Monday, October 31, 2011

Radical Feminism in the 21st Century

Look'ee here, Roy-Bob, we got us a live one!

Radical feminism is going strong. You will find it in cliques, covens, coteries and university departments everywhere, always biding its time, waiting for a shift in the zeitgeist, for a moment when preparation meets opportunity. Take a whiff of the following, for example:

"As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together. . . . .

. . . . We have given up the polite, diplomatic, politic, earnest, logical, legalistic approach in favor of Realpolitik. We accept revolutionary attitudes and emotions; rage and despair, unflinchingness, uncompromisingness as motivational and curative. We see that compassion, empathy, a willingness to work with men, is seized upon and perverted by the System as it has always been, a weakness when dealing with the amoral. We don’t make the mistake of wasting our energies trying to persuade men to do anything. We are not naïve or idealistic, and we work to avoid falling into denial. There is no romanticization possible of the System. As painful as it is, we choose to act without illusions, especially the illusion that the System can be fundamentally changed from within.

. . . . .We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.

This is only a very thin slice of the wonders that await you HERE:

Well I would surely appreciate not being told to "do anything" by such people. But to belabor the obvious, this signals a shift in tactics that will feature less talking from our enemies, and more stabbing us in the back. Yes, that is what we ought to brace ourselves for as the 21st century unfolds.

Anyhow, since you are here, go watch this old favorite again and let the dots connect themselves:

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Ontologies, Old Codgers, and Feminism

I share herewith a brief sample of some recent correspondence. First, the following which I received. Yes, the person addresses me as "Mr." Fidelbogen! ;)
From: __________
Sent: 09/17/11 05:05 PM
To: Fidelbogen
Subject: Ontology

Dear Mr. Fidelbogen,

I am dumbing up as I get older, and I am now at the point of total intellectual dissipation, hinging on the question of what can I really know.

On the contrary, you present yourself as someone who knows things. My question to you is, what do you really know, and how do you know it? If that is too broad a question for someone of your acumen to find worth tackling, perhaps you could share one (1) thing you know for sure, and how you know it. Let us say that A=A style logical truths do not count.

And, if that is still too vague or open-ended a question, consider this: Does feminism exist? In what sense is feminism "real"? Aren't we just playing with words? Why shouldn't I listen to the reductionist materialists who say that all is merely a flux of elementary waves and particles?

I sent the following reply:
Subject: Re: Ontology

Interesting points you raise.

A few years ago, there was this affable old codger who lived in my building, and sometimes I would pass him in the lobby.

The old codger's standard greeting (to me and others) was a hearty, "so, what do ya know for sure?"

My reply to him (on one occasion I remember) was, "well, the only thing I know for sure is that I think, therefore I am."

That stopped the codger for a minute, and the half-sly, half-bemused grin along with the twinkle in his eye was priceless.

All right, how do "I" know that "I" am? Because, very clearly something is going on. There is no getting around the fact that "something is going on". And furthermore, something is AWARE of this. Maybe both of these 'somethings' are illusory, and maybe they are 'real', but either way something is going on, or else nothing would be sitting here, or even seeming to sit here, asking such questions, or even seeming to ask them. Seeming as surely as being must have a source, must it not? So "I" have as good a warrant to believe that "I" am thinking about the apparent "fact" that "I am", as to believe the contrary.

Therefore "I" choose to believe that "I" am. "Something" is aware that "something is going on", and aye, "I" seems as good a name for this "eye" of awareness as anything else which "I" can think of, or even think that I am thinking of. So there. QED.

Bottom line: all knowing requires both a "knower" and a "known". Or if you prefer, a subject and an object.

Now, on to the big question: does feminism exist?

I think it makes sense to say that it does -- but in a derivative way. The objective world, as a "known", is necessary for me to exist as a "knower". But feminism is only a derivative, a "coming into being" of the flux of possibility which is that objective world. It is unnecessary to my existence as a "knower", because other phenomena (such as old codgers) can just as well be "known" to me.

Therefore, feminism has a lower order of existence than the primordial objective world of which it is an offshoot.

Hope this sheds light.


Saturday, October 29, 2011

Barbarosssaaa Takes PUA Shit Apart

We must ALL begin to take PUA shit apart.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

This Is NOT Nicole Fabian-Weber

This is, currently at least, the sole video on the YouTube channel of Girlwriteswhat. If you spend much time around Men's Rights Reddit, you'll know her as one of the regulars thereabouts. She contributes material of thoughtfulness and substance, and she also has a blog:

I thought you would appreciate this, to cleanse your mind of the psychic stench of Nicole Fabian-Weber in the previous entry:

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Nicole Fabian-Weber: Anti-Male Bigot Who Endorses Anti-Male Violence

Nicole Fabian-Weber. Add that name to our growing list of women who feel that cutting off a penis is a cool thing to do.

Nicole Fabian-Weber has not personally cut off a penis, mind you, but allows how she wouldn't entirely disapprove such an action in theory. And if Nicole Fabian-Weber learns of a woman who has indeed cut off a penis, she is likely pretty sure, sight unseen, that the awful monster of a man "must have" done something to deserve this.

Nicole Fabian-Weber looks like any old gal you might see walking around the supermarket any old day of the week, doesn't she? If you chatted with her for a little bit, I'm sure she would seem pleasant and harmless enough, wouldn't she?

Go now to Nicole Fabian-Weber's blog space and listen to her gloat over a real-life story of a husband in the Far East who had his penis cut off by his wife -- who then threw the severed organ in the river where it wouldn't be recovered:

And you will also want to take a jog over to A Voice For Men, where you will learn how Nicole Fabian-Weber was placed on the Register.Com bigot list, for so openly relishing the idea of penises being cut off:

Paul Elam will assure you that the feminist criminal Nicole Fabian-Weber shall remain on this "sexual offender" registry for life.

Woman Commits Complicated Murder-Framing Hoax

This is worth reading:
"FORT DODGE, Iowa -- A woman who told police she shot her 20-year-old neighbor to death while trying to protect her family from intruders went on trial for murder Tuesday, in a case that authorities say boils down to the woman's attempt to frame her first husband for a crime.Tracey Richter fatally shot Dustin Wehde on Dec. 13, 2001, at the home where she lived with her second husband and three children in Early, a town of about 500 people 100 miles northwest of Des Moines.Prosecutors say Richter, who was initially hailed as a hero who acted in self-defense, killed Wehde and planted a notebook in his car suggesting he was a hit man hired by an ex-husband she had feuded with for years."
Read the whole story:

If women can perform such intricate shenanigans in connection with a crime like murder, just think what they might venture with a charge of "rape", "domestic violence", "sexual harassment", and so on -- all of which have the criminal justice system working in women's favor, and making it easier for them.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Another Woman of Conscience (WOC)

Friday, October 21, 2011

Rape: Physical, Political or Otherwise

The following was written by a woman who speaks from experience:
"All of this, every last self deluding bit, serves one pernicious rule in the politics of rape. Women are the victims, even when rape is imagined. And men are the perpetrators, even when they are raped for real.

No one deserves to be raped, no one, especially a child of nine years old. But women that use this term to describe something in which most of them willingly took part, drunk or otherwise, should maybe have it really happen to them. At least they would be finally telling the truth from actual experience."

Now read the rest of it, here:

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

New Video -- Women Could Not Vote and That Was Not 'Oppression'

The Chickens Coming Home to Roost

While I'm on a roll with the subject of rape, I will send you to the following which was recently posted to the False Rape Society:

'Chickens have come home to roost': Some taxi drivers think twice about picking up young women because of false sex claims.

I hope that you will comprehend the writing on the wall, in this and many other places. We live in interesting times.

The Rape Hysteria Holocaust

Here is a duo of embedded audio presentations, both on the subject of RAPE. They echo each other, they chime with each other, they reinforce each other, they talk about the same thing from different angles. First, we have the most recent episode of A Voice for Men Radio, called Rape Hysteria:

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

Next, my YouTube video about rape, posted a couple of months ago, called The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent:

I hope that you paid attention to the part in the radio show where John the Other predicts the growing rage, and eventual violence, against women in India. Everything I darkly foretold in my video is now in gradual process of becoming real -- this holocaust is no joke, and it will spread to engulf more and more of society, in India and everywhere else on earth where the cancer of feminism propagates itself.

People need to wake up to the reality of feminism, and turn the tide against it. I hope that what you hear will inspire and galvanize you. Feminism deserves no respect whatsoever, and feminists, wherever they are, should be suspiciously eyeballed and rudely questioned, and pressured to apologize. Finally, they should have the good sense to renounce feminism altogether.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Women Couldn't Vote.That Was "Oppression"?

It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were "oppressed" because they didn't have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.

I am aware that some people might think it was a bad thing that women couldn't vote. And I am aware that other people might think it was a good thing.

Well as you might expect, I am a third way thinker upon this subject. I would submit that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.

Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world -- a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?

So was it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? And WHY was it inherently horrible? Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was "all that"? Seriously. . . who are we new-fangled ones to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life, with its very different demands and pressures that we can no longer entirely fathom?

And needless to say, we all know that most men could not vote during most of those same years in which women could not vote, and that there was only a trivial time lag between full manhood suffrage and full womanhood suffrage.

Something else that nobody to my knowledge has pointed out, is that electoral politics as we nowadays know it is a VERY recent historical innovation. It virtually did not exist before the French Revolution, and came into focus gradually beginning in the early 1800s. So it is utterly vacuous to say that women were deprived of the vote for "centuries", in case anybody wanted to say such a thing. In fact, the time window in which women couldn't vote was historically very brief, and for most of that same stretch most men were similarly deprived. Yes, the more you whittle this down, the more trivial it looks.

As above, was it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn't always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?

Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn't it?

Once again, I believe that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but a morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little at the present day. And I even think I am being generous, for to be intellectually honest I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times. However, I am willing to settle for "morally indifferent", and call it quits.

Look, it's simple. Once upon a time, women didn't have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such a lack. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That's all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, "oppressed." Only within the feminist narrative were they "oppressed" -- but there are other narratives.

Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women's "right" to vote simply did not exist in the first place -- or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that "rights" are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself -- they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom within the frame of a social contract. Through the entirety of human history, people have been inventing new "rights", in train with new appetites, where none existed previously. And I expect they will continue to do so.

Of course, the idea of repealing women's voting right NOWADAYS, is silly and not to be recommended. It would be a counterproductive measure, to say the very least.

But in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory agitprop on the theme of "women couldn't vote". Women can vote now. Okay? So the feminists need to get over it, and move on, and quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.

It really is.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

New Video -- Advocacy is a One Way Street

Feminism is a political plundering force on behalf of women. Is there any reason for men to support it? I think not. Supporting feminism is like holding a bake sale to benefit the IRS. No, cookies are for your friends.


Here is somebody getting the word out, on the Vancouver Craigslist:

I thank this person~ :)

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Something Odd and Droll

I recently stumbled upon this:

"An East Bethel teenager is accused of squeezing through a neighbor's doggy door to help feed a pornography addiction.

"The neighbor allegedly caught the 18-year-old on surveillance footage . . .Darin Paul Pake, 44, told investigators the footage showed Amanda Rose Owens - his children's former baby sitter - sliding into his house through his doggy door at 7:50 a.m. Monday. . .

"When interviewed by investigators, Owens allegedly confessed to the crime . . .She said she stole things she thought she could pawn to help support her pornography addiction. . . The teenager said she recently had bought 20 to 30 pornographic DVDs and needed to pay them off, the complaint said."

You can read the entire (brief) news story here:

Thursday, October 06, 2011

New Video -- Remaining Free of Moral Dissonance

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

New Video -- Men Can Stop Rape? Whatever!

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Men Can Stop Rape? How?

Our wise and wonderful friends, the feminists, have a wise and wonderful saying that you have undoubtedly heard. Yes. In their wonderfully wise way, our feminist friends have made known to us that "men can stop rape." Now, you might wonder if that maxim contains any wisdom at all, or then again, you might wonder if I am only being a wise guy. So watch closely. I am going to insert this wondrous wisdom into the bench-vise of intellectual violence, cranking the jaws tighter and tighter until the specimen cracks open and parts fly out upon the floor. That way, we can scrutinize them! You would remark nothing phallic in the manner of force applied to the task.

Very well, keeping hardlogic on track in the spirit of rhetorical discipline, what does it mean to say that "men can stop rape"? On the face of it, very little. And yet quite a lot. But here, let me break it down by stages, sparing no pains either to myself or to my audience. Everything in this examination turns upon two major points, or rather questions: who or what is "men", and what does it mean to say that men can "stop" rape? I will address these points in order.

To address the first major point, the subject noun "men" is the plural of "man" -- meaning an adult male human. So if we say that "men can stop rape", we must understand that more than one adult male human is involved in the projected action. This plurality of male participation may be classified under a dual heading: men severally, and men jointly.

To speak of men stopping rape severally: almost any man is theoretically able to stop rape, either by personally ceasing a rape action once started, or by intervening to terminate such an action. And any number of men, at separate times and places, will have the like capacity. So even if these men act alone and unknown to each other, they are endowed with the same potential -- to either personally cease a rape action, or intervene to terminate one. Therefore it is permitted to class these men as a set or ensemble, from whence we may fairly conclude that men severally can indeed "stop rape".

And to speak of men stopping rape jointly: if two or more adult human males happen upon a rape action in progress, it is possible for them to intervene and terminate this by acting in concert. Since they are more than one in number, it is here permitted to say that "men have stopped rape" rather than "a man has stopped rape." In the unusual case of gang rape only one man at a time is raping. Hence it is theoretically possible that his gangmates will have a change of heart and intervene jointly at any given moment to stop him. So again it is permitted to say that "men have stopped rape."

To sum up, I have noted that "men" is the plural of man. I have further noted that "men" can have two distinctly different senses, so that the possibility of a solitary male stopping rape is not excluded. And I think that exhausts the possible meanings of "men" in the statement "men can stop rape".

But a final nuance bears consideration. It is possible not only for men jointly or severally to stop a rape action in progress, but for them to intervene in a scenario in order to forestall a merely contemplated rape action. That is to say, the parties would intervene in the scenario before the would-be rapist had effected penetration. In such case it would not be correct to say that they had stopped rape, but only that they had prevented it.

The matter thus far given, is laid out with monotonous clarity and thoroughness. It merely states something that most people could work out for themselves if they would so inhumanly tax their own mental endurance. All in all, it does not meaningfully advance the project of human understanding. It is trite. And it has no utility. Yet the subject of the talk is important. So I have treated it, accordingly, as a matter of import.

I will now address the second major point, referred to in the beginning. The verb "to stop" must be disambiguated even as the noun "men". I paved the way to this task, in the first part of the talk, when I sketched rape scenarios. But now I must take it a step further. The proposed or imagined project of "stopping" rape may be understood under a dual heading: concretely stopping it, and abstractly stopping it.

We have already made clear what it means to concretely stop rape. It means to either personally desist in a rape action, or to compel somebody else to so desist. We have also underscored the distinction between stopping rape and preventing rape. The talk can now move forward in the light of these understandings.

So, to abstractly stop rape does not mean to stop a precise episode of rape, but to make rape vanish as an earthly phenomenon. Thus, to declare that "men can stop rape" might also mean that men can terminate the very existence of rape. But if you think for a minute, you will see that "stopping" rape in this globally existential way can only mean to prevent rape -- any rape -- from ever getting started in the first place. That is what it would take.

So it is easy to see that if "men" are to make rape entirely stop existing on earth, they must operate preventatively. Very well, how might they go about this? Briefly, in one or both of the two ways which follow.

The first way, already touched upon, is that men would physically intervene to prevent rape from happening. Now, if this is to be effective toward ending the very existence of rape, one would need to mobilize enormous numbers of men for the task, and to organize these men for both patrolling and intelligence-gathering purposes. Effectively, one would need to create an anti-rape police state. I am sure that most feminists, male and female alike, would find nothing to not like about such a scenario. The female feminists would find ample opportunity to make life miserable for men in general, while the collaborationists (and their white knight helpers) could make life miserable for particular classes of fellow men whom they wish to bully.

The second way, would be for men to never attempt rape under any condition. This would count as prevention by self-restraint, and it would occur through moral persuasion, simple fear, or a combination of these. Either way, the operative force would be mental pressure to not rape. To make such a thing happen, one would need to launch a preventative teaching campaign, a preventative terror campaign, or both. Theoretically, if men en masse were sufficiently lectured, or terrorized, they just might never commit any rapes -- and so rape would cease to exist as a phenomenon.

And so we could say that "men" had "stopped rape" -- meaning that they had stopped rape in the abstract by preventing rape in the concrete occurrence. But please note that men could effect this only as a joint project. They could not do it severally. For although it is possible for a solitary male to intervene in a concrete rape episode, and stop it, it is not possible for a solitary male by any personal action short of magic, to abolish rape in the abstract. He, as an individual, has no such capacity. That would be a manifest absurdity. So if you confront some individual man with the imperative that "men" should stop rape in the abstract, that man would be quite within his rights to say, "don't look at me. I am not 'men'!"

Now, concerning anti-rape moral persuasion efforts: these are already underway, since anti-rape preaching and pedagogy -- targeting the young especially -- have been a great industry for many years. This can certainly be ramped up a lot more.

As for the terror campaign: that was earlier sketched, in part, when we spoke of an anti-rape police apparatus. Another way to foment terror, is to lubricate the criminal justice machinery with more innocent blood by making it easier to obtain rape convictions. Feminists similar to Catherine MacKinnon are working hard, mostly behind the scenes where they can't be seen, to make this dream come true by securing the necessary innovations in the legal system. The beauty of this strategy is, that even though it would punish a lot more actual rapists by locking up everybody who got hauled into court in the first place, it would be effective as terror EVEN if none but the innocent were destroyed. Eventually, men would shun the company of women altogether for the sake of their own survival, so that in theory no women would get raped. Of course, this does not take male-on-male prison rape into account, but since the feminists don't care about that, I'm sure they'll be happy with the solution. As for the collaborationists and white knights, they won't care because they think that false rape conviction only happens to MRAs, proletarians, losers, and assorted goofballs.

Very well. I think I have squeezed everything that you could ever hope to squeeze from the feminist wisdom that "men can stop rape" -- unless somebody can think of anything I missed. It is difficult to understand why they keep saying this, since what they are saying is either insignificant or morally grotesque. Personally, I think it is just a way to rape your mind.

New Video -- All Feminists Are Like That