Monday, August 29, 2011

New Video -- The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

Saturday, August 27, 2011

The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

hetoric is the art of persuasion. And since persuasion is a matter of prime importance, rhetoric must on no account be neglected, but rather subjected to the requirements of a discipline. We are engaged in a contest for hearts and minds, a serious business which oughtn't be left to the hazards of a random crapshoot. The way we go about saying, or not saying, what we choose to say, or not say, will either float us or sink us.

In the present talk I purposely exclude the topic of fallacious argument. That topic has been worked over by so many writers already that I feel I can be of greater service if I limit myself to fields not so thoroughly plowed.

Very well. The sum of rhetorical discipline may be condensed into a single short phrase: minimize grappling points. What follows will be a gloss upon this precept.

A grappling point is anything in the form or content of your communication that gives your enemy an edge, an angle, or an opening. You might say that a grappling point gives your enemy a handhold so he can swing you around, or a foothold so he can climb over you. This sets you in a position of weakness or passivity, and negates you as an obstacle, so that your enemy advances in a tactical or strategic way.

The opponents of feminism are famous for speaking their minds "not wisely but too well". In this way they offer grappling points to their enemy and make their own work needlessly difficult. Their ineptitude may be arrayed under a four-fold heading.

Firstly, that they will say indiscreet things which are bound to excite the wrong kind of controversy at the wrong moment. In this, they fail to establish politics by being politic.

Secondly, that they will use an unseemly or undignified tone. In this, they fail to establish tonal mastery.

Thirdly, that they will neglect to uphold a consistent narrative of non-feminist sovereignty that would cast the opposition in the role of an aggressor power. In this, they fail to establish the necessary political frame.

Fourthly, that they lack political focus, meaning that they neglect structural unity of message. They speak heterogenously on a ragbag of topics with little thought to the strategic implications of what they choose to talk about, and why, and when. In this, they fail to establish message discipline. Consequently, they waste time and energy and bog down the movement.

Under all of these headings, the failure in question may be understood as a failure to minimize grappling points. I will now enlarge upon each case in turn.

In the first case, the impolitic non-feminist behaves as a "loose cannon-mouth" and makes impeachable utterances. An impeachable utterance may be defined as any saying which at least arguably transgresses the norms of morality or decency. I say arguably, because evaluative criteria and subtext will differ from one social group to the next. Different groups argue things differently, and to different conclusions.

And so, a statement that would give a feminist a conniption might produce nary a ripple amongst the great middle mass of non-feminist men and women. Any utterance which is arguably impeachable is at least arguably a grappling point, but if the "argument" is unpersuasive to most people, then it will gain no political traction outside the feminist cultural space. And so it makes a weak grappling point: the worst the feminists can do is dangle you in front of other feminists and cluck about what a horrid specimen you are -- but nobody else will give a rip! This bottles up the feminists within their communal psychology and isolates them from the rest of the world. Such an effect, for our purpose, is desirable.

But if you say something universally impeachable, something that would disturb nearly anybody, it makes a strong grappling point: the feminists can use it for political traction in the larger world. It does not bottle them up in their group psychology; it empowers them to "reach out and touch someone" other than themselves. Such an effect, for our purpose, is undesirable.

So don't be a loose cannon-mouth. You should frame your communication in a way that offers no universal grappling points -- alternately stated, a non-objectionable surface. We call this the common gaze standard because it plays to the psychic consensus of the great middle mass.

One point remains to be considered. You might ask: "How if I discipline my rhetoric to where even the feminists can find nothing impeachable about it? Is it worth my trouble to attempt this?" And I would reply: possibly. It depends how hard you want to work, so it is for you to weigh the advantage or disadvantage in a given case.

To highlight just the advantage, note that mastery in this field could be a method of psychological warfare. A universally non-objectionable surface would leave the luckless feminist with almost nothing to use against you even in her own mind. That would cut off retreat into communal psychology; each feminist would stand alone as a solitary individual, if you will, before the judgment seat. For many of them, any desperate escape would be preferable to such a desperate hell, and in many cases criminal behavior, driven by rationalization, seems a likely outcome. But until the feminists are ready to "come clean", I would spare them no empathy. Empathy is for your friends.

I turn now to the second case, which addresses the commonly-seen failure to establish tonal mastery. An unseemly or undignified tone does not, in itself, entail either fallacious argument or impeachable utterance of any kind -- although it might occur in tandem with these. But I call it a grappling point because, in the ad hominem rough-and-tumble of real-world polemic, contestants will frankly use it against you in that way. And which is more, they will do so to pragmatic effect -- a point which bears consideration.

A further consideration is, that the way you say things often weighs a lot more than what you say. A discourse of considerable audacity may, if couched in a dry, nonchalant diction, pass altogether unremarked by the great middle mass -- and even by quite a few feminists. What many people find objectionable in a given speaker or writer might be nothing more than, for example, that he sounds angry and disagreeable -- and it's a turn-off! So, by the right combination of knowing what the target audience will bear hearing, and intoning this suitably, you can make great headway and speak your mind more boldly and candidly than you might think.

There is, of course, an art of sounding angry. It can be done. However, you need to maintain "artistic control" and to apply the right effect knowingly, bending or breaking the rules in a calculated way with the proper sense of timing. Such is tonal mastery. But you are wiser to follow the rules until confident of breaking them masterfully.

Amanda Marcotte Says You Want to Rape Her

Whining is another unseemly and undignified tone. Indeed, it is arguably the worst of the lot, and ought to be eschewed. Whining may best be described as complaint for its own sake, accompanied by a keening vocal affect with a descending pitch. And although vocal affect is not present in writing, it is possible to achieve a written whine -- perceived as such by others -- if you do little else than complain endlessly.

In order that you will not seem to be whining -- in either speech or writing -- you should forbear to make emotionally-fraught inventories of self-evident things. Thus, you ought simply to recite the bare facts in their bare factuality, and let that bare factuality paint the required picture by virtue of its intrinsic poignancy. This is akin to the advice given to writers, to "show but don't tell." Facts are weighty witnesses that will testify with overwhelming precision if you let them. A bare factual narrative packs the needful cargo on its own account, and needn't be lumbered with pathos.

I should add, that feminists love to accuse their enemies of whining. I mean, they are keen to use that indictment for a grappling point in order to make mileage by mockery. But when you stop whining, they should start worrying, for it hints that you have gone to the next level of insurgency in your thoughts, and are incubating serious plans.

The subject of women often crops up in conjunction with both anger and whining, and when it does, the talk morphs into what some might loosely call "misogyny". This is not strictly a matter of tone, but rather topic. Still, it is important to note the connection between women as a focus of discussion, and the emotion that goes in step with this. I say it is important, because the ramifications are politically consequential and relate to our study of grappling points.

I turn now to the third case, that of neglecting to frame the political narrative in terms of non-feminist sovereignty. Such neglect has rhetorical consequences, for it sets you eternally on the defensive with any feminist you meet and continually reinforces the feminist construct. You might call it a grappling point a priori.

The feminist war, at its heart, is a war of sovereignties. A certain cultural paradigm (feminism) has gone into a colonizing modality, intending to nullify the sovereignty of any other paradigm that gets in its way. And make no mistake, they ALL get in feminism's way.

And so the greatest non-feminist weapon we have, is our knowledge of non-feminist sovereignty -- no, the certainty of it! In good truth, we are the bulk of the universe. And the laws and principles of that realm work to our advantage more so than otherwise. Yes, the natural order has got our back, and we should so fully internalize this conviction that it will inform every act, every mood, and every gesture that we make. For the feminist colonization of our lives has been a massive aggression built on nothing better than sheer presumption. We ought to know this by now, and we ought to act like we know it.

We should take a page from Marx, and ruthlessly challenge everything about them and their world. And in the spirit of the Frankfurt playbook, we should develop our own edition of "critical theory", and put it to work right away. Remember that "the theory is to criticize" -- and true to that spirit, everything they presume to say or presume to know, is fair game. When they say "patriarchy", or "misogyny", or "sexism", or "wage gap", or "glass ceiling", we bounce back instantly with "WHAT patriarchy? WHAT misogyny? WHAT sexism? WHAT wage gap? WHAT glass ceiling?" Yes, undermine them. Deconstruct their categories and presuppositions non-stop. Be skeptical. Be agnostical. Demand explanations. Never let up for one instant -- never let them clear the runway! Feminism is not the world, which means among other things that feminism is not the intellectual world. Accordingly, they shall export none of their intellectual merchandise into our world without paying a good stiff tariff -- and if we don't want it in our world, we ship it back in toto.

And if we are scanning the horizon of political events, either current or historic, we shall impose the frame of non-feminist sovereignty upon discoverable feminist actions, and so classify all such actions as to their degree of aggression against us.

To summarize: we must frame our political thinking (hence our talking) in terms of feminist aggression against the rest of the world, and in terms of thwarting such aggression. This, by virtue of reiteration and practice, will grow into a disciplined rhetorical instinct.

I turn now to the fourth case, that in which political focus -- or structural unity of message -- is neglected. Proper attention to this point may be understood as a discipline, and for that reason we call it message discipline. This term is established lingo among people who talk about electoral politics, but we make it part of rhetorical discipline because it falls within the gamut of operations that will minimize grappling points. Message discipline, you might say, puts rhetorical discipline on a collective basis.

The rhetorical consequence of neglecting message discipline is that grappling points will multiply in an uncontrolled manner. So it is important to keep a strong hand on the message that we transmit to the general population. Politically speaking, our "message" takes the form of issues and talking points, and in practice this has been an unorganized babble. Many people are talking about many things, and what we palaver about most overall, enters the common awareness, for better or worse, as a composite average of what we ARE.

Now, if there is a "true" or "central" message that we ought to be transmitting, then I reckon it should be one that is politically efficient in terms of a goal. And what is our goal? It is to damage feminism as much as possible by spreading information efficient to that purpose. Such, in bottom-line terms, is how we parse our doings: all of it boils down to some form of information trafficking. But we must always have a care about efficiency, because some information works more efficiently than other information in the work of damaging feminism. So remember that our message is part of our public image, and that public image is nothing if not trafficked information. Therefore we must ask if our public image, as related to our message, is efficient to the purpose of damaging feminism.

In addition to compromising our public image, neglected message discipline pulls us into all manner of conversations which are better avoided. For any time you voice an opinion, there is a chance you'll be requested to defend it. And in politics, the more opinions you voice the more battles you must fight. Yes, the more you bite off, the more you must chew -- one sees that is logical! Therefore we need not, and should not, take a stand on every issue under the sun. This generates grappling points because it permits the other side to hoist and haul us around by putting us on the defensive. So the watchword is "pick your battles". Any other policy creates a war on more than one front -- the larger counterpart of being flanked on a battlefield.

In the end, message discipline means optimally efficient information trafficking in the service of a political goal. So if we compromise our public image by association with flakey or shady things, that is not optimally efficient. If we load the table with issues not relevant to damaging feminism, that is not optimally efficient. If we load the table with issues only weakly relevant to damaging feminism, that is not optimally efficient. If we let people of a certain political leaning siphon us into talking about "loaded" topics that needn't be addressed at all -- for example, race or LGBT issues -- that is not optimally efficient. On it goes. All of these are areas where message discipline might get compromised, and as such, they generate grappling points. So rhetorical discipline commands our diligence in these areas.

There are exceptions. For example, were I to opine that the song of the mountain thrush has a more ethereal quality than the song of the lowland thrush, it would not compromise message discipline. That is because birdwatching is apolitical and mysterious. Also, it could add a whimsical note to an otherwise boring dissertation. So feel free to add those kinds of touches.

Very well. The four parts of rhetorical discipline, which I have introduced here, can be itemized briefly in the following nomenclature. I would suggest memorizing these for quick conversational reference:

1. Discreet Utterance
2. Tonal Mastery
3. Narrative Frame
4. Message Discipline

The remaining question, it seems to me, is the timeless one of how to herd cats. For it is impossible to run a control wire to every loose cannon-mouth in the sector. People will say what they will say even if it is politically ill-advised, and there is little we can do about this in the short run. So the best plan is to form a central column of rhetorically disciplined preachers who may gradually propagate their coherently schooled sensibility.These preachers may school others by example and in time generate a master signal and a focal point around which the chaotic clouds of impeachable or otherwise inefficient utterance will swirl.

A Lively Thought Upon a Slippery Subject

Feminism is like an eel in a bucket of dirty mop water. The trick is to overturn that bucket on the ground, and either spear the eel or let it writhe in the sunlight until it expires.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Not A Swirling Vortex

But who am I fooling? I am not a swirling vortex of energy right now. My motivation is close to zero, and the following picture captures my present state almost to perfection. Yes, even the light and the atmospheric haze are part of it:

I have concluded that my best plan is to take a hiatus like I did in late 2008.

Furthermore, my focus is shifting away from blogging and toward You-Tubing. At first, my YouTube channel was a side project. But now it is taking on a life of its own (281 subscribers currently), and the blog is becoming. . . well, a backwater. (See the picture above).

So. . I will not be blogging much for a while. However, I will put energy into YouTube sermons, and every time I post one, I will publish the text version here.

But mostly, I will be reading, studying and thinking a lot.

Commenting will remain open, and I will check the e-mail as always.

I'm plumb tuckered, and I'm outta here. For a while, anyways.



Saturday, August 20, 2011

Kellet Steps in It

The following article is reposted from A Voice For Men. The importance of it will not be lost on my readers:
As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.

A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.

But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.

Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.

Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.

This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:

“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.

The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.

“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.

Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.
  • Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.
  • Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.

The time for action is now.

On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.

I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.

I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.

Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, [Fidelbogen note: For those who are unfamiliar, FTSU means Fuck Their Shit Up.] and I mean NOW.

Contact Maine’s State Attorney General

Contact Governor Paul LePage

Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Sector System - Remake

Here is a quick link to the script, for your reading convenience:

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

I Have Been a Lazy Bastard

Instead of doing Counter-Feminist work, I have been indulging in idle mind candy which is totally off-topic. So... i just thought I would share, in case anybody else out yonder finds this stuff interesting:

BTW, all of you self-educators will want to check out the treasure trove of university lectures which are posted on YouTube -- hundreds of 'em! Maybe thousands. This one is from Yale.

The way I see it, we menfolk are being eased out of higher education because somebody sure as hell wants the intellectual class to be female-dominated! Seems patently obvious to ME, at any rate. (Hey, just 'cuz you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. . . right?)

So, you will definitely want to be a self-educator.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Sector System Briefly Explained

The feminists have a weird idea that they are the world. They must be disabused of this notion -- slowly, pitilessly, painstakingly. For there is another world, a world beyond feminism which has a sovereign life of its own. But the feminists cannot acknowledge this. And that is what we mean when we say that feminism thinks it is the world.

So again, there is a world beyond feminism -- and we are that world.

The project of feminism, as we all know, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit and no clearly stated plan to cease operations at any discernible time. In pursuit of this project, feminism has for many years conducted a war against men and maleness, on all fronts large and small. Men as a class have been targeted for hostile actions meant both to deprive them of the tangible and intangible goods of life, and to redistribute those goods to women.

And so it devolves in practice that the effect of feminism is to generate the ascendency of women, and to make the ruling power in most areas of life, both large and small, a female power. This project has taken great strides, and further progress is clearly projected. For that reason we conclude that feminism is a female supremacist project, and for all purposes indistinguishable from female supremacism.

Understand, that we do not say feminism is similar to female supremacism, or contains an element of female supremacism, or has a female supremacist aspect. No, we say that feminism and female supremacism are one and the same object; that the terms may be freely interchanged on whatever occasion you please. And frankly, if you could expel all of the female supremacism from feminism, then "feminism" would become a paltry, vanilla sort of thing that would melt back into the terrain of liberal humanism and cease to be salient.

Our decision, to make feminism and female supremacism interchangeable terms, is a LINGUISTIC FIAT. We, by our good sovereign pleasure, have ordained it so. A word by itself has no inherent meaning; rather, meaning is assigned to it, or mapped to it. And we have made our linguistic choice well knowing that we ride roughshod over the linguistic choices which others have made. Still, nothing prevents those others from speaking in their customary way within their own speech communities.

We understand that not every self-identified feminist identifies subjectively as a female supremacist. Nevertheless, we recognize feminism in toto to be a female supremacist project on an organic level -- and that every human participant in the feminist project is a contributor to this; a supporter of this; an enabler of this. Thus, we may name any self-identified feminist (of either sex) as an objective or de facto female supremacist.

The project of feminism, again, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit. The effect of this will be to drive a wedge between men and women by generating a disequilibrium of power between them. So it is accurate to say that the purpose of feminism (read: female supremacism) is to make men and women "unequal".

Now, the project of counter-feminism is, to isolate feminism in order to make it available as a target of social and political operations. And the first stage in this project is the rough cut. To isolate feminism, is to recognize it as recognizable, and we make it at least roughly so when we recognize that feminism is one thing, while the rest of the world is something else. At any rate, we have taken the critical first step in so doing, and further steps may follow by way of refinement. The rough cut establishes the sector system, meaning the division of the world into a feminist sector, and a non-feminist sector. This foundational binary composes the bedrock for an entire way of working and thinking. Little wonder then, that we call it the bedrock binary.

So, the non-feminist sector is a sovereign zone of existence, inhabited by a range of entities, communities, and forces. What all of these have in common is that they do not partake of feminism. The sector is not merely "not feminist" in a statistical-demographic way, but in a primordial way; it represents everything in the universe which lies beyond the explanatory competence of feminist theory -- in sum, all the forces and principles of that realm. Viewed in this context, feminism is very small and non-feminism is very large. Indeed, feminism is like a transient pattern of ripples upon a timeless river.

Female supremacism is nothing if not a war against men. However, in waging war against men, one bites off a far bigger chunk of the universe than just maleness. I mean, that politically organized anti-male aggression has a collateral effect upon the world at large because it generates fallout; because it transmits ripples from one end to the other of the social ecology. This is consequential for men and women both. And a lot of women will not want those consequences, because you might say that feminism hurts women too. Such women will know very well how to maximize their advantage when the time comes.

So it works out that the feminist war against men generates consequences for more than just men. This means that feminist anti-male aggression is, in the long run, aggression against the non-feminist world as a whole -- meaning anybody or anything which might, directly or indirectly, pose an obstacle to feminist plans.

Feminism then, is pernicious to the rest of the world. So again, our master strategy is to ISOLATE FEMINISM. And having once done this, to commence operations that will dismember its effective power on earth. Our establishment of the sector system sets the process in motion. For it is an elemental power gesture of surpassing importance, to affirm that feminism is a definite thing, and that WE are a sovereign thing apart from it and in no way subservient to it. This, at least, begins to isolate feminism.

And the question "what is a non-feminist?" will naturally arise. This will trigger the question "what is a feminist?". In other words, it will establish the necessary frame. For we know that not every self-declared non-feminist would give the same answer. No -- not every non-feminist would agree on what feminism is!

Or at any rate, not yet.

But as non-feminists, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminists. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. So we can agree that the word itself is contaminated, and that we ought to place a social stigma upon it. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution.

Under the feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will obtain. Call this situation F. Under the non-feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will likewise obtain. Call this situation N. As non-feminist partisans, we claim that situation N is preferable to situation F, because it will generate less human misery in the long term. Our view is not utopian; we aspire not to a perfect world, but to a less imperfect one.

Having concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our operations.

Target consensus, accordingly, reminds us that feminism equals female supremacism. Counter-feminist analysis concludes this, and we assert that no other analysis will generate effective political traction. You may agree, or not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. And if you are serious in opposing feminism you cannot avoid asking how feminism relates to female supremacism. How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their precise chemistry of co-existence? Are those two things at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other? Are they part- and- parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how precisely does female supremacism factor into your political calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?

I have met certain people who avow that they are not feminist, yet voice no objection to feminism as such. In fact, some of their friends are feminists -- wouldn't you know it? These gentry are practicing, as it seems to me, a misguided liberality or open-mindedness -- as if they are merely Quakers and the feminists are merely Amish, and naught of greater import hangs in the balance. I cannot, by any trial of intellectual pressure, make them agree that feminism and female supremacism are the same thing. And when I enquire to know what they think feminism is, they respond with platitudes.

Yes. There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro and anti. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés and marked by the shallowness of their political understanding, and their understanding is often saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They fail to comprehend that their middle ground is only a transitory condition, that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be forced off their fence and compelled to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.

So target consensus is the goal of shared understanding to which we, as non-feminist partisans, direct our efforts. And the process of reaching this goal is called clarificatory discourse. In practice, clarificatory discourse amounts to intellectual crystallization through broadening circles of discussion. This generates social mass, or if you will, "gravity" -- which, in the end, establishes non-feminism as a factor in the equations of power.

Target consensus makes female supremacism the point of conjunction for all non-feminist understandings of what feminism is. This permits us to differ at least somewhat, and to benefit from the creative flexibility such difference affords, while sharing a foundational understanding upon points where misunderstanding would compromise our work.

So once again, our master strategy is to isolate feminism. And in order to do that, we must clarify the basis of a distinction between feminist and non-feminist -- both in order to know what feminism is, and to know what we ourselves are by knowing what we are not. Having reached that point, we are finally in a position to go forward with any project of a political nature that might occur to us.

Feminism thrives on fuzzy categories. It is a fuzzy category itself, and embraces many fuzzy categories, and fuzzy ideas, within itself. To put that another way, feminism has fuzzy borders because it merges so gradually with the non-feminist world that it is not clear where feminism ends and non-feminism begins. This state of things has arrived by a series of steps, and shall be reversed by a series of steps. So our first order of business is to make the fuzziness into something solid, or as we say, to collapse feminism's fuzzy borders. That is what it means, in practice, to isolate feminism. By creating a clear border, you create a clear target that you can operate upon.

We have already spoken of the rough cut, which establishes feminism and non-feminism as the bedrock binary from which our subsequent understanding grows.

Next, we reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of the feminist worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminists, we understand that you cannot begin within feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to feminism as a necessary first step; you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint, and proceed from there. As the feminist Audre Lorde famously remarked, "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools." As non-feminists, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we do not reach our conclusion by any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage our issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.

You don't need to read every feminist book ever written, and refute it line by line. You have NO legal, moral or intellectual duty to do any such thing. They'll just write more books anyway, and then what will you do? The point is to stop arguing with them on their own terms. Instead, locate their intellectual weak spots and drill, drill, drill! Pick your battles wisely; many are not worth fighting. And don't fight your way out of quicksand in which you are not standing! Stand clear, and force them to come out and engage you on ground which you have chosen. We don't owe them any answers, but they owe us plenty.

We "study" feminism only as one might study a machine or a complex system, with the intention of wrecking it. The classic advice to "know your enemy" means knowing him the better to wreck him.

You might think that the best way to learn what feminism is, is to ask a feminist, right? WRONG. That is one of the worst ways imaginable, and if you follow that road you will be led hopelessly astray. In fact, feminism is a system of obfuscatory rhetoric, intended to camouflage the advancement of female supremacism. There is a perennial tension between what we are told that feminism is, and what we can SEE that it is. So we map the term "feminism" to a certain objective pattern of things that we see in the world. That is our path of knowledge. And we are aware that it overwrites much of the feminist narrative.

Clearly, feminism for them is a journey, and most of their talk is about the smaller points of scenery and navigation upon that journey. And by inviting us to partake in their talk, or expecting us to do so, they imply that we have consented to take the same journey ourselves. They have hauled us aboard their train, and permitted us to wander freely up and down the train as it hustles us along. And so, for example, if we agree to explore the merits of one brand of feminism against another, we are only exploring different locations aboard that train, possibly in search of the first-class car so we can travel more comfortably to a place we never wanted to go to. So, if we truly don't want to go where the train is taking us, we have two choices: either jump off, or seize control of the locomotive.

Yes, whenever a new philosophy or belief system gains ascendency in a society, it will fragment into a variety of sub-systems which are more-or-less at odds with each other. Accordingly, those who originally opposed the new system as a whole are obliged, willy-nilly, to "pick the lesser of two evils" by taking sides in the conversation that follows -- and this validates the conversation as a whole. So, regardless which side prevails, the broader frame of the new system cements itself. Very well: for nearly half a century, the feminist strategy has been to draw the rest of the world into a feminist conversation. We must now undertake slowly and patiently to reverse that, and undo that. We must sabotage the entire conversation, and do this radically. We must inaugurate a counter-narrative that will confront the feminist narrative along a broad front -- in its entirety! -- and systematically dissolve that narrative like an acid.

Non-feminism is not a ideology or a movement, but merely the rest of the world -- the part that wants to live unmolested by feminism. It is no duty of yours, as a non-feminist, to justify your lack of feminism. It is the duty of any feminist, however, to LEAVE YOU ALONE, and to leave the rest of the world alone. Failure by any feminist or feminist group to do so, will be considered an act of aggression -- as likewise, the entire history of feminism, especially since the 1960s, has been a cumulative and sustained war of aggression.

Non-feminism has existed for the entire history of the human race. Feminism is very, very recent -- even if the elements of it were always present in undeveloped form. Most recent of all, however, is the largely male political coterie known as the "MRAs" or Male Renaissance Agitators. They are a colorful lot, these MRA people, and they certainly harbor their share of foibles. Some of them are transcendental geniuses while others, it pains me to admit, are flat-out idiots. In fact, they represent the full gamut of humanity in all of its lights and shadows -- they are nothing if not human! In that respect, they mirror the world. But unlike the feminists, they do not pretend to "be" the world. Nor do they even pretend to "be" the non-feminist world, for indeed they are not. In fact, they are just one among a variety of working parts in a developing global organism called the non-feminist revolution. And yes, they play a pivotal, catalytic role.

But the MRA cohort of the non-feminist revolution has been hyped to a degree that is both unwarranted and politically counter-productive. The trouble with the word "MRA" is that it's ad hoc terminology; it is not based on a coherent set of ideas; it has no true epistemic pedigree, and no consistent political message built into it. And so it obscures more than it illuminates. Furthermore, the Feminist-versus-MRA script is an inefficient dichotomy or polarity which falsifies the objective state of things. Feminist-versus-non-feminist makes a far more stable platform. You can build on it.

And there is no "MRA movement". It exists only in the feminist imagination: they invented it as a trick to ghettoize anybody who speaks out loudly against feminism. For the rest of us, "MRA movement", (or even "men's movement") is merely a figure of speech, a shorthand for talking about something too large and complex for words. After all, we can hardly escape the necessity of talking. Let it be so, and let the other side chase shadows.

We understand "non-feminist" to mean "against female supremacism", and we set the burden upon any self-declared feminist to show that he or she is not a female supremacist. At the same time, we make clear to them that they can shrug off that burden by simply discarding "feminist" as a self-appellative. Yes, we make it easy for them. We do not ask them to give up their personal beliefs about anything whatever. We request only that they stop sticking the word "feminist" to themselves. And if they will not agree to this, then we mentally classify them as doubtful or suspect people -- "persons of interest", if you will.

We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of a sovereign power with respect to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a position. A number of behaviors, on the part of any feminist or feminist group, will be considered acts of discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.

Under the feminist regime, the non-feminist sector has been nothing. Henceforth, the sector must assume its rightful place in the sun and become something.

This concludes the present treatise upon the sector system.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Something to Chew Upon, Indeed!

I was having a reading session over at Angry Harry's today, and I came upon a bit that is quite to my taste, and very much reflects the nitty-gritty truth of how the world really works. We would do well to commit these thoughts to memory, and ponder them daily. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear:

"And I doubt that there is a single seasoned successful activist, politician, media person or lawyer who is not aware of the fact that the 'truth' is almost irrelevant when it comes to gaining and/or maintaining power and/or popularity.

"Whoever, or whatever group, has control over the flow of information decides what the truth will be for most of those people who are on the receiving end of it."

Does that mean you can only defeat your enemy by telling heaps of lies? Not necessarily. What it does mean, is that in addition to supplying correct information, you must understand that when you bless a villain he will curse you. So you cannot be a virtuous Simple Simon. You must know how to take the gloves off.

And. . . it seems to me that there is an ART of "taking the gloves off".

An art that should be studied as carefully as you would study any other critically important thing.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Feminist Guilt

Blogwise, I have been unproductive lately. . . haven't I been? is a useful little goody for you that I know you know how to put to a good use. It is free to a good home.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

New Video - There is More to Feminism Than Feminism

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

New Video - Gynocentrism Theory

The Counter-Feminist Channel, on YouTube, is turning into something like a bully pulpit. I see its potential for reaching progressively larger numbers. And I am finding my center of attention more and more directed toward it, rather than toward the blog. This is a turning point, maybe?

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

New Video - Counter-Feminism is Predictive

Monday, August 08, 2011

A New Blog You'll Want to Look Into

And I quote:
"...So where did that "9 million" figure come from, & why? Why is that estimate so far out? It's no coincidence that both that number & also the term "holocaust" have come to be used: when we hear that word & think of millions dead we think specifically of the Jewish holocaust of the second world war, in which somewhere in the region of 6 million died.

"What should trouble everyone," write Nathanson & Young, about the aforementioned Burning Times documentary,"is the fact that this film tries to upstage the Jewish tragedy for political purposes, to exploit the suffering of Jews in order to score political points for the suffering of women. Burning claims not merely that women have suffered just as Jews have suffered, but that women have suffered more than Jews and even that female suffering is the paradigm of all suffering."

"The very real horrors of the witch-trials have been inflated & exploited by feminism for political ends, to score higher victim points, to claim greater victim status, which in feminism thinking tends to mean you have won the argument: Who Suffers Loudest Wins."
Now, go here to read the rest:

Sunday, August 07, 2011

New Video - What Is This Thing Called 'Patriarchy'?

Saturday, August 06, 2011

New Video - The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent

I am advancing in the craft of videography. This one has a storyboard of sorts, with scenes and transitions.

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Institutional Misandry in Canada - TV Interview

Yes. A woman who gets it. A woman of conscience.

Such women do exist. And they need to be speaking up loudly, in much greater numbers. It is imperative that this happen, for the sake of all women. And for the sake of men, too.

New Video - The Colonization of Male Space

Monday, August 01, 2011

Blazing Frank and the Policy Wonks - Redux

I am re-posting a CF article from early 2010, titled A Counter-Feminist Should be a Policy Wonk.

A certain partisan of the non-feminist sector recently posted a link to this same article on Men's Rights Reddit because, in his opinion, the article was especially relevant at this time. That link fetched a lot of page views for the article. Anyhow, I was inspired to read the article again, and I find it to be topical indeed, in light of recent developments. So with no further ado, here it is, followed by some afterthoughts about Thomas Ball:

rom time to time it happens: Blazing Frank comes blazing into town!

Blazing Frank is the avatar of Spectacular Male Pathos who descends to earth in countless physical forms and generates headlines. He will make a terrible scene, often leave a corpse or three, and most times end as a corpse himself. Blazing Frank lives up to his monikker because he is frank and blazingly so, because he commits frankly blazing deeds, and because frankly, most times he goes out in a blaze!

You are doubtless familiar with some of Blazing Frank's incarnations: Marc Lepine, Darren Mack, Nicholas Bartha, Perry Manley, the Virginia Tech guy, the guy in the Amish Schoolhouse, and most recently George Sodini. That covers a few of the famous ones.

The feminists are madly in love with Blazing Frank—they can't get enough of him, they can't stop talking about him, and his periodic reincarnation infuses new vitality and purpose into their world. When Frank flares up, the feminists go into a frenzied huddle of hyperventilated jabber with the same object or range of objects invariably in view. Always, to amalgamate the personal with the political; always, to embed the episode into the body of patriarchy theory; always, to construct a morality tale about men or maleness in the abstract; always, to generate anti-male spin or shore up anti-male bias; always, to build a rationale for anti-male legislation or political initiative in some form; always, to validate the feminist worldview in one way or another.

But that is not the only thing the feminists do. They also swarm through cyberspace like bugs in great thick clouds and settle invisibly upon MRA websites, there to lurk and listen to the MRAs buzzing about Blazing Frank. Then they fly back to their own spaces and report what they have heard.

For you see, on the subject of Blazing Frank, many MRAs (or people taken for such) are pleased to speak their minds not wisely but too well—especially where the case involves women, or ugly divorce scenarios. And the feminists know this because they have seen the pattern replay itself over and over. What the feminists are looking for in their eavesdropping expeditions is "scandal" and "dirt", and far too often those men's rights loudmouths (or feminists posing as such) will indeed deliver the goods. They will say just what the feminists want them to say, just what the feminists need them to say, and this provides the feminist propaganda machine with the spin-fodder it needs for amplification and distortion operations.

But now, if you please, a few words about George Sodini, of late spectacular memory. The deceased Mr. Sodini left behind a considerable body of writing, and based on my examination of this writing, I conclude that he had a sick mind.

As a point of further interest, it appears that George Sodini was a murderer. For I am credibly informed that on 4 August, 2009, Mr. Sodini entered a physical fitness salon in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, and opened fire with a pair of semiautomatic pistols—killing 3 people and injuring 9 others. It would appear that the victims were all female. As a final act, George Sodini took his own life—with the proverbial last bullet, one is tempted to believe!

However, the exact mechanism of his psychopathology holds no overriding personal or political fascination for me. That said, I would politely decline to make this a subject of enquiry. For me, it is enough to know that George Sodini had a sick mind, and thus informed, leave Sodini himself to rot quietly in his grave. Requiescat In Pace!

Until now, I haven't weighed in on the subject of George Sodini. You might expect an opinionated blogger like myself to do that, but no, I confess the subject didn't catch my interest until rather later. I remember first hearing about Sodini and, like a true policy wonk, thinking "ahhh...there goes another one; we may anticipate these episodes from time to time; they are quite predictable!" But otherwise, I didn't give the matter much thought. That is, until more recently.

For it occurs to me that Sodini makes a good poster boy—the only question being, a poster boy for what? And for whom? But that carries me to my next point. Namely, that George Sodini, as a dramatic incarnation of Blazing Frank, set the MRAs abuzz all over cyberspace. This was very much true to form.

And again true to form, the feminists were listening. And on this occasion, they launched a purposeful and coordinated propaganda attack against the men's rights sector—one of their most purposeful to date. For the feminists are well aware of the growing societal disaffection toward feminism. It is worrisome to them, and in the simple-mindedness of their panic they believe that a fuzzy category of people, called MRAs, packs the sum and substance of all that threatens them.

But fuzzy or no, various people of the MRA sort gave the feminists just what they were looking for. Some ill-advised, indiscreet, and in a few cases downright shocking words were posted, and the feminists were there to scoop it up.

The problem is not that I necessarily disagree with everything these opinion warriors are saying—sometimes I disagree, sometimes I agree, and sometimes I agree only up to a point. No, the problem is that they are—please pardon the expression—shooting above the heads of a public which is all too likely to overhear them! And not just overhear them, but either miscomprehend or willfully misconstrue what they are actually saying.

It is not always easy for an outsider to savvy what disaffected, politically-awakened men are thundering about. The outsider's lack of cultural insight, simple want of factual knowledge, and oftentimes an indoctrinated mental preset, all generate a formidable set of filters. Far too much nuance gets lost in translation, an effect that is greatly compounded when the listener is unconsciously or half-consciously "not trying to hear" what is being said.

I am reminded of the episode where John Lennon notoriously remarked, "we're more popular than Jesus Christ." To Americans in the Bible Belt it was inflammatory language susceptible to only one interpretation. Regrettably, those Americans had a tin ear for Lennon's British humour! He was not being arrogantly sacrilegious. To those in the know, John Lennon was simply voicing his bewildered amazement through absurdist exaggeration.

I'll stop here, since I don't want to strain the comparison. But my illustration does underscore the potential for a certain kind of miscommunication whose difficulty is rendered many-fold more dicey when matters of a profound emotional charge are tossed into the mix. It can be dangerous stuff, apt to spit fire at both ends of the tube. Add to this an inherent prejudicial animus against certain people, along with an ideological lens designed to filter out certain holistic realizations, and the translation barriers become virtually insurmountable.

But none of this touches upon the chief point of interest in the present talk—it merely builds in that direction. The chief point of present interest is the question of policy within the field of rhetorical discipline, and within the subaltern field of message discipline.

All feminists are continually on the lookout for impeachable utterances by MRAs or persons alleged to be such. You might ask, "what defines impeachability?", and I would reply that the question is open to discussion. To a feminist, any time a man says something which ignores or disrespects the feminist worldview, it is at least potentially an impeachable utterance. However, most feminists understand that they must appeal to mainstream standards if they wish to gain any political traction; they are aware of an upper limit, in most cases, on how arcane they can sound without boring their broader constituency.

Therefore, the rhetorical court of appeal in most cases is the "common gaze standard", or the Court of Common Gaze if you will. Both MRAs and feminists want to expose each other's impeachable utterances to the common gaze of the average man or woman, as if to say, "look at what THEY said! Does that sound right to YOU?"

And so, when a load of anti-feminists, MRAs, PUAs, and suchlike fauna are seen to post impeachable utterances about Blazing Frank—meaning George Sodini in the present case—the feminists will rummage feverishly through their careless statements in search of anything that might violate the common gaze standard. Naturally, any suitable stuff they uncover becomes ammo in their propaganda war.

But it doesn't stop there. You see, feminists are cultic and parochial—and I guess you could even say ethnocentric. Yes, I consider feminism a quasi-ethnicity! And one of their quaint folkways—in common with the political left overall—is the practice of peer correction, as I will call it. This practice consists generally of "denouncing" or "calling out" words or behaviors deemed unacceptable. In theory this sounds laudable, although in practice it becomes petty and vindictive, even Stalinistic.

So when feminist lurkers are scanning the comment thread at, let us say, the Roissy website, and they find somebody voicing an egregious opinion about the nature of women or the heroic stature of Sodini, they are doing more than just adding that statement to their body of evidence. They are additionally holding the commenters on the thread accountable for not engaging in peer correction. They feel that those anti-feminist conversationalists have a duty to behave like good little lefties on a PC university campus, to rise up and collectively trounce the wrongful speaker the instant his words appear. Such is feminist parochialism.

And such too, briefly summarized, is the propaganda war which the feminists and their political cohorts are waging against people like MRAs. The core of their strategy is guilt by association, and they aim to gather as many of their enemies as possible under the MRA umbrella, in order to taint the entire lot with an imputation of "misogyny", or any other thought-crime which occurs to them.

The feminists are hoping to quell the non-feminist uprising by throwing lightning bolts at a quasi-mythical "MRA movement", in the mistaken belief that MRAs are the main threat—when in fact MRAs are simply one force among many.

I will now address the question of corrective remedies and future strategies.

For heaven's sake, let us not make Blazing Frank a poster boy in any way! Let us not make him politically iconic. And to make him a hero, to lionize him, is the highest pinnacle of stupidity I can imagine. It is a bad idea on its own account, but just as importantly, it is altogether unnecessary; it is psychic energy poorly budgeted. No, let the feminists make Blazing Frank a poster boy if they insist on doing so—and I will take up that theme again further along.

And not only is it a bad idea to make Blazing Frank a poster boy or a hero, it is additionally a waste of time to "analyze" Blazing Frank in hopes to make political hay out of him or his doings—for there are many ways to make political hay, and that is not one of the better ones. It is not cost-effective when you consider that nearly all such efforts will seem to smack of exoneration or be susceptible to such an imputation. Furthermore, such speculations are inherently sterile and productive of political stagnation. They are a mental backwater and, in a larger sense, they miss the point. They do not move the revolution forward either intellectually or propagandistically. Leave it to the PUAs and related specialists to converse privately in this vein—political MRAs and counter-feminists have very different fish to fry, and this does not include politicizing George Sodini's personal issues.

Very well. Bear in mind that counter-feminist theory predicts a statistical rise in dysfunctional male behavior due to feminist innovation. Dysfunctional male behavior includes a lot of things: violence is only the most spectacular, and the most likely to capture public attention, yet other forms of the malady bulk far greater in terms of actual occurrence.

Do not put Blazing Frank under a microscope. Do not try to extract a cause-and-effect analysis or a factor analysis unless you are the greatest wizard in that art who ever lived. And face it, virtually none of you are. As a counter-feminist policy wonk, your chief care is to make note of broad statistical trends. DO NOT CONFLATE THE BROAD STATISTICAL TREND WITH THE INDIVIDUAL CASE. Do not make the latter into a distillation of the former, and above all do not go public with speculations of this kind—for they illuminate very little, and they nearly always give spin-fodder to the enemy.

Remember that we are dealing with a disturbance in the social ecology, and in an ecology of any sort, causation is web-like rather than linear; things come about by an "orchestrated" multiplicity of vectors arriving from all directions. You would need the biggest supercomputer in the universe to track all of those quirky variables and outliers. You are not that computer, and you shouldn't pretend to be.

Luckily, you don't need to be. So make it easy and keep life simple. Why spin tissues of speculation which have dubious political value and possibly make you look like a moonbat, when you can limit yourself to cryptic aphorisms and oracular sayings about "chickens coming home to roost" or the like—and nothing more than that! You should know what to say and what not to say. Likewise, you should know when to speak and when to adopt a discreet and politic silence:
"A wise old owl sat on an oak;
The more he sat, the less he spoke;
The less he spoke, the more he heard;
Wasn't he a wise old bird?"
Your policy then, is to be silent or nearly so, and listen to the feminists. Gather an ear-full and then comment on what they are saying rather than letting them comment on what WE are saying! They shall be unable to do the latter because (in theory) we shall not have provided them grist enough for their mill: they'll have nothing to comment on! So, let them make Blazing Frank a poster boy for 'male violence' or 'the patriarchy' or some-such, for that is always the first half of their game. But then, deny them the second half. Do not feed the feminists! When they go surfing to MRA websites in quest of impeachable utterance, starve them!

Furthermore, many of those things that you might be burning to say are not only better left unsaid, but better left unthought or unfelt. What do I mean here? I mean that too many male MRAs wish to voice their disenchantment with women—and in their talk generally, the perennial point of return is "relationships". They are in fact mastered by this feeling; they are driven by it. And in being so mastered and so driven, they are living under the power of women because they are letting women master and drive their emotions—which is not the best idea. So it follows that misogyny—not in the politically obfuscated feminist meaning of the term, but in the honest meaning of a root animus toward women as a group—is similarly not the best idea. An actual misogynist is, after all, emotionally dominated and driven by women in a way that is nothing but ironic if he were to process the implications of it.

Now, it has long been my considered opinion that those who oppose feminism should direct a hard and narrow polemic against it. In this respect, they ought to limit themselves, for it keeps the conversation on point—indeed, forces it to remain so! Thus, a pivot of counter-feminist policy is to eschew any kind of woman-centric discourse. If you build the conversation around "broads", you cannot keep it narrow! It is feminism's task to make the world "all about women"; it is not our task. Our task is merely to inflict damage on feminism in the most efficacious way and, when the injury at last proves mortal, let the chips fall where they will.

That day, when it finally arrives, will be an interesting one. In the meantime, let us reflect further on policy. Often enough, a fellow will arrive on an MRA website to post a comment abounding in woman-centric scurrility—women are all "skanks" or "ho's" or "bitches" or the like—or to sing the praises (even briefly) of George Sodini or any Blazing Frank du jour. On such occasions, we have no objective "duty" to peer-correct this person's opinion or to speak against him in any way. Statistically considered, we know that such feeling among men is on the rise and that in large part feminism made this happen. And to permit such words to stand, counts as a form of glasnost! We render the world a benevolent service by exhibiting the ugly state of things in so uncensured and uncensored a manner; we want the world to see, for its own good, precisely what feminism has wrought! The woman-obsessed chap who either bashes females or extols Blazing Frank, is as much a sign of the times as Blazing Frank himself, and to speak of any objective duty to "discipline" this commenter is a damnable feminist evasion, for it misses the point and continually re-inscribes the feminist narrative. It obscures the truth and fails to hold feminism accountable—and we must above all things hold feminism accountable!

There is the additional possibility—in fact, a considerable one—that this individual is really a feminist in MRA drag, on a trolling mission, in quest of either impeachable utterance or impeachable silence. Certainly, there is no infallible way to spot such a critter, but a one-size-fits-all response would be to non-chalantly—even playfully—intone something like: "You wouldn't happen to be a feminist provocateur . . . would you?" Frequent iteration of such a dialogue would infuse the general mind with the fact that such things as feminist provocateurs do exist, and this realization would throw a permanent shadow across every conversation—a state of affairs that would sap the force of enemy rhetoric.

The other mode of response would be to casually inform the too-frank speaker that his speech is counter-productive, but without communicating to him any tone of personal judgment for talking in such a way. This may at times open the door to a longer conversation of the more political sort, during which you will have occasion to enlighten him on points of critical importance, while at the same time enlightening readers of all persuasions.

Prior to concluding this article, let us give final consideration to the eventual effect upon the feminists of the policy we are advocating. We must, as I have proposed, govern our tongues to the point of silence, or to the point of saying nothing much. At any rate, well short of saying anything impeachable. We are simply to hold our peace, and to listen to the enemy. Let US be the ones who reap the harvest, in noting and archiving the typically bigoted and ideologically-driven things they will be saying. They will reap little from us, but we will gather plenty from them, and by our silence we will drain them of three-quarters or four-fifths of the fuel which they had counted on obtaining, and in the past have seldom failed to obtain in quantity. In the end, it shall leave them bereft and holding an empty bag. As the pattern for a macro-strategy in all realms, this has much to recommend it.


An Afternote in Light of Recent Developments:

The literally blazing case of Thomas James Ball throws an ardent light upon the Blazing Frank phenomenon. Ball was in a class by himself; he did no harm but to himself, and he was no apolitical blob with pathetic personal issues regarding "women". No, he had a burning political focus, and a mission, and despite certain indiscreet statements in his manifesto he thought things through rationally.

No, I cannot endorse Thomas Ball's call to politically-motivated arson.
However, let me add that I completely understand, and sympathize with, the feelings that impelled him to say such things. And I am soberly aware that more such rhetoric, eventually culminating in action, is INEVITABLE in the context of current political realities. It is only a matter of time before such episodes, on such a scale, start happening in dead earnest. Certainly, I can raise my voice and urge people not to do such things, but I know that I am merely piling up sandbags against a raging flood that cannot be held back forever. And sandbags, you must understand, have their limits.

My considered opinion is, that we should neither lambaste nor lionize Thomas Ball. We should merely stand back, and permit his life and testimony to speak for themselves. This much is certain: that his case needs to become WIDELY known, and at the same time given the proper narrative framing -- yet neither of these things, to date, are happening. In time, perhaps, they will happen. Some years hence (who knows?) Thomas Ball might become the subject of books and prime-time documentaries that will make his story known to the masses. And even if it doesn't get quite the narrative framing that we'd like, publicity is good. It has only to become well-known, and then we can step in and (gradually) control the frame as we please.

And the message we should impress upon the world is, that Thomas Ball is a sympton of what is occurring in our civilization, that he happened due to an underlying malady in our civilization, and that if this malady goes uncorrected, the symptons will grow worse.

And I scarcely need to remind the onside readers of this blog that more feminism will only spread gasoline and gunpowder further and faster, and feed far worse fires in the future. Words to the wise, to be sure -- but wasted, I fear, upon our unwise enemies. No. . . I am not optimistic about the future, for by creed I am bound to be a realist.

As to the Norway killer: may he rot in peace. I won't say much about him. He was simply a violent criminal who did a monstrous, appalling thing. And whoever would make political spin-fodder by quote-mining his words for analogues to alleged MRA words, is a dirty little maggot crawling in shit.

That's right, David Futrelle. I'm looking at YOU, boy!