Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Interesting Reading

Enough to keep you busy for quite a while. I thank the correspondent who sent me the link:

http://www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/utopia.html

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Another Great Blog that You Must Look Into

Fight For Gender Equality is the title of a blog in far-away, exotic India. It is operated by a woman named Uma Challa. I have leafed through Uma's blog (which goes clear back to 2006), and I have found nothing to not like about her politics.

Here is a sample from the blog:

"The inseparability of the male and female entities in the Universe was recognized by Indians as early as the Vedic times. This beautiful sentiment is manifested through the representation of Goddess Parvathi (Uma) and Lord Siva (Maheswara), known as “the parents of the Universe”, as UmaMaheswara or Ardhanareeswara(half-man, half-woman). This representation indicates that while both the female and male forms have their own individual identities and strengths, they are still interdependent. They complement each other and, it is only by combining their individual strengths that they are able to create and nurture life in the Universe. This divine couple is considered by Indians as an example to be emulated by all human beings.

"Import of Western thought on individualism over the last few centuries has led to the erosion of many wonderful Indian values, including the one of male-female unity. Equating individualism with independence has caused many cracks in the much-envied Indian family structure. Radical feminist ideas, which are based on anti-male, anti-family ideologies, have resulted in a gender war. Consequently, divorce rates, numbers of fatherless children, violence against men and numbers of men committing suicides are all on the rise. The time has come to remind ourselves of our pride-worthy Indian values and to restore stability in the society by promoting harmony between men and women."

Uma Challa appears to be under no illusions concerning "radical feminists", the war against men, and the current state of things between men and women in general. You will enjoy the opportunity to inform yourself about what is happening on the Indian subcontinent, which is depressingly similar to what is happening everywhere in the world. No. . we are not paranoid -- this shit is REAL! In India, as you have already heard, men are being treated like dogs. But go and check things out for yourself:

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

More SCUMbaggeries!


Here is some footage from a very cultish-appearing Swedish stage production based on the work of Valerie Solanas. This is not necessarily connected to the video production recently discussed elsewhere. The item was uploaded in September, 2008.

Some might inform you that this is all very hip, cool, trendy, edgy, artsy, avant-garde and all of that. But to me, it just seems like a loud, steaming pile of obnoxious dreck and random mind-fuckery, a jolting one-way journey into a garbage-strewn cul-de-sac. The connection to Valerie Solanas is not much apparent except toward the end, where we see the girl with the pistol. I like the heavy-handed allusion to mushroom-tripping, and I reckon if you were high on 'shrooms it might make this stuff more interesting, or at least tolerable. Well. . . actually, I would just prefer to get good old-fashioned drunk!

The video description in the YouTube lowbar is as follows:
fragments of a concert,excerpts of Valerie Solanas SCUM manifest,EMT,electronic music theater:Oliver Augst & Marcel Daemgen & guests: Camilla Milena Fehér & Sylvi Kretzschmar, 2008, Sweden; thanx to Riddarhyttan

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

'Tis More Blessed to Spittle than to Lickspittle!


Enjoy the foregoing YouTube, produced by Ben -- a student at the University of Mississippi and a commenter at AVFM. This video is also posted at AVFM, where I left the following comment in response:
Oh how I wish I could be there myself, to walk around the campus and tweak the noses (figuratively) of various people. There is an art to this, mind you.
Let’s see now. . .
If somebody handed me a white ribbon and asked me to take the pledge, I would rattle off a quick list of other things that I might pledge not to do, and would demand to know why they didn’t want me to take THOSE pledges.
E.G. I pledge not to commit arson. . . . I pledge not to drive while drunk . . I pledge not to rob convenience stores. . . I pledge not to be a pickpocket who snatches watches. . . I pledge not to be a peeping Tom who . . eh . . . watches…. um….yes…. Okay! I pledge not to be a crooked stockbroker . . . I pledge not to superglue car door locks. . . I pledge not to kick fluffy kittens . . . I pledge not to eat food at the supermarket without paying for it . . . I pledge not to shoot heroin. . . I pledge…..I pledge. . . I pledge. . .!
I would make clear how grossly offensive it would be, to ask a random stranger to take any such “pledges” as these — especially when you had no reason to assume that he would ever even commit any of the listed actions.
And then I would demand to know why in hell the pledge they were presently asking me to take should be considered in any light other than what I had just described.
Finally, I would grab that ribbon, thoroughly chew it up, and suavely offer it back to them laden with saliva -- "I don't care for the flavor; you keep it!" I would nonchalantly toss it on the ground if they didn’t take it, and then I would walk away.
The possible variations of ad lib and nuance would be nearly infinite, but the key to this scenario would be timing, delivery, and aplomb.
If you had a partner doing a video capture, that would be sheer perfection, and a gift to the movement that would keep on giving.
Hey, you could EVEN post this little essay on a blog, and circulate the URL around campus.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Just Like People We Know....

http://youtu.be/UymN5scMpZM

This will make you laugh, and think, and say "hmmm...!"

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Intermezzo



Listening to this, I find it impossible not to smile.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Tell Me Again About "Misogyny"


New Video -- A Counter-Feminist Theory of the State


A transcript of this talk can be found here:

http://www.4shared.com/document/FlctSAFM/_2__CFtheoryOfState.html?

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Great New Blog: Traitors of Men

Forweg, who has been an occasional commenter here in the past, and shows up on my YouTube channel sometimes, has started a great new blog that you need to go and discover. At present, he has two entries. The blog seems to be dedicated to reaming and barbecuing male feminist collaborationists, and Forweg has done a nifty number on a duo of notables: David Futrelle, and Hugo Schwyzer.

Here is a comment that I left on the post about Schwyzer:
I like what you are doing here. A lot. And I think you need to do lots and lots of this. Like, metric tons worth. What you are doing here could hit feminism like salt hitting a garden slug.

I'm serious. Keep up the good work! :)
After you've taken a look at this new blog, I hope you will do whatever you can to promote it, and drive all sorts of traffic to it, and make it known to one and all.

Oh, silly me, I almost forgot. Here is the link:


If She Says You Raped Her -- YOU RAPED HER!

Please read the following article at A Voice For Men:
This is simply one more reason why no social contract binding upon men exists any longer. It is a long list already, and it keeps on growing.
It is not simply the old “patriarchal” compact specifically between men and women which has gone south — although that is certainly part of it. No, I am talking about the entire social covenant which binds our civilization together at ANY level whatsoever.
The legitimacy of the state itself is forfeit, and under THAT scenario, there can be no social contract other than the ad hoc ones individuals may conclude amongst themselves privately.
The present state order has NO moral legitimacy, and the only force that can legitimately regulate my behavior is a moral law within myself. The state has only the power to coerce, through violence.
Political obligation is dead. Welcome to the Hobbesian state of nature. It’s a comin!

Claiming the Liberty of the Sector --
Fidelbogen Is Not An "MRA"

I am not an "MRA." I am active on behalf of the human rights of males, in various ways.

But I am not an "MRA".

I am an agitator against feminism, and in favor of a Male Renaissance.

But I am not an "MRA".

That is not a word which I apply to myself as a label. I formerly did, but I no longer do.

I am on good terms with many people who do apply the word MRA to themselves as a label. But I do not apply that word to myself as a label.

That word has picked up more baggage than I can honestly claim to be carrying. I mean that it has picked up other people's baggage. And it would place an unwanted burden on me personally, to carry a shitload of baggage which I do not own -- or which is worse, to have other people assume that I am carrying such baggage. So if you want to call me something, call me:

A counter-feminist....

A non-feminist. . .

An activated non-feminist. . .

A non-feminist partisan. . .

A partisan of the non-feminist sector. .

A pro-male agitator. . .

A pro-male partisan. . .

A Male Renaissance Agitator. . .

Or other names that might occur to me later.

And if certain ones insist on calling me an 'MRA', it is in contravention to my own stated wishes.

Finally, I invite others to crystallize around the suggested list of terms above, in order to create a distinct brand that will gradually come to be differentiated from the 'MRA' brand. We ought to create many, MANY such distinct brands if we wish to claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector. Or for short: the Liberty of the Sector.

That liberty will only exist for us if we proactively reach out and build it.
And if certain ones refuse to acknowledge this liberty, we shall judge them accordingly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. By the way, MRAs too are welcome to claim the Liberty of the Sector.

Some day, I hope to organize "Non-Feminist Be-ins" at such venues as college campuses. It might be nothing more than a crowd of silent people at some popular location, standing stock still like the guards at Buckingham Palace and wearing identical t-shirts that say, "I am not a feminist". And maybe holding up signs, too.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Can't Say it Enough: Rhetorical Discipline


I am re-posting this now because the message needs to be heard just as urgently as it ever did.

The text version is also recommended. You will find it here:


Try reading along while the video is playing; that embeds it in the brain more effectively.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Swedish Feminism At Work


Of course, it's only a joke. Only theatrics. Calm down. Really, I do think it's quite fabulous! Quite a fable.

Okay. Right. Now, here is the SCUM Manifesto, by Valerie Solanas:


But on a serious note, we must choose. When confronted by such upwellings of the collective psyche as I have linked in this post, we need to make a choice. A normative decision, let's call it. A very clear and stark either/or:

EITHER: 1.) Such things are inherent to "feminism". . .

OR: 2.) Such things are inherent to female nature as a whole.

Either theorization will have political consequences. I hope that we all, men and women alike, have the good sense to pick the first option and make it the consistent foundation of our rhetoric.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Your Emotions Are Not 'Special'



And neither are you.

=============================

While we're on the subject of feelings, go and learn how the SCUM Manifesto is being adapted to the stage, as teaching material in the schools:

Scum Manifesto - as a school performance

I am grateful to Ulf Andersson, of Sweden, for sending me this link.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

New Video -- A Moral Dilemma Examined



I'd like to share an e-mail that I got recently. It is from a woman who would describe herself as traditionalist conservative. Specifically, she is Catholic. In her message, my correspondent addressed certain ethical concerns that she felt in connection with counter-feminist activism. She sought my input, and I answered to the best of my ability. But here is the e-mail, edited only slightly for stylistic and discretionary reasons:
Hello Fidelbogen!

Quite some time ago I talked about handing out leaflets printed with website addresses. I finally got these printed, and meant to give some out today to the guys who do our lawn. But I couldn't because I found I had a moral dilemma, and I bring this to your attention hoping you might be able to shed some light.

Here's the problem. Ignorance is bliss for some men, especially younger men, because this culture is all they know. They function within this culture, some of them experience the shitty end of the stick down the road, others will go their whole lives with a vague sense of disgruntlement, but they will have their family. Even taking into account the high divorce rates, is it justifiable to be the means by which a family could be broken apart? Granted that whatever information I provide would only sooner draw the problems to the surface -- assuming there are any -- giving such information, rather than letting them find it on their own, I might play a part in breaking apart another family. That's my problem.

Let's suppose that a guy goes to those websites and he wants to see some changes in his life - he realizes that it's not okay to be taking crap, stuff he "blew off" before. He also knows that the divorce courts are biased towards women, that if they get a divorce there is a high chance that he will hardly ever see his children. So, yes, now he knows how wrong things are, but he is powerless to do anything about it, Essentially he would be happier not knowing, happier with the old status quo.

On the internet. I am a small-time evangelist against feminism; giving these slips of paper out would be considerably more pro-active in the sense that these men, to my knowledge, are not searching for answers, because they don't have the questions yet. If I take such an active part in raising the questions, is it possible that a family that would have made it together, at least through the youth of their children, would be broken apart? I know I wouldn't be the immediate cause of this, but I wouldn't be so remote either. And taking into account that as a patriarchalist I consider family, not the individual, to be the most important element in society, it is abhorrent to me. But is this information owed to them?

Anyway, this email is probably too long, but I hope somewhere in there you get the drift of my problem as I see it. Theorizing that you had a family, and children that you would die for in a heartbeat, given the choice of knowledge which might separate you from your children, and ignorance (and you might still eventually be separated from your children - I would think it's just a matter of immediacy), which would you choose? I tend to think that most men would prefer the ignorance, delaying what might be the inevitable.
Such was the e-mail that I recieved. I responded with the following message -- again, slightly modified from the rough original:
Hello. Here is my quick and immediate answer, from the top of the dome.

It all comes down to averages.

Either road you follow, something bad COULD happen. The question is, which choice would likely cause the least damage overall.

Let's say that you hand the leaflet to some guy, and he absorbs the information, and gets 'politically awakened', and then decides to do something adversely 'preemptive' as you have
suggested.

You COULD argue that you're a second-hand agent in making
that happen.

All right, now let's say you DON'T give the leaflet to some other guy. And so, lacking that life-saving information, his wife nine-elevens him and his life is ruined. He might even commit suicide. Who knows?

Here too, you COULD argue that you're a second-hand
agent. The question is, which option would implicate you the least?

For all it would matter, couldn't you just toss a coin?


And if you simply gave up on the whole business, wouldn't it still work the same on average as if you had done either thing exclusively, or decided by a coin toss?

So, I would say the question becomes: "Averages considered, why should i NOT hand out leaflets?"

Maybe it is all a matter of Fate, and Faith. Have faith that fate (or "providence" if you prefer) will work according to its necessary, appointed program.

If feminism, and all that belongs or pertains to it, is simply ignored and left alone, what will happen? It will keep growing; I feel mighty sure of that.

Very well, make that factor your baseline. Your "constant". Your "given". If you simply ignore feminism and all that belongs or pertains to it, it will KEEP GROWING.

So it looks like the dutiful, responsible thing is to intervene in some way -- and that forebearing do so could not improve the state of matters. For, how else to hinder or reverse the growth of feminist innovation in all of its subtle and pernicious forms, if not by intervening?

And handing out leaflets is certainly an intervention, as opposed to NOT handing them out. If anything will thwart feminist innovation, informing people of the situation (EVEN at the risk of being an 'adverse agent' occasionally) is more likely to do so.

So I would say trust ( or have faith) in your agency on behalf of providence ( or. . .fate). But not BLIND faith, mind you, because here you will be acting according to REASON (as I have outlined it in the present case).

Doing NOTHING AT ALL to blockade the growth of feminism will surely issue in all the adverse consequences, and more, that you fear might arise in the course of your leafleting.

But more significantly, these consequences will increase, and in the fullness of time bulk large and assume erratic, uncontrolled, unpredictable forms. Or if you will, formlessness. Chaos. Entropy.

And form, I would say, is better than formlessness. Better than chaos. Better than entropy.

Your proposed action is: to spread information.

And what is information, if not that which gives form and counteracts chaos or entropy???

So finally, if you want my opinion, I would say: hand out those leaflets every chance you get, for your chance of being a providential, divinely guided agent would enjoy better odds that way. . than any other way.

You see, by sharing such information, you are shining light on the objective situation. You are dispelling mental darkness.

And I think it is far better to walk in the light than to stumble in mental darkness, damaging both yourself and everything you bump into along the way. It will generate the least damage overall, if non-feminist men and women have a clear light upon the objective historical condition of the world.

Friday, November 04, 2011

New Video -- Helping Men by Hurting Feminism

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Female Criminality



The dark side of female nature is routinely swept under the carpet, or excused, or "prettied up" in a variety of ways. Such rationalizing behavior (sometimes loosely described as "chivalry") has deep roots in the culture at large, and has existed since long before the radical 1960s when the current feminist regime got started. However, feminism is as much a product of pre-existing culture as anything else is -- it did not enter the world through a side-door from nowhere. And so feminism depends on "chivalry" in order to stay in business. The feminist principle that women can do no wrong grows directly out of the chivalrous "patriarchal" order, and feminism itself continues to draw sustenance from the psychic deep structure it shares with that order. Feminism does not aim so much to "end" so-called patriarchy as to transform it into something controlled, firstly, by feminist men and women, and secondly, by second-tier lackeys drawn from the ranks of social conservatives -- the white knights as we call them. The demographic sector that will come under fire most of all will be men who, by whatever combination of methods, minimize the control that women exert over their lives.

By writing the above paragraph, I have implicated myself as a "misogynist" in the court of feminist law. Awww shucks, so be it! It is impossible to take the concept of "misogyny" seriously any more, and the people who throw that word around are a bunch of ying-yangs.

At any rate, you will find the present YouTube video from RockingMrE to be worth your while, since anything which punctures sugar-and-spice delusions about women is mighty ammunition against the feminist regime.

You should also take a voyage over to YouTube itself, where RockingMrE has kindly provided links to a number of PDF files and other material that you won't want to miss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxQo-Pu1Gw&feature=related

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Hardcore Politics



Seekers of deeper knowledge will find the present video worth repeated listening. This will instruct you not merely about the politics of left v. right during the 20th century, but about the archetypal patterns of occurrence which form the basis for all of human history.

It Is Always Good to Review Basic Things



Feminism will never yield to mere persuasion. So we need to grab the steering wheel; it is just that simple. And this begins with a personal decision, with a fundamental shift of your inner moral posture. From there, the energy spreads into the world and joins with the energy of others who have made a similar decision.