclass. However, it is certainly possible to exclude males within subtle categories. The growing presence of the feminist political machine, along with a proliferation of naive acquiesence from the femplex, makes possible a system of cultural filters that can exclude men who are unable to walk an agonizingly fine line in their personal manifestations. The filters grow steadily more discerning, able to capture finer and finer nuances of personal style by turning the personal into the political in ways more and more microscopic, and setting a hostile assessment on whatever does not implicitly endorse the feminist world-view.

If you intend to prosper as a male in the Overclass, it helps immensely to have made a full psychic capitulation to the feminist world-view. To be a collaborationist, in other words. In Orwellian terms, you will find favor if you have won the victory over yourself and "learned to love Big Mother." If you have not so capitulated, or if you are not superhumanly clever at masking your true feelings, then the filters will catch you. If not today, then certainly in 10, 20 or 30 years, when detection algorithms have grown more sophisticated.

So, it is easy to see that large blocs of the male population can, for various reasons, be excluded from feminist or female-dominated ways of making a living. When you realize that these vocational sectors largely define Overclass membership at the level of economic prosperity, you will see that feminist or female domination of such sectors will operate as a gatekeeping mechanism governing precisely who, in terms of male demographic sub-groups, will or will not infiltrate the Overclass.

In the end, the feminist world-view shall effectively colonize the Overclass. Non-participation in this paradigm would, to males in particular, spell non-participation in the Overclass for all but a few hardy mavericks. The Overclass would then consist of "empowered" women, and "feminized" men. The real power would, in the final analysis, lie in the hands of women.

But the final power at the very highest level will continue to repose in the hands of the "patriarchal" male-dominated Elite, who will use women as tools to control the bulk of the male population with an effectiveness unprecedented in all of known human history.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Men Cannot Reasonably Trust Women: What Do Women Mean to do About This?

You would do well to read the following article by Manuel Dexter, recently posted at A Voice for Men:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/05/15/women-and-trust-the-ugly-truth/

Here is the finale, which pretty well sums it up:
"That bears repeating : in this system men cannot reasonably trust women.
"In relationships, the odds for men are stacked against any outcome except betrayal and destruction. Certainly, many women are not unethical, nor are seeking to exploit men's near non-person status in our society. Unfortunately, many women are seeking just that outcome. There is no social or legal obstacle to women who would exploit the system we now enjoy; the system where all men are bad, and all women are good.
"Women, we men can't trust members of your sex in this system. There are admittedly few men alert to this fact as yet. The men's movement is just waking up, there will be more of us. This is not hatred towards women, it's just awareness and self preservation. It's a system established by over 50 years of feminism. It is apparently what your sex wanted, and now you have it. Or, maybe this isn't what you wanted; but if it's not:
"What do you mean to do about it?"
Yes, women, what do you mean to do about this? Men can no longer reasonably trust you: that is a fact of overshadowing importance nowadays, and I blame feminism for bringing this about. It is not a healthy situation as I am sure you will agree, but given the arrangement of the current legal system, every woman is a potential betrayer to every man, and no man with any self-respect or any mind to his own safety can afford to overlook this. Simply put, men are now second-class citizens, and it is not entirely reasonable to require a first-class attitude from them, is it? It is not entirely reasonable to require them to care, is it?

The feminists love to bang the gong about "misogyny", but I would hold feminism responsible above all other forces for creating misogyny, for having fostered the conditions which guarantee the natural growth of it. Men can no longer reasonably trust women, while at the same time too many women have been corrupted by the "empowerment" which feminism has secured in their name. It takes no brains at all to understand that this will never foster a loving attitude, by men, toward women. On the contrary, it can only fuel a downward spiral of animosity on both sides. But that is precisely what the feminists wish to see happen. It is vitally important to them because it keeps their cult alive.

Feminism, as we know, means the same thing as female supremacism: these terms are interchangeable in a way that might as well be algebraic. And female supremacism may be defined as the idea that female supremacy ought to be instituted in practice. However, I would warn all readers that any effort to establish female supremacy as a living reality will eventually backfire -- not only upon feminism and feminists, but upon women in general. And the consequences are bound to be ugly: "girl power" will not be as fun for girls as some might wish to believe. Instead, it will give rise to a stressful, mean-spirited and dangerously unfriendly world -- a ratty world, a loveless world, a world of moral desolation as far as the eye can see.

And many women, whom I will term "women of conscience", are painfully aware that this is what the future will bring unless steps are taken, and right soon, to turn things around. It is to such women in particular that I address the momentously important question: "What do you mean to do about it?" But see the following:

http://www.4shared.com/document/Ke9ST_d3/Message2NonFeministWomen.html


Meanwhile, to bring the objectively historical state of things into sharper focus, I share once again my recent YouTube video about the two-party system of sexual politics. Remember that I am only the messenger here. This is how things ARE, and how they will continue developing until they reach a catastrophic threshold:



In conclusion, please think once again about what it means to say that "in this system, men cannot reasonably trust women."

Monday, May 16, 2011

This, Truly, Tells You What Feminism Is



Hail Nancy, full of . . . "grace"!

Nancy Grace is a true feminist -- of the Amanda Marcotte school, no less! For there is nothing more quintessentially feministical than the gaspingly stupid bigotry you will witness in this video. Some people have no shame - no shame whatsoever! And to embarrass them is quite impossible.

All of you newcomers should take a long stark stare at this. Ponder and digest it to the last drop. Then, see if you can figure out why feminism is the enemy, and why we fight.

This is quintessential feminism. This boils feminism down to the sticky, gummy residue at the bottom of the kettle. You saw it here, and I would not steer you wrong.

Bear in mind what you witness here is typical of feminist reaction, across the board, in the early stages of the Duke lacrosse false rape fiasco. And not only in the early stages: most of them kept it up to the bitter end, and some of them are STILL holding out to this very day. I grant you that not all of them were quite so graceless as Nancy, however, their utterances varied mainly in sophistication of expression and hardly at all in substance.

And let me just add that in my carefully considered opinion Nancy Grace deserves a good old-fashioned "patriarchal" bitch-slapping session to straighten her out. Mind you, I wouldn't say that about just anybody. But I say it about Nancy Grace because she is just, well . . . special in that way! I have no social-contractual obligation toward her or anybody like her, which means that my conduct toward her or anybody like her is governed by a moral law within myself. And my inner lawgiver in its infinite wisdom counsels a bitch-slapping in the present case.

And that is what I have just done. I have given Nancy Grace a verbal bitch-slapping.

Friday, May 13, 2011

No No! Al Capone was NOT a Vicious Gangster!



This instills a lesson that ought to be as basic as two plus two. Namely, that almost nobody is pure good or pure evil. And so, rotten people do nice things all the time. This is not a bit unusual -- it happens every day. It is one of the commonest things you can imagine.

Some would call this compartmentalization, while others might favor the old-school layman's way of putting it: being two-faced.

Anyhow, it is a basic lesson. So let us put this lesson to work in understanding the behavior of certain people whom we know all too well. If you catch my drift. ;)

More Caponeiana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UcxeGYoiq8&feature=related

Monday, May 09, 2011

CF Podcast: The Sixteenth

The Ontological Foundation of Female Supremacism



Feminism, as we all know, is an anti-male hate movement. And yes, we all know that "not all feminists are like that". But that doesn't make feminism any less of a socio-political hate organism when its objective consequences upon the social ecology are duly weighed, measured and factored. The "earnest" feminists exist in order to provide cover for the the radfems -- to play the "good cop" role in that timeless game of deceit. This podcast digs down to the moral and metaphysical root of the business.

No, this is not a "redux" version of an earlier pod. It is a brand new one, never before published. It is a bit over sixteen minutes long, which makes it a bit too long to be packaged as a YouTube video. Rats!

To download your own copy of the MP3 -- which I encourage -- go here:

http://www.4shared.com/audio/eNROjgKz/CF16.html

A Brief Essay on Why Feminism Bores Us

A short time ago, I got the following reader comment on the original 'Bright Line' post. The writer, to judge by attitude, is a feminist -- probably of the naive, "earnest" sub-species: Anonymous

Anonymous said...

...do you read any feminist blogs. At all? Or look at some left-leaning criticism of feminism? Really, if you are going to criticise feminism, could you at least do your homework. Because, if you followed anything recently, you would know about the blow-up in the feminist sphere, where major feminist blog feministe was criticised by pro-feminist race-focused blog racialicious for the racist undertones in the big four. Or the blockade of major feminist blogs because they failed to fully address issues of ableism in the feminist community. Or other such criticism, such as feminisnt, a pornography producer, sex worker and former sex-positive feminist who stopped identifying as a feminist because she was tired of trying to conform to the idea of 'feminist behaviour'.

8:16 AM


And I responded in the following terms:

Fidelbogen said...

@Anon 8:16:

We in the non-feminist community are stuffed to the gills with reading feminist blogs and studying feminism from every angle. Yes, we have been "doing our homework" for years and years, and by now we know more about feminism than feminism knows about feminism.

Yes, I said it. Since feminism refuses to "know itself", then by default the task falls upon outsiders to do that particular feminist home work.

And frankly, we are not much interested in chronicling the minute-by-minute passing ripples on the surface of that foetid pond which never changes.

Nor do we, as non-feminists, wish to take sides in the in-house spats and squabbles currently underway among feminists on the internet.

If what you are describing heralds the breakdown, collapse, and eventual disappearance of feminism, then . . . hurrah!

Otherwise, don't bore us with non-issues like "undertones of racism" on feminist blogs, or "ableism", or the bad attitude of sex-pos porno-fems, etc etc....

This is all just feminist parochialism, and you can't reasonably expect us non-feminists to give a spit about such things now, can you?

However, I would be interested to know if you have anything to say about manichean essentialism.

11:34 AM

Friday, May 06, 2011

The Bright Line - Redux




Feminism does not hold women morally accountable, although it seeks by clever devices to camouflage this fact. However, this fact is fatal to feminism because it morally isolates feminism from non-feminism, and makes feminism available as a target.

Personal copies of the MP3 are available for download, as always. Get yours HERE:

http://www.4shared.com/audio/ds4tULRw/CF14.html



Feminism's failure to hold women to any meaningful standard of moral accountability can serve as a bright line test to establish a conceptual, and eventually sociopolitical, demarcation between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector:

The Bright Line

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Whittling Feminism Down to Size -- Bit by Bit

I was reading through a comment thread, HERE:

http://www.excal.on.ca/news/dont-dress-like-a-slut-toronto-cop
/

And I stumbled upon some radical feminist man-hating by somebody signing herself as "The Truth Hurts." Below are two samples of this radical feminist's stainless steel wisdom.

The Truth Hurts
April 25, 2011 - 3:14 AM

Obviously, the sexes are not the same. Men are disproportionately more violent, criminal, and stupid than women are. Maybe you guys need to lose your right to vote or hold office, seeing as how your monopoly on the government and criminal justice system has lead to idiotic “punishments” for sex crimes.

And maybe every man needs to be wear an ankle bracelet AND have his DNA submitted to national databases. Your sex’s actions prove that you boys can’t behave like law-abiding citizens.

Of course, you all would scream, “That’s not fair if women aren’t subjected to the same treatment!” Tough luck, because we’re obviously not the same, and crime statistics prove my point.


The Truth Hurts
April 25, 2011 - 3:20 AM

LOL, you say “feminazi” like it’s a bad thing.

I guess since males think they have the right to rape, maybe we women should start forming gangs and castrating them one by one. And you males will have “asked for it.”

Finally, here is a third sample from this same feminist, in reply to a particular commenter. First comes a snippet from that commenter, followed by the response:

The Truth Hurts

“Feminism IS the HATING on men and suppression of anything outside of this silly system of 2 poles (good female and evil male).”

LMAO. Men commit rape, blame the victims for their criminal degeneracy, and then you poor little boys wonder why there’s a “good female and evil male” attitude among many women? Seriously?

Not only are men violent perverts, but apparently you all are completely retarded as well.


After that, I couldn't resist weighing in. My comment, given below, offers a bit of philosophy that somebody out there might find useful. Perhaps even highly useful. First I quote "TruthHurts", then I spin a few riffs:

Fidelbogen
May 6, 2011 -

"Men commit rape, blame the victims for their criminal degeneracy, and then you poor little boys wonder why there’s a “good female and evil male” attitude among many women?"

No no. "Men" do not do these things. Men who DO these things. . . do these things. Do you see the difference?

Obviously, women who cannot see this difference are the same ones who cop a "good female and evil male attitude."

Such women have no moral right to expect anything "good" from "men", because they can only see "men" as "evil".

Clearly, such women are my enemies, so I take no responsibility for their well-being in any way. I am not bound to them by any social contract. I wash my hands of them. I cast them adrift and leave them to their fate.

Clearly, they have no better plans for me, so, turnabout is fair play.

You know what? With modifications, you can apply this same principle to virtually all feminists -- even the earnest ones. And furthermore you can apply this principle to virtually any woman who is, to any extent, a drag or a burden upon you. You really don't have as much duty toward women-in-the-abstract as you might think you do, if you will stop seeing them as "women", and learn to see them one at a time -- as woman A, woman B, woman C, and so on. Begin assessing them purely in terms of what they, as individuals, are worth to you, as an individual. Then decide what, if any, blessings you will apportion to them. The beauty of this social "triage" system is that you can figure it out completely on your own; you don't need any feminist to help you with it.

Good Verbal Ammunition



As you see, this is a nice series of conversational shoot-downs for commonplace feminist bitchings. Worth committing to memory if you lean toward that particular style of "activism".

But for myself, I wouldn't likely bother. And why? Because I feel that if I even get sucked into a feminist conversation in the first place, I have been defeated. You see, even if I win the battle, I have still lowered myself to a feminist battle on feminist terms. And by doing so, I have reinforced the feminist construct, and validated the feminist worldview by agreeing to participate in it. I have demeaned myself to the level of that worldview -- which is like a grownup having a schoolyard slanging match with an eight-year-old.

Transacting with the feminists from inside their discourse ought to be below our dignity, wouldn't you say?

So if I were that animated office man in the video, how would I handle the conversation? Here is how: I would starve the feminist narrative by shutting that woman down cold and turning my back on her. Just off the block, I can think of two different one-line zingers that I might elect to use.

When the woman says "men are privileged", I might say: "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one."

Or I might cut to the chase brusquely but not so insultingly: "Please explain why you are telling me this."

Or, to be both insulting and humorless: "If you plan to insult my intelligence, at least don't bore me."

Hey, it looks like I did three instead of two! Undoubtedly, I will think of others.

Your turn now, if you are game for it.

Monday, May 02, 2011

The Political Ecology of the Non-Feminist Sector - Redux

In the grand old tradition of re-cycling old material, here I go again. This is a Counter-Feminist post from a long time ago -- I don't recollect just when -- and the message of it REALLY needs to be hammered home. The more the better, especially right about now. Also, this will keep readers busy while I work on other things. Some of you know what I mean by that! ;)
--------------------------------------------

The great game we are embarked upon is elegantly simple. It is a game between feminism and the rest of the universe. This statement is both alpha and omega, the first and the last thing that you need to know. It all starts with this and it all comes back to this in the end.

However, between alpha and omega lies a complex zone of operation which should on no account be glossed over, even if it taxes our brains to get the bearing of it. For the incoherent muddle which has dominated the thinking of our so-called movement for many years, taxes our brains ten times worse than that: it fritters away our energy, it leads us round and round the mulberry bush, and worst of all, it empowers our enemies.

Yes, we stand in need of an efficient political world-view—one that will organize our thinking, formulate our speaking, discipline our rhetoric, position us to advantage, set the other side at a disadvantage, and lay our plans upon a practical foundation. All of which is projected here.


What then, is the non-feminist sector? It is the universe exclusive of feminism; it is the rest of the universe—the zone of reality that is not, and never will be, feminism. I could liken the non-feminist sector to a wide-open prairie which extends for thousands of miles in all directions—as far as the eye can see and as far as the mind can represent.

Feminism, by contrast, I could liken to a rathole in a corner. It is categorically not the world: it is only a bundle of abstractions and emotional reflexes that certain people carry around in their brains. However, it has so far proven to be a powerful bundle, with adverse consequentiality—and that is what concerns us.

The non-feminist sector: call it the NF sector for short, and if you'd like to be even shorter than that, speak of it knowingly as "the sector".

Our sector is fluid, relational, non-binary, protoplasmic. It is not a bit hierarchical—which ought to please the feminists. And our sector contains many, many things—for example, human beings. It also contains plants and animals, stars and galaxies, physical and spiritual laws, and more cosmic dust than you can hope to imagine. But we'll save such glories for a future conversation, after we have celebrated our victory. For now, bear in mind that this is politics and that human beings are political animals. And being such, they and their doings make the proper grist for our mill.

And so, within the human grist of the non-feminist prairie you will find every form of non-feminist political, cultural, ideological or intellectual life conceivable. In short, the sector is a political ecosystem—and you can make no generalizations about it, apart from the non-feminism of it all.

Above all, no moral generalizations about the NF sector are possible, for the sector embraces every shade of good and evil that the human race itself contains. The NF sector is not a moral monolith: any campaign to critique or discredit the sector from the standpoint of so-called "morality" is misbegotten, and will implode by the force of its irrelevance. You might as well critique the morality of the universe itself, that is how meaningless such an exercise would be! As a non-feminist, I freely acknowledge the moral variety of the non-feminist sector—and that is more than the average feminist will do vis à vis feminism! And I can only suggest that if you don't like the bad parts of the non-feminist sector, then seek the good parts—the same advice I would give you about life, or the world at large.

The non-feminist sector is not a "movement". Rather, it is both a container of movement, and the lump sum of the movement which the container contains. Nor is it an ideology. Rather, it is both a parchment on which many ideologies may register themselves, and the lump sum of these ideologies. In fine, the sector is both a substrate for all of the forces and factors now arising (or likely to arise) in opposition to feminism, and the lump sum of those forces and factors.

For example, you'll have heard of something called "the men's movement" (alternately the "men's rights movement" or MRM). Well this so-called "movement" is just one among countless cultural life-forms upon the non-feminist prairie. By name, it places the accent upon "men" rather than upon feminism, and that is why we single it out as merely one among many forms of non-feminist energy.

You'll have likewise heard of something called MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). That too is a non-feminist cultural life-form—to be exact, an ideological subgroup of the men's movement whose membership stubbornly defies categorization. After all, they are going their own ways—and those ways are many!

And then there is a thing called the Ghost Nation, a shadow civilization of alienated self-reliance in action, pushing the MGTOW envelope to the limit of the known political universe!

The term MRA (Men's Rights Actuator) is by now familiar to many feminists. It too signifies a kind of "prairie" (or rather a sub-prairie) on which a diverse array of non-feminist critters are known to wander. This term is only a generic descriptor that gives an objective summation of a present social trend, namely, the growing number of people—men and women both—who believe that men and boys are getting a dirty deal in the realm of fundamental human dignity and equity under the law. 'MRA', like 'NF sector', transcends moral generalization.

Many reform movements, organized around one or more particular issues, exist within the NF sector. The family law reform movement, the divorce reform movement, the fathers' rights movement, the False Rape Society, the anti-paternity fraud movement, the anti-IMBRA movement, the "Fix VAWA" movement, the Men's Voting Alliance, are a few examples. And such movements will often spring to life as separate versions in separate locales, in conjunction with chartered organizations whose degree of liaison with one another varies considerably.

I cannot hope to list all of the ideologies, movements and organizations which are now active, either directly or indirectly, against feminism or the manifold consequences of feminism's innovations. I cannot hope to trace the tangled spaghetti of their interconnections, or to chart the intricate and ambiguous ways in which they overlap. Luckily, I don't need to do any of those things. I need only to impress upon the reader the dynamism and diversity of it all, and its essentially fluid, protean, organic state of being.

So far I have dealt with the "political", but I should also touch upon the "personal". Individual life and private existence may be considered the 'dark matter' of the sociopolitical universe—and for our purpose that means the non-feminist sector.

The primordial will to oppose feminism (like feminism itself) takes many forms, but at bottom it is simply that: a will. A volition. And a will or volition is as likely to be manifested in the individual, and his pertaining microcosm, as anywhere else. As a sum total, this accounts for a lot of territory and a lot of social gravity—a considerable lot, albeit mostly silent.

Yet in the end, the zone of the private, the personal, the individual, is the mother-lode of power for the entire non-feminist sector. It is of this zone that we mainly speak, when we speak of the activation of the sector. Such activation has already occurred in a tentative way, but most of the zone still lies dormant; inert; fallow. The future portends interesting developments, and truly, we shall live in interesting times.

But again, the dizzying multiplexity of the non-feminist sector—with its illimitable permutation and nuance, its endless fusions and fissions, its continual crossings and re-crossings—quite surpasses my poor power of description. Therefore, I will cut this short. It is not given to us brief mortals to speak fully of certain things, but only to SEE these things, as a bird would see them, from an altitude. . . .