Thursday, August 23, 2012

Anti-Male Backlash in Vancouver

This story follows handily from my previous blog post. We are shown once again what the future holds, as the non-feminist revolution shifts increasingly into boots-on-the-ground mode. The feminists, struck with fear and guilt that their game is being outed, and apoplectic at the idea that men are human beings with human rights, are shifting into attack mode. Mind you, the future holds nothing we haven't already seen. Their bag of tricks is is limited, and all they can do is run it through continual rotation with added layers of complexity each time around.

Very well. We all know about the recent "poster riot" in Vancouver, BC, in which pro-male partisan Jack Day was quietly exercising his freedom of expression by gluing up posters which declared that "men's rights are human rights." Well, the riot started when some hysterical feminists began ripping down this humanitarian message in a fit of screaming rage. Yes indeed, THEY were the "riot". And this riot ramped up when a construction supervisor calmly informed these feminists that their behavior was unacceptable. For this, the man was physically assaulted by the feminists -- and yes, he "took it like a man." A crowd (sympathetic to Jack) gathered around the fracas, and police officers made their appearance. And on it went.

The poster riot was a "score one for us" episode, but I told you that the anti-male reactionaries are striking back, right? Have a look at this:

The name of the blog, as you see, is Haifischgeweint. This German word seems to be the nom-de-plume of a radfem extremist in Vancouver, and it translates as something like "crying shark". The header tagline is interesting:
"He was a shark in a past life. Now he rages, writes, laughs, and cries about this life and the human species."
You know, that's funny because I too am known to rage, write, laugh, etc., in the manner suggested here. So you'd think this person and myself would be natural allies...wouldn't you? I mean, considering that we both like to rage and write so much? And yet, somehow I doubt that we'd be friends at all. For one thing, I have a sense of humor, while this person seems to have none whatever. But I reckon if there's a lesson to be extracted here, it is that raging and writing does not, ipso facto, make you any better than what you are raging and writing about. It takes something more.

Very well. This person, whom I'll call "Sharky" for convenience, seems to be one who peers compulsively into the sewers of life and complains angrily that others, who'd as soon walk in sunny meadows, haven't got the same sense of smell. The trouble with such people is not that they are aware of the sewer, but that they are aware only of a particular sewer among countless others the world contains. And so somehow, the ecumenical corruption and absurdity of the human condition escapes them, and they are empathic only to some things, and utterly callous to others. Yes yes, Sharky,  we get that you love hiking around in your favorite sewers. And that's fine, whatever floats your boat. So would you mind backing off,  just downwind a bit?

If you have read the linked material, you will see what Sharky did there.  And that is, tell lies. After all, it's what feminists do! For example, the post starts off like this:
"A local Men’s Rights Activist group has decided to start plastering their posters all over my city. They’ve also been doing drive-bys and pedestrian stalking of the weekly pro-choice demonstrations I’ve been participating in for over three months now (and nearly pissing themselves when I make eye contact)."
Drive-bys? Pedestrian stalkings? Oh dear heavens, is this hyperbole?? But that is a favorite trick of feminists everywhere -- the accusation of violence. For the only certified truth in this statement is the part about the postering. Everything else is invented out of thin air, or so I will assume until some probative evidence proves otherwise. And I don' t predict that it ever will. 

Yesterday, I spent about two hours talking to Jack Day, the man who does most of the postering.  During our conversation, Jack released the following official statement:
"No threats were ever made. I've been to every postering campaign, and nobody has ever  threatened anybody on any level.  We are not interested in arguing with people who are closed-minded. At a minimum, they must be "on the fence".  We have never been anywhere close to any pro-choice demonstrations, let alone interacting with their participants, and so the scenario which the blog describes is a complete fabrication. It never happened.  Furthermore, the pro-male project has no consensus on the legality of abortion, either pro or anti. Our overriding concern is with male reproductive rights."
Now, we know from long experience that feminists and their cohorts will lie reflexively as a default method of operation. Yet even if that weren't true, they would still have no warrant to command our belief in the absence of compelling evidence. Purely on the face of matters, there is no compulsion to accept anything in the original quotation, and so Jack Day's testimony is equal to any on Earth. That means our little Sharky must either put up, or shut up and apologize for a pernicious libel.

I cannot stress too highly that a feminist will lie FLAGRANTLY, almost sociopathically, with no moral scruples about it. They routinely tar their critics in the most vicious ways imaginable, so much that if a claim sounds "too bad to be true", it is most likely not true. But they don't care a fig how many innocent people they hurt this way. They'll do what it takes to preserve the inviolability of their narrative.

Let me briefly remind everybody that feminists are not a race, not a nationality, not an ethnic group, not a sex, and (forgive me) not a "gender". Nor is feminism officially a religion -- although I grant you that it unofficially is. However, feminism may be usefully defined as a movement according to criteria we have suggested.

Non-feminism, by contrast, is merely a disparate conglomeration of human and non-human elements -- which includes igneous rock, as one speaker humorously pointed out.

Moving along, and scanning further down the blog page, we are treated to three graphic images which purport to be witty, or devastating, or something the sort.  The topmost of these is , oddly,  true for the most part. (Click to enlarge.)  It pretty well sums up the pro-male consensus, but it glosses over a critical nuance. The statement should read, that "all feminism wants is to make men powerless."  For we must distinguish feminism as a social organism, from persons who style themselves "feminist".

You see, the feminist meta-project, is to increase the power of women. And note well: this prime directive is unhindered by stipulations, parameters, stable goalposts, or any internal braking system. So rather than saying "feminists" (as individuals) want to make men powerless, we should rather say that feminism, by its nature, operates to take power from men with no proposed stopping point, and that every self-declared "feminist" is implicated in this operation. And yes, feminism is only ever this pathetic when pro-male philosophers are telling you about it, because feminists themselves will never tell you about it.

The second graphic image in the stack is empty wind, a random concept without any context.  It neither proves nor argues anything, but it wants you to make a huge leap over nowhere. I reckon Sharky counts on nods from an appreciative peer group, who are the target audience after all, being fed the same mantra they have chanted for years. I mean, the "la-la-la-la-la" with digital ear stoppage. And here we see them huddling for warmth against an icy gale that grows ever stronger. Didn't I say the feminist bag of tricks was limited? Mind you, Sharky does not dispute that 97% of workplace deaths are male deaths. Instead, Sharky tosses in a conjectural red herring:
" . . could that be because 97% of people employed in those setting are men?"
Okay Sharky, I'll bite. Your red herring does not alter the core datum that 97% of workplace deaths are male deaths. It only supports the equally relevant datum that men are disproportionately represented in the death occupations -- that is, jobs where they are likely to be killed or injured in the first place. are funneled toward death, and women are funneled toward safety. That is how men fare compared to women.

The third of Sharky's graphic "sight bites" is the most vicious and underhanded of the three:
"Men's rights activists want you to believe that women are always lying when they say they've been raped."
No Sharky, that is not what "men's rights activists" want you to believe. I've known scads of such people, and I can testify that nine out of ten would say women are only sometimes lying under those conditions. And other times not. Granted, their opinions will vary as to exact percentages, but they all agree it's too many. Above all, they agree that the criminal justice system is rigged against men when the crime of rape is adjudicated, and that a woman's word overall weighs more in the scale of justice than a man's. Bottom line: innocent men are getting stuffed through the meatgrinder with callous indifference, by people and forces that value male life on par with a dog's life. That about wraps it up.

So, the final three paragraphs of Sharky's blog post may be summarized briefly.  First,  Sharky is linguistically creative with the verb, "to troll", and seemingly maps it to operations unrelated to cyberspace, or unrelated to know...trolling anybody. Sharky appears to think "trolling" is a synonym for "insulting and telling lies", and in that spirit does what feminists have done for years to anybody who dares speak against them. Nothing new here. Then, for good measure, Sharky fantasizes about the social machinery of the non-feminist community -- and gets it wildly wrong. Finally, Sharky draws a paralell between the pro-male project and white supremacism, by suggesting that these groups operate in a similar way. The usual smear tactics there.

In short, it is a platter of moral comfort food for Sharky's blog readers.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that Sharky issues an actual threat of violence:
"Sure, there will be a half a dozen or maybe even a dozen actual “activists” or “advocates” who will put their faces out there and take to the streets with their message (if they think it’s safe, and if not, they’ll just cover their faces for their own protection). Maybe they’ll even pay for a banner they can carry. But at the end of the day, if and when they do appear, they’ll be chased down the street into a train station by an angry mob."
So let's be clear about what this means. It means that if you take to the streets with a message that men are human beings with human rights, a lynch mob of anti-male reactionaries will come howling for your blood. And I am trying to picture that mob. What would it look like? Would it look like the Left-fascist brigade who invaded Zurich when the IGAF came to town? Or, which seems more likely, would it look like Sharky and three or four weedy hipsters? Well either way, the fact remains that a threat has been issued. And for the record,  not by any non-feminist on Earth!

Sharky wraps up the article with an uncorroborated story about the Poster Riot. It appears that some evil non-feminist menaced a skinny girl, threatened to beat up her boyfriend, and "magically" gained the support of male onlookers. And from what I know, that evil non-feminist can only have been Jack Day or John-the-Other. But Sharky hasn't got enough "teeth" to accuse either of those gents by name, even though it would make the political personal. So I reckon Sharky wants to keep it impersonal this time around.

Just for the record, Jack Day testifies that none of the above-described action took place, and that the only bad actors on the scene were the two screaming, abusive women. Jack also wants you to know, that nobody in the Vancouver group hides their face in any way. They placard in broad daylight, they talk to people on the street, and they have their pictures posted online too! Anybody can check it out.

(Protip: If I were them, I'd be somewhat leery for my personal property -- cars for example.)

Finally, Jack wanted me to post the following statement, by him, to the reading public -- which might include Sharky or any other feminist. Especially the ones in Vancouver!
"Jack Day of officially invites you to his website. No need to troll. However, be prepared. We do not tolerate suggestions of violence such as you have given. Please look around the site, and if you have any difficulty understanding our position, please feel free to contact me directly so I can send you to posts that will address your questions or concerns."
The link to Jack's blog is here:

Before I go, I'll send you to another website where some feminists of a soberly adult character have adultly and soberly voiced their concerns about this new social movement in Vancouver which advocates the radical notion that men are human beings with human rights. Apparently that idea makes their head spin, and they are trying to gather intelligence about the "command structure" of the forces they are dealing with.


The present Counter-Feminist article is cross-posted to Masculism.Ca:


Blogger Citizenfitz said...

"Judaeo-feminism", like "judaeo-communism" clears things up better.

11:18 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Just for the record:

If anti-semitism is your drink, you're in the wrong saloon.

12:51 AM  
Anonymous people counter said...

This is such a great source you are offering. I appreciate seeing web pages that recognize the value of offering a primary source totally free. I really beloved looking at your content. Thanks!

5:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

looking at "haifisch's" elaborate profile, I can't help but think he should go on and finish that degree of his, since he's got the equivalent of one in experience! also I'm not sure, is the photo of a burlesque entertainer looking dude actually him, with the ball bat? looks to me like just another trans-whatevered attention whore, locked himself into a goldmine of staring men, not because they're intimidated or even politically interested, just the same thing makes you stare at a wreck or a circus clown. Outside of whatever his special buddies might be within his movement, I'm sure he'll be met with much greater suspect and fear from women of all sorts than any men.

9:51 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I see this as an entomological case study of an odd but characteristically instructive specimen. That is why I put the specimen under a microscope.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His choice of causes is certainly no reflection on the cause itself, none whatsoever.

5:28 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home