Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Holistic Bedfellows

There is a website called Global Oneness, and the following snippet will give you a notion of its . . . spiritual tenor:
"The Global Oneness Commitment is an eight-year project with the goal of uniting people around the globe to mutual actions in order to not only save what we have, but to transform the planet thru an increase in spiritual awareness - a new consciousness creating a joyful home for all its inhabitants and sincere respect for all forms of life."

You get the idea, right? This is the peace, love and holistic awareness crowd we're looking at here. It's a crowd which I myself somewhat belong to, in a back-handed, rough-hewn, country cousin sort of way.

All right, picture my surprise when I discovered the following:

Yes, you saw that right! There is nothing amiss in your eyeballs: it's a Counter-Feminist YouTube video featured on the Global Oneness website. Look in the selection bar just below it, and you will see about 5 or 6 more CF vids, plus a couple by Rocking Mr E., and some additional items which are quite unapologetically not-feminist.

What gives here, anyway? Are we cultured barbarians now given leave to stroll amidst the colonnades, the splashing fountains, the Apollonian groves. . .? Do they seek an infusion of our raw-vital barbarian energy into their harmonious but over-mellow world?

Seriously though, this supports what I have long known, that the non-feminist revolution is seeping everywhere, into more and more quarters where you'd be quite surprised to see it seeping.

We non-feminist men and women are everywhere, and we are legion.

Carry on, fellow workers in the vineyard!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

A Cogent Analysis of Feminist Politics

The author of this video messaged me on my YouTube channel, bringing it to my attention.

The main takeaway point is, as you will observe, that men and women have been duped (by feminism, of course) into becoming separate political power blocs, and that such a state of affairs will not benefit them. However, it will greatly benefit mercenary forces. The vultures, you would say, who will clean up after the carnage.

So as you can quickly figure out, the core of feminism's war against the world is divide-and-conquer.

Enjoy the video, and digest thoroughly what it talks about.

Another Way of Saying That This is a War

Straight from the department of "things which bear repeating". Yes, the basic lessons are the timeless ones, are they not? And they crop up over, and over, and over again. You can never over-learn them overmuch.

The video above is my opening statement on the doctrine of post-argumentalism. This was first published in written form in early 2007.

Feminism is your enemy, and the obligation to treat feminists as fellow human beings is officially waived. They are not fellow human beings, they are ALIENS. Well, at least until they demonstrate that they are, in fact, human. And in order to accomplish THAT to our satisfaction, they must jump through a very exacting series of hoops. The feminists themselves have constructed these "hoops", knowingly or not, during the last half-century. And the process of jumping through them shall be a way of backtracking through the history which they have made, and dismantling it step by step.

Oh yes, I know what some people are thinking at this point. So let me underscore that feminism is in no way a race or an ethnic group. And although it is certainly a culture (emphasis on the "cult" syllable!) and has many features of a religion, it cannnot rightfully portray itself as a long-established ethnic community. No more than, say, the KKK, the Nazis, the Scientologists, the Moonies, Amnesty International, the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Westboro Baptist Church could uphold such a claim.

And I forgot to mention that feminism, unlike femaleness, is not a biological category. Likewise, feminists, unlike women, are not a birth group. But as you probably know, feminists act like a kind of pseudo birth group when they encourage the general public to conflate feminist with female. This little trick, which the feminists love to practice every chance they get, is known as hiding behind women.

So let's not hear any crap about so-called "hate speech". You see, there is simply no way that you can resist evil, denounce tyranny, or call pernicious things by their right names, without crossing a fine line into "hate speech" or something very like it. Extremism against a bully is no vice, and since bullies have their own moral economy, you are entitled to pay them in their own coin.

The important thing to understand about the feminists is, that they will not change their outward behavior unless social heat and pressure are inflicted upon them. What, do you think they will stop what they are doing just because somebody intellectually convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, because they are people with an agenda who know they are "right", and they lack the gift to see themselves as the rest of the world sees them. So that is why we, the rest of the world, must work over and around them and straight through them.

We needn't ask their permission to do what we plan to do to them, any more than they originally asked our permission to do what they did to us.

Yes, this is a war. Such is the metaphor which captures the reality now confronting us, and we have not reached our conclusion lightly. Years of painstaking analysis and discussion, throughout the non-feminist sector, have gone into this.

It is not simply a "war of ideas". It is only superficially that, but the essence of it goes far deeper. In fact, it is a war of sheer will. If you are too squeamish to handle a word like "war", then call it an essential conflict. That works as euphemism. But true war is and can only be a primordial contest of opposed volitions -- sheer will, as I said just above. In the end, it is about power. Obviously. So, the phrase "war of ideas" is far too cute, for it implies that we are still having an intellectual contest of some kind. It implies debate, but that notion is contemptible when you face a crooked opponent who has stacked the deck of power in his own favor.

Finally, this is just war, straight and simple. "War of ideas" is a non-sensical notion in the way that "four-sided triangle" is a non-sensical notion. By the end of the day, "ideas" do not wage war in the real world. People and power do.

Friend, I'll stand back-to-back with you on that barren, windswept mountaintop. The air is thin up yonder, yet keen and bracing. And the view is fine.

Monday, February 27, 2012


On the post before this, TDOM left the following comment. It refers to the unflattering picture of Amanda Marcotte found there:
"Ok, enough already. Please, please, please post another article so that hideous image is not the first thing I see when I log onto your site.

Very well, TDOM, I shall remedy matters thuswise. The hideous image, along with all of the psychic toxin, all of the spiritual garbage, and everything else which that image represents in this world, is cast into the vortex and swirled down the drain as follows:

Hopefully this is helpful. Would that Amanda herself might be here so swirl'd!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Amanda Marcotte: a Feminist. Not the Radical Kind

now ye, then, this vile person?

This is Amanda Marcotte, a feminist.

Mind you, Amanda is not what most folks -- especially feminists -- would take for a radical feminist. No, you'll not likely find Amanda chewing the fat with Luckynkl and Bonobobabe down at the Radfem pub, plotting the Final Solution to the Male Question.

Because you see, Not All Feminists Are Like That! Indeed not. In point of fact, only some feminists are "like that". But the others? Well, the others are more like our good ol' Mandy here. Yup. Mandy's not such a bad lot, you know. I'm pretty near certain she'd draw the line well south of boiling male carcasses for glue, for example. No, Amanda Marcotte is a "mainstream" feminist -- whatever the hell that means.

Oh very well, I do know what mainstream means. It means more numerous. Relatively speaking.

Anyhow, I'd calculate that Amanda is only HALF as bad, for example, as those radical feminazis in the Swedish government. Which is like only drinking half a glass of poison instead of a full one, having filled the other half with orange juice so it'll it go down easier. That doesn't sound so hard to take, now, does it?

No seriously, Amanda Marcotte is not so bad. Really, she's not. Not so bad at all. Relatively speaking, I mean. Granted, she'd be just fine seeing you in prison on a false rape conviction, yet I'm sure that you'll never, ever but never hear Amanda talk about throwing little boys through windows or culling the male population down to ten-percent.

Nope, not our gal Mandy! She's a mainstream feminist, Mandy is, which means she is smack in the middle of the feminist norm. She is not some fringe extremist, okay? So when you drag a fishnet through the feminist population, she's the kind you'll pull up in numbers -- and not the radical kind who shelter under rocks and shoal in private forums at the bottom!

Oh hey. . if Amanda changed her hairstyle and got herself a five o'clock shadow, she'd make a right handsome bloke, wot?

But now, here is the bestest which I have saved for the lastest. Go now and read this abrasive blog post which sandpapers Amanda's ass good and proper. Seriously, read it. I mean it!

And here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Hang 'Em All and Goddess Will Sort 'Em Out

ut seriously, in a culture of male disposability this doesn't surprise me at all. Not one little bit.

Now, think about Sharon Osbourne, her fellow panel members, and their largely female studio audience. Somehow, I know that all of the above-named would be a mite perturbed at the behavior of Swedish feminists who openly call for the hanging of men. They'd have found such behavior . . . oh, a bit distasteful and over-the-top. Wouldn't they have?

But when a man gets a penis amputation, and gets his detached member chucked in the garbage grinder, that is only the stuff of farce, you see. Do you see?

I mean hey, it's not as if Sharon Osbourne and Co. were actually calling for such a thing to be done. Whoa no, they were just yukking about it after the fact!

And really, that makes a big old truckload of difference, right? Doesn't it?

That Notorious Swedish Documentary Again!

I blogged about this quite some time ago. This documentary was in several YouTube installments, and I posted a few of those, and posted links to the rest. Well guess what? Here is the entire program in one swoop -- about 2 hours long. So now you can sit and take it in without interruptions.

While you are watching the documentary, bear in mind that this is what happens when feminism gains the upper hand in a society. It happened in Sweden for various reasons -- partly because of a longstanding Socialist culture, but also because Sweden is a small country (about 9 million), and in such a setting it is much easier for a well-organized group of zealots to politic its way into a commanding position. That is, their long march through the institutions won't take so long because they haven't got so far to travel.

Now I am certain that somebody will look at the feminist system exposed here, and dutifully take occasion to remind me that Not All Feminists Are Like That.

Well that's baloney. They are indeed "all like that". They differ only in comparative strength of toxicity. Some are more watered-down than others. But the trend of all feminist innovation, when it takes hold in a society, is to concentrate feminism into a less and less diluted form. And so Sweden is a crystal ball which displays the future clearly for our benefit. If this is the kind of world you want to live in, then by all means do what you can to give feminist innovation a green light and a clear road.

What's that, you don't believe me? All right, so what'll it take? Eh? Think you'll believe me in three years? Five years? Ten years? Well I have a better idea: believe me now!

Once again, feminists are all like that. Some will be more like that, others less, but they are all like that. And feminism as a whole is perpetual revolution, always evolving toward a future state which is always . . . you guessed it . . . like that!

So if you personally are not like that, then you are not a feminist. And if you insist on calling yourself a feminist anyway, you will be rowing upstream against a right fierce river! Heaven help you.

Now watch the video.

After that, download the Agent Orange files:

A Two-Headed Tale

Just today, Scarecrow left an interesting comment in response to my recent post titled "How I Like to do Business". First, he quotes the words of Diana Boston, a radical feminist:
"As a radical feminist, I say: Men, would you please stop and think with the right head?"
And then Scarecrow makes his pointed, insightful response:


"Straight from both the MRM and FEMINISTS.

"What does that say?"

This set me to thinking, and I replied to Scarecrow in the following terms:

Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Yes, those are the same words on the surface. Yet how vastly different are the underlying messages which they transmit.

When the feminists say this, it is meant as a cheap Alinskyite insult. It is psychological warfare. And that's ALL it is.

But in reality, the worst thing the feminists should fear is that men in large numbers will INDEED stop thinking with their "little heads".

The feminists actually WANT men to think with their little heads. One of the main sources of feminism's power is that (too many) men think with their little heads.

And the day that men in critical numbers stop doing so will be a bad day for feminism.

When men stop viewing the world through a haze of sexual feelings, and commence to viewing it in cold, hard political terms, then feminism will be in deep shit.

And the feminists damn well know it.

By the way, that is the main reason that the feminists and the PUAs are actually on the same side -- even if both deny it!

You see, both feminists and PUAs have a vested interest in seeing men think with their little heads.

Mitra Women -- A Special Feminist Search Engine

You've come a loooong way, baby! Here is a special search engine made especially for womanstuff.

It is a valuable resource for counter-feminist researchers too. For example, I dug up this little goody when I searched on "essentialism":

Oh, and have you heard about the Ten Varieties of Feminism? Actually, there are far more than that, but here is what one feminist would have us understand about it:

Hey, who the hell says we counter-feminists only study feminism from outside the feminist narrative? By jingo, we study it every which-way! "Know thine enemy", and all that sort of thing.

So. . have at it!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Another Female Privilege Checklist -- A Good One!

A female privilege checklist in handy PDF format. This was authored by a humorously-named person, "fulukemckinney".

It contains a total of 44 items, and you can download it HERE:

These female-privilege checklists are getting quite common and popular as the counter-war against feminism ramps up -- and they are the perfect antitoxin to feminist aggression! I mean, male-privilege checklists are a huge weapon in the feminist arsenal, so if we deploy the anti-weapon aggressively enough, the feminists will lose effectively one-third of their propaganda firepower. (By my estimation.)

The list was published on AVfM, along with an article and comment thread worth reading:

On a different, but not unrelated, note, this:

Kenyan Women Unspeakably Abusive

Just to inspire you to click on the above link, I'll tell you what it's about. It's about women committing domestic violence against MEN, in plague proportions. This is happening in Kenya, of all places. And trust me, it is horrific. Check it out.

So anyhow, chalk up yet another female privilege: the privilege of enjoying a societal pity-party to which you are not entitled.


A little something to give you that "all is right with the world" feeling. Even when you know damned well that all is quite otherwise with the world.

Interesting Video About the Agent Orange Files

The following video has been posted on YouTube by a self-described former radical feminist who goes by the name Scented Nectar:

Very well. Now would be a good time to remind one and all that the material in the Agent Orange files is nothing new. Such feminism, and such feminists, have been around from the very start. And they have been wildly successful in their "march through the institutions". If you have been paying attention, you'll have known this for years.

Yes, I grant you that Not All Feminists Are Like This! Indeed, a far greater percentage are only half as bad as this. And a greater percentage still, are only a quarter as bad. So you ought to feel much better now, knowing that the feminist movement is replete with people who are only one half, one quarter or one eighth as bad as the ones revealed in the Agent Orange files. Yes?

I mean, that DOES make you feel better . . . right? It DOES make you feel like feminism is something you can live with after all . . . right?

All right, so here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

How I Like to Do Business

There is a radical feminist blog, Feminist Outlaw by name. Perhaps you have heard of it. It is kept by one Diana Boston, whom you will encounter here and there on feminist threads and forums.

I direct your attention to the following post on said blog:

The subject of that post is interesting enough, I suppose. But for present purposes our interest lies elsewhere. And so, consider the following comment which I left, and which is presently in the approval queue. Will it ever see the light of day? Likely not, but here it is for the sake of instructional value:
"I notice that in 2 or 3 places the word "men" occurs. So, it is difficult to understand who you are referring to, because there is no such person as "men". That is, unless you are referring to an abstract phantom collective, such as might be postulated by feminist "patriarchy theory".

"I thought I'd point this out, because such rhetorical slippages tend to make an unfavorable impression upon non-feminist men and women. And they are, face it, the public whom you must win over if you are to advance your brand and gain your share of the market."
I consider the rhetorical discipline in the above passage to be nearly ideal, and so I proffer it as a model. It incorporates both tactical and strategic thinking, it builds upon strong points, and it offers no grappling points. All in all, it embodies the four points of rhetorical discipline to perfection.

Admittedly, the tone is "polite", and almost vapid -- but that is its chief virtue in the present case. I point this out in response to those who think rhetorical discipline means "acting nice". Bosh! Rubbish! Rhetorical discipline means doing the right thing at the right moment in order to generate political efficiency. The ultimate aim, both tactically and strategically, is to put the enemy in a tight spot.

So, in a different situation I could have varied the tone and produced, for instance, a cold, angry, acid effect.

Rhetorical discipline is about reading the requirements of the moment in order to maximize damage to the enemy in the long run. It is about thinking globally and acting locally in the most effective way possible.

It is an art with pragmatic guidelines.

Thank you.

One More Time: Feminism is not the World

Today I will send you back to a CF blog post from summer, 2011. About eight months ago. This post covers important points. Vastly important points. Points that bear repeating. And it covers them briefly and memorably:
The root of the present struggle is, that most feminists think feminism is the world, or is entitled to become the world. Feminist thinking is triumphalist, transformationalist and totalitarian, and feminism is proposed as a social engineering project that will alter every aspect of life down to the last molecule.

And how do they muster the needful arrogance for such a project? By sheer collective narcissism. They have convinced themselves that feminism is an absolute evolutionary good in terms of what it proposes, and they have based their temerity upon a model of reality that is wildly askew from how the world actually works. They are gazing at the rest of the world as if into a mirror of their own ideas, so that everything they see reflects only what their fantasy requires them to see. Yes, they are staring at a reflection of themselves, and if that is not narcissism then I have no better idea what to call it.

All right. You will want to read the rest of this, and you will find it HERE:

Good reading!

Monday, February 20, 2012

More Loony Toonz

I know I should find more serious blogging work to do, but damn my eyes this is too precious to pass up. A personal message from the same feminist wack-a-loon who posted on my YouTube channel recently -- but this is fourteen times fruitier:

"My regard does not extend so far as contempt. I am mearly surprized that in the modern world with the ideals of racism and abuse which filter through the demonization of North American women in the internet Men's Oppositon to human rights program/. The attack on feminists does not gain support through these twisted meaderings and your definition of Feminists is cowardly. You are as aware as I am that the women involved here are mainly white middle class Lesbians or Foreign prostitutes.

"The fact is that in many cases the issues are involving degrading the world human rights to the level of 18th century drudgery. That is not acceptable tpo us in North America and it never was. You can not turn back the clock no matter if the entire GQLT community barks your name out like dogs.

"Gay rights and abortion rights or the right to prostitute in safety are not the rights that we NON_SLAVES see as reasonable.

"Your foolishness is a distraction and a support of organized crime and corrupt corporations which keep use busy protecting ourselves and our children from you while they ROBB US BLIND. I have no patience for the foolishness of your effort at attacking 50% of the population with this faked description of feminism which has nothing to do with this garbage. Women are equal but different. I will think of you as equal an not differing from a woman, the day you sprout breasts and a womb.

"Until then become a tranny don't be shy... many men are satisfied with the cheap imitation.

"This reminds me of deliverance squeal like a pig time. Have you seen it. Perfect for hillbillies with a scorched earth policy."
Honestly, I have no fucking idea what this foaming twit is dribbling about.

Oh, here is the "squeal like a pig" scene.

On a more serious note, we should be on our guard against criminal violence from various feminist groups and individuals. As the drama ramps up, and our side gains moral high ground and increasing support, we can expect the other side to grow desperate, and to act accordingly.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

If You Call Yourself a Feminist, You Will be Treated Like One

The important part of this video begins at 5:59.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Cheep Laffs at the Expense of Mentally Ill Femmeroids

On my YouTube channel, somebody recently left the following bizarre comment:
CREEPY... weird feret like creatures... A person's sexuality is their identity. You can't live with your identity then have a sex change TRANNYS are big this year... Fdelbogen! I mean it you can run but you can't hide... You can't run from yourself Fedelbogen... You'd best come out NOW! Your Mama can teach you a few manners... getting on the net to stir up trouble...Fedelbogen Aliens are not really going to take you anywhere. OLLY OLLY OXEN FREE come out come out where-ever you are...
And I responded as follows:
You are mentally ill. Your para-schizoid gibberish is starting to annoy me. Anything you would like to say before I block you from my channel?
See how desperate the feminists are getting now? We are driving them off the rails, aren't we? They can no longer engage the non-feminist world rationally, and soon they will implode.

This one, interestingly, seems to be involved with the domestic violence industry in Alberta. A gushing sewer of incoherent psychobabble and abusive femspeak. Obsessed with "abusers", too! More of this creature's wisdom (not on my channel) follows:
"There is no agreement in calling people who are abusing others a master race. What these men lack appears to be self mastery Imposing their will on others will not provide them with effective personal expression. It limits the freedom of the false information provider as he is unable to face reality. He can not accept the participation of those he fears as competition. His self-loathing causes him to prevent participation. In a democracy all must participate civilly for the best outcome. Those who attack others make sorry leaders always committing bad actions against the people for the sake of oppression and control. The ROOTS of corruption and GENOCIDE."
And also this:
"Men's Groups terrorizing children in Alberta began a new campaign using the assault on women's rights. The TERROR is carried out through Alberta Public Schools. See the ANTI-FEMINIST slurs By combined forces of GAY MALES and their WOMEN hating friends."

It all sounds like a case of projection to me.

Folks, that's feminism for you!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Painting a Bright Red Line Through the World

I have often advocated using the Redstockings Manifesto as a political litmus test -- a way to drive a wedge, and generate polarization, between feminist and not-feminist. I mean  that we need to separate the sectors. We really, really do. It's a tangled skein of work, no doubt, but it needs to start somewhere. As opposed to starting nowhere.

Truly, the Redstockings Manifesto is the best compendium of feminism's core principles you will find anywhere. If you are confused by the welter of conflicting definitions, just spend time studying Redstockings and analyzing historical developments from the last half-century, and you will become aware of the striking patterns and paralells between what is written in this document, and what the various feminisms have hoisted upon the world.

All right. Imagine my surprise and delight today, when I found somebody picking up the ball and running with it. A blogger, Gingko by name, who writes at the Genderratic blog, composed the following under the inspiration of the 2007 Counter-Feminist post where I first laid out my idea:

Yes indeed, my plan is "deliciously Maoist".

But I part company, just a mite, with Gingko. Consider the following paragraph from Gingko's post:
"Here’s a remedy for some of the generalized feminism-bashing and accusations that feminists as a hive-mind are misandrist. Feminists quite correctly insist that there are many feminisms. It’s a request for a little more attention to detail, and it’s more than reasonable. So let’s look at what is misandrist about radical feminism and see if that is foundational to any other kind of feminism, if other feminists use its terminology, formulations and theoretical assumptions."
You see, I must confess that I am not quite so "reasonable" as the feminists whom Gingko seems to have in mind. I am not, myself, so impressed by those "many feminisms" which feminists, correctly or otherwise, insist that there are. To me, these different feminisms seem little more than different hamburgers dolled up with different trimmings. Oh certainly, the possibilities are many -- sautéed mushrooms on this one, hold the onions on that one, extra tomatoes on the next one, extra mustard on the other one, and so on.

And yet they're all just ground beef on a bread roll!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the moral distillate which Ginkgo so skillfully refines from the Redstockings Manifesto is not only the heart of radical feminism. It is the heart of ALL feminism, and for the simple reason that radical feminism itself is the heart of all feminism.

Subtract radical feminism from the feminist "burger", and the question becomes "where's the beef?" Yes, radical feminists always have a beef about something. . . don't they? And they will until hell freezes over. That is what makes them radical feminists.

When you expose radical feminism to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze, then at least in theory you kill it. And you kill the rest of feminism too. For the non-radical feminisms owe their very existence to the existence of the radical kind. Radical feminism is the driving element which keeps ALL of feminism dynamic. Subtract radical feminism and the rest of feminism would grow anemic and devoid of purpose. And then it would fade away.

That throws an instructive light on NAFALT, doesn't it? You see, it is not even necessary for all feminists to be "like that", provided only that some feminists are. That is all it takes. Feminism as a whole plows its destructive furrow through the world by the combined work of all feminists -- even the moderate ones. But the radicals are the real powerhouse, willing to drive the venture toward unthinkable frontiers. The moderates, whether they admit it or not, serve mainly for camouflage, because no matter how far the radicals push the envelope, the moderates will always seem comparatively reasonable -- the "good cops" in that timeless game.

Understand, the moderate feminists are not much about pushing the envelope. That is what the radicals do. But when the envelope indeed gets pushed, the moderates can always be counted on to fill up the new space which the pushy radicals have opened up for them. The mainstream is always migrating in a more radical direction.

Feminism would not remain feminism if it did not remain in motion. It would simply vanish, as a whirlwind or other such weather would vanish if the air stopped moving. And the mainstream feminists would quickly be out of a job.

They could only go back to being liberal humanists.

So, I'm afraid that my "deliciously Maoist" mindgame could have fatal consequences to ALL of feminism -- not just the radical kind.

Here, for the full "Maoist" flavor, is my old video on the Redstockings plan. This one could use a remake for the sake of audio quality, and I'll get around to that whenever. But in the meantime, here it is:

Postscript: TDOM, my fellow blogger and partisan of the activated sector, has left a comment which I find insightful and germane -- and not just because he agrees with me, although that helps:
"I agree, the Redstocking Manifesto is quite an instructive document and a yardstick by which to measure feminism. I've published a copy on my site to use as a reference.

"I have not yet read Genko's article (I'll do that in a bit), but I will agree that there are several flavors of feminism. I do like your characterization of them as a hamburger and agree that radical feminism is the beef. Take that away and there's no meat left. But a few people will eat the veggie sandwich that remains. Those people are mostly innocuous.

"However, those vegetarian feminists benefit from the actions of the radicals and turn a blind eye to the destruction they cause. In this way they are complicit and every bit as guilty of promoting the hatred of the radicals. If there weren't any meat, the sandwich would never have been invented. Feminism thrives on the hatred of men."

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Looking in New Directions: A Quick Outline

If we are to rebuild the NFR (non-feminist revolution) from the ground up, and make it into something politically efficient, how might we go about this? A quick brainstorming session brought the following points to mind, and I share these for what they are worth.

  1. Use a "great game" strategy; take the mountain-top view.
  2. Grow a disciplined vanguard -- or cadre --that will spread through many sectors and see to a coordination of effects.
  3. Recruit members in every possible industry, profession, social stratum, culture, religion, walk of life, and so on.
  4. Have international reach.
  5. Be "everywhere yet nowhere", in order to present no clear profile. In other words, "we" must present no clear "we".
  6. Understand the proliferation of sectarian "flavors" as a strength rather than a weakness.
  7. Practice the art of rhetorical discipline, and develop it further.
  8. Eschew excess political baggage and extraneous agendas.
  9. Grow a discursive culture that is inwardly rich, outwardly subtle, and endowed with all needful discretion.
  10. Salvage the wisdom of the past, and jettison the mistakes.
  11. Use a fluid, organic, cellular style of organization. Regimentation is not good.
  12. Think globally and act locally.
  13. Be flexible and innovative; adapt to conditions "on the ground".
  14. As individuals, take an interest in our spiritual and intellectual growth.

I Blame Feminism for "Misogyny"

Feminism Creates Misogyny Like the CIA Creates Global Conflict

And we all know it. Feminism stirs up trouble and poisons the water everywhere it goes.

I mean, it stands to reason that when you create misandry, misandry's counterpart energy will spring to life reactively. It ain't quantum physics, folks! When you drive a wedge between men and women, mutual alienation must follow as the night the day. One sees that is logical.

So I'm not a bit concerned about this phony-baloney, trumped up "misogyny" jive which the feminists love to bang on and on about. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives. After all, it is they who set the stage for it, they who never shut up about it, they who pretend to see it under every rock, and they who foster the conditions which guarantee that it will grow and spread.

What I mean is, they fuck things up, they leave a catastrophic mess -- and then they blame it on other people!

Well they had best take responsibility for that, and come clean about it, and clean it up. I'll not lift a finger.

Monday, February 13, 2012


All feminists are like that, because all FEMINISM is like that. It is a lesson which bears repeating.

A Video Worth Watching

The video narrator is female, so that gives her anti-feminist words greater authority in a patriarchal world of male privilege. Boy, irony's a pretzel-shaped bitch sometimes, don't you think so?

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Feminism Invented the "MRA Movement"

There is no such thing as the so-called "men's rights movement". It is a spectre. A mirage. A figment. A mental spook. It does not exist. Full stop. The phrase or letter combination does, however, exist. And you will see it posted on a lot of web screens.

The same is true of the popular acronym "MRA", and its companion "MRM". These letter combinations are commonly seen in cyberspace, but they do not signify a tangible underlying reality. Semantics 101, folks. The word is not the thing.

Finally, we must consider the annoying letter-string "MRA movement". It is purported to signify something akin to "men's rights movement", but alas! It too is a naught. A phantom. A will o' the wisp.

Again: there is no such thing as the men's rights movement, no such thing as the MRM, no such thing as an MRA, and god help us, no such thing as an MRA movement. None of these are real. They do not exist.

Oh very well, I grant you this is a long story. Paradigm-shifts tend to be that way, at least until they settle into place.

But here is a short version to get you rolling. You see, the feminists did not invent the acronym MRA. Other people invented it. What the feminists did invent, was three-quarters of the cognitive and affective baggage which clusters around that acronym in the mind of the broader public.

Read that again. They invented it.

And they did not invent it "out of thin air". No, they invented it out of thick air. Very thick. Too thick. Open up a window, please!

The term "MRA" was never coherently defined by the people who first launched it into circulation. In fact, "MRA" was never intended as more than a catch-all for "angry men opposed to feminism." Or something like that. Those early ones weren't thinking ahead; they were struggling with startup issues and learning as they went along. And mostly, they were venting. So there was never any over-arching vision, and never any disciplined vanguard to generate structure in the realm of theory and policy.

So the result has been, that whoever considers feminism sacred can easily harvest phony "evidence" about nearly anybody who attacks feminism for any reason. The term "MRA", which was meant only for an umbrella word, has perversely been given a very narrow meaning -- and not a good one.

Let's break this down step by step. Early "MRAs" never coherently defined their so-called "movement" -- which was not, in fact, a movement at all. The result was anarchic; a smorgasbord of undisciplined rhetoric and wildly varied opinionizing. And so the feminist cult-followers piled their plates arbitrarily with the worst stuff they could find, and exhibited this as "the MRA movement". And the fact that they were intellectually dishonest made their task easier.

In their panic at the growing cultural groundswell against feminism, the feminists have been applying the "MRA" label to nearly anything which THEY think is opposed to feminism for any reason -- and the results are sometimes bizarre, bordering on comical. So, they are gradually negating the propaganda edge which they had initially acquired. You might say they are inflating their own semantic currency and rendering it worthless. (They do the same with words like "rape", "misogyny", and so on. )

But here, let me wrap this all up in a few strokes.

Firstly, the feminists ordain that feminism is a Good Thing and that, by implication, whatever attacks feminism is a Bad Thing.

Secondly, they use bias confirmation and feminist subjectivism to "prove" that the so-called "MRA movement", which attacks feminism, is a Bad Thing.

Thirdly, they bloat the appellative "MRA" to mean any person or thing which seems to threaten feminism for any reason -- even if that person or thing does not so self-label.

Fourthly, they ordain that whatever attacks feminism must be a Bad Thing because "MRA" is a Bad Thing. In other words, they arrive back at step one by a circular pathway.

Then the loop starts over.

Very well, then. The reason the "MRA movement" doesn't exist, is that there is no fixed, permanent, discoverable object corresponding to the term itself. There is only a mental hobgoblin which is largely, though not entirely, a product of the feminist imagination. And yes, I have acknowledged that the early pro-male partisans were at fault for their lack of foresight -- although in hindsight one sees that foresight was not easy under the circumstances.

The same remarks apply to a range of terminologies which have sprung to life over the years, and I have named a few of those -- MRA, MRM, men's movement, and so on.

So what do you think, is it time to "kill" the MRA, the MRM, and all the rest of that? Is it time to seek out a more efficient political worldview, and a more insidious narrative frame from which to kill feminism more insidiously? Is it time, at long last, to do what should have been done years ago?

Vast are my thoughts upon all this, too vast to share in one sitting. So I leave you with the following. The resistance to feminism is, let us say, a pool of nameless, primordial energy. And it is growing. Yet for a number of reasons this energy lacks effective organization or, you might better say, effective formatting. And a crisis of the imagination now looms, in that one is stuck on a particular system of formatting which does not serve so well. I believe one can do better, really, than to attack feminism from a format which feminism itself has invented. Don't you think so?

I will expand upon this in the future, but for now you will find the following to be generally up the same alley. In fact, call it necessary reading:

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Another Prime Example of Feminism Spreading Lies

Ancient Chinese saying: "Feminism spreads lies like a fly spreads germs."

Today, I share another example of good old-fashioned feminist germ-spreading. The adjoined graphic image is part of an ad campaign which ran some time around 2006. So it is not quite up-to-the-minute, but that's all right, since it is timeless. It will do for illustration, because feminism's modus operandi is timeless -- it has not essentially changed because it never essentially changes.

Brotherman, this visual treat has only one purpose: to bully and manipulate you. Just look at that tender, vulnerable snowflake. God damn it, look at her, you insensitive brute!

Never forget, this is the work of an advertising agency. And the ad industry has been refining its craft for years. They're the same people who exploit female bodies in order to sell you fast cars and rot-gut booze. So in the long run, they are exploiting YOU. But this time, they are doing it in a very different way. Here, they exploit a female body in order to exploit you in a compassionate, socially responsible way. And that makes all the god damn difference in the world, doesn't it?

The words to the right say: "Every fourth woman falls victim to domestic violence." And that is where the fun begins, in dead earnest.

How do the feminists get away with this? Easy. They exploit the ruling cultural morality of non-violence against woman in order to foment moral hysteria regarding violence against women.

The ruling cultural morality, you see, is already violently opposed to violence against women. Always has been. And the feminists twist this energy back onto itself, so as to instill their sociological fiction that we live in a culture of anti-female violence. Call it psychic jiu-jitsu. They have so maneuvered the ruling cultural neurosis against itself, that none dare challenge their narrative.

None but a few courageous souls, anyway. . .

And the feminists recruit every possible agent and exploit every possible channel to achieve their purpose. They daub fear and loathing everywhere like a plague bacillus, with never a speck of moral hesitation or compunction about any of their activities. Most of them, you see, are so morally obtuse they cannot possibly comprehend the destructive evil of what they are doing. And yet, not all of them are obtuse. Some of them know perfectly well what they are doing . . .

Let us now consider the case upon its demerits. You see, they slip you the mickey in a very simple way, for when they say "every fourth woman falls victim to domestic violence" they are crossing their fingers behind their backs. The statement is technically accurate, but otherwise it is grossly misleading and paints a wildly false picture of reality. But if you wish to foment moral hysteria, that is exactly what you do. You paint a wildly false picture of reality.

They get their 1-in-4 figure in by inflating the definition of domestic violence as far as they can possibly balloon it. And they achieve this inflation by conflation. That is, they do not disaggregate the various LEVELS of domestic violence, but toss all DV into one statistical kettle.

The great majority of DV is what professionals call "common couple violence", which means nothing worse than the customary spats with an occasional slap, shove, or thrown object to punctuate the yelling. Such disturbance is typically infrequent, and might happen only once in the entire marriage. But as ever, the feminists cook all DV into the same kettle. And then, as you see, they serve up Innocent Bambi in police tape as a side dish.

Serious domestic violence -- the kind leading to injury or even hospitalization -- is statistically rare. But of course, that is too much information for a sound bite, and not effective as feminist propaganda. So they don't tell you about that. Ad professionals know enough to keep it simple and shove Innocent Bambi in your face. And their feminist clients from the DV industry know this too. Can you feel the exploitation?

Finally, let's not forget that according to the best evidence we've got, men and women share the DV guilt pretty near equally. They take turns at being perpetrators, and the split is around 50/50.

Now, notice that we are not greedy. We are quite unlike the feminists, who want the world to think that men commit 95% of all DV. But we are not itching to reverse that script. We don't aim to sell the idea that women commit 95% of all DV. That would not only be be greedy, it would be "misogynistic", wouldn't it? So inasmuch as we value truth more than we value "misogyny", we settle for 50/50. Because it sounds more truthful, don't you think so? And not only truthful, but reasonable . . . yes? Or at least, according to the best evidence we've got.

All right. So when they say "every fourth woman falls victim to domestic violence, " they are telling us only half the story. The other half is, that every fourth MAN falls victim to domestic violence too! That throws a whole different light on things, doesn't it?

Fine. Let us now pull together the principle threads we have laid out in our discussion.

Firstly, that the feminist propagandists have conflated ALL so-called domestic violence, both traumatic and trivial -- and even non-physical -- in order to reach the conclusion that 25% of all women "fall victim" to it.

Secondly, that men too "fall victim" to it, in nearly the same proportions as do women. And I would add that feminists everywhere have massively denied this, and stonewalled against this, and acted violently against people who tried to make this widely known, and generally done their damnedest to prevent this becoming common knowledge.

Finally, there is the matter of Innocent Bambi. Look at her! She has no authentic bearing on what we're talking about, does she? Of course not. She is, in reality, a professional model with a bunch of yellow tape wrapped around her body -- the kind which police use to cordon off a crime scene. This same model did a very extended photo shoot, in a variety of poses. She was likely well paid, and her presence here serves one purpose only; that of an emotional trigger.

Innocent Bambi is meant to implant the thought of violent crime -- the sort of crime where blood-spatters appear on the floor, where chalk lines are drawn, where five or six squad cars pull up outside the house, where detectives mill about. Horrid stuff! Dreadful stuff!

Innocent Bambi is also meant to implant the idea that every fourth woman will end up in such a scene as I've described. Yes, that is the idea meant to be implanted, and the people responsible for this ad campaign, and all feminist propaganda of its kind, god damn well know it!

Oh, and let's not forget that every fourth man might also end up in a scene like I've described. So where is the doe-eyed youth in the yellow tape, eh? Statistically, he would enjoy quite the same odds of being there, but I don't see him. Where the hell is he?

Very well. We have been bludgeoned into absorbing a reality model wildly askew from the true state of things. Certain people, practicing a finely honed craft, have inflicted this by sheer insinuation. In the present case, I grant you that no literal misstatement was made. Yet we are either emotionally coerced into accepting this state of things, or simply duped into it by a procedure bypassing rational thought altogether.

Yes, we have been lied to. The contagion has spread, and the world has become a sicker, dirtier and more dangerous place. So now I want some feminist to get in here and explain what the hell is decent or morally forgivable about that.

Get in here! Right now! Pronto!

Front and center, sister!

Front and center!

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Feminism is a Right-Wing Movement

That title got your attention, didn't it?

Some people know exactly what I am talking about here, whilst others will splutter in befuddlement at something they consider counter-intuitive and counter-axiomatic.

I posted the following video some time around mid-2011, and it enlarges upon these matters. It is quite cerebral, and not easy to follow unless you stick with it. I make no apologies; difficult ideas are exactly that, difficult. They involve hard work on both ends, in the conception and the comprehension alike. But such things follow a trajectory of development. At first they are comprehended only by a few, then they are streamlined for consumption by progressively larger circles of hearers. But the process needs to begin somewhere, right? ;)

The written version may be found here:

I was inspired to make the present post when I discovered the following item on TDOM's blog. Somehow, I had overlooked it all this time.  It is intriguingly titled, with a title I wish I'd thought of myself:, and since it pertains to what we are now talking about, I recommend that you to read it.

The Schizo-Political Identity of Feminism

As you will observe, TDOM was writing under the inspiration of my original post upon the subject, and his concluding summary might be a tad easier to assimilate:
"Feminism transcends left and right. It is neither and it is both. It favors wealth and cultural redistribution from male to female while seeking to establish a totalitarian police state to control the “oppressor class.” To that end it has abandoned the liberal ideal of personal freedom and liberty for all, in favor of personal freedom and liberty for the new feminist oppressor class while restricting liberty and freedom for the new oppressed class (male). It seeks to replace what it calls patriarchy with matriarchy (which can now be equated with female supremacism). Thus while claiming to hold the liberal ideal of “equality” feminism has in reality adopted the conservative ideal of a ruling class superior to that of the working class and with more rights and privilege and the full force of the state to enforce that privilege."

There you have it. The feminist bird has a "left" wing, and a "right" wing, for it it had only one wing it would be fluttering on the ground in crazy loops.

Feminism appears to be chiefly a thing of the political left because that is the only way it can break surface and become publicly visible. Only on the left can feminism as such become sui generis, because only on the left can be found the audacity to attack existing institutions in a radical way. You will not find such audacity on the right. So it is only on the left that deep-structural gynocentrism can join itself to radical destructive forces, and breed a radically innovative cultural life-form. Mere gynocentrism on the right  wouldn't get far because it would be constrained to honor the integrity of existing institutions.

Finally, we may liken feminism to a plant with a widespread root system. The plant itself breaks surface in "left" territory, but the roots penetrate a far greater range of cultural soil.

The sum total of this "plant", is what we call the femplex.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

For Feminist Readers: A Fun Little Thought Experiment

So, my feminist readers, what kind of world do you really want to live in? Today, I will boil the menu down to a pair of bedrock, archetypal possibilities. I do this in quest of an outcome that might prove educative. Are you ready?

The first of these two worlds, which our thought experiment requires you to choose from, is called Plan A. In this world, the male population would be composed mainly of people like the celebrated Hugo Schwyzer. Everywhere you wandered, you would meet psychic counterparts of Hugo, and the few who were different would all be "worse" in some way. And that is the reality you would be forced to endure for the rest of your life. Got the picture?

Very well, the next of these worlds is called Plan B. In this world, the male population would consist mainly of critters very much like to my good self -- Fidelbogen! And as before, the remainder would be worse. Got that?

All right, now let's add an extra special wrinkle to the story.

If you choose Plan A, then, as I said, you will be forced to endure that reality for the rest of your life. There is no exit from Plan A.

However. . . if you choose Plan B, and it doesn't quite suit your fancy, then you will be given the option of "transferring" to Plan A.

So you will need to think very, very carefully about this, won't you? You see, although you are welcome to transfer out of Plan B and into Plan A any time you like, it is a one-way highway. For once you arrive in the Plan A world, you will be stuck there for the rest of your life. You can NOT turn around and go back to Plan B again. There is no exit from Plan A. There is never any exit; Plan A is forever!

You will want to ponder this. You will want to mind your A's and B's, won't you?

Sunday, February 05, 2012

Murray Straus at AVFM

Well, not quite. But close.

Dr. Straus gave permission for one of his academic articles to be republished as a post there.

It's his well-known 2007 paper on how feminists falsify research data on domestic violence, and package their fraud for public consumption. This, in my considered opinion, is feminism's central and most significant crime -- massive social contagion has erupted from that initial spreading of germs by the feminist fly.

To my mind, the appearance of Murray Straus's article at A Voice for Men is a landmark event, a thing of symbolic importance. And I wanted to mark the event myself, for I consider it a kind of propaganda victory.

Cue the sound of a champagne bottle popping and fizzing.

Now go and read the Straus article, especially if you've never seen it before:

Saturday, February 04, 2012

Of Mothers and Murders

Does anybody remember the case of Donna St. George? Donna was (and still is) a writer for the Washington Post newspaper. Starting on 19 December, 2004, she published a series of ghastly, penny-dreadful stories about something called "maternal homicide":

Maternal homicide, it seems, is when mothers get killed. Donna St. George leads off her compelling lead article, on that subject, as follows:"
"Their killings produced only a few headlines, but across the country in the last decade, hundreds of pregnant women and new mothers have been slain."
This alone should give you the clue. Note that hundreds of pregnant or postpartum women were killed. Hundreds! Do you understand what this means? It means that the story is insignificant. And I don't mean morally insignificant; I mean numerically trivial. I mean that if you are a pregnant or recently pregnant woman, your overall chance of getting murdered rates right alongside the probability of a lightning strike. Do you reckon you can sleep nights, knowing this?

But anything for the cause of sleazeball journalism to titillate readers and sell newspapers -- especially if there is a feminist tilt to it! Right, Donna?

Donna must have thought she could get away with this, but sadly for her, she had neglected to keep her finger on the changing pulse of the zeitgeist. You see, the age of the Big Feminist Scandal was by then drawing to a close. I mean goodies like the Anorexia Pandemic, the Shortchanged Schoolgirls, the Superbowl Knuckle Derby, and all the rest of that jive. Feminism was pulling its credibility taffy-thin with such monstrosities, and at long last Donna St. George's work strained matters a mite too far. For while it is true that a breathless surge of moral panic started up around the nation, this fell flatter than a lead soufflé in the aftermath of cold, callous debunkings. For example, the following:

So Donna St. George's little blunder crept into a corner and died quietly. It was the last gasp of the age of the Big Feminist Scandal. Since then, the feminists have modified their tactics, and nowadays stick to a discreet chunking-and-distributing technique for putting out their message.

Let us now fast-forward to a recent internet article, from 25 January, 2012. Why, that's only a week ago:

Here we learn about "maternal homicide" of a rather different sort. Earlier, the case was that of mothers who get killed. But this time, the case is that of mothers who kill.

Or more precisely, mothers who kill their children. And so this new style of murder is called, fittingly, filicide.

This affords further confirmation that mothers, all-in-all, commit more child murder than fathers do. It is, at any rate, a social tragedy not to be taken lightly -- and statistically speaking, a more serious matter than the issue raised by Donna St. George. I would add that filicide is, in a way, sui generis by comparison with that earlier-discussed crime. Indeed, the latter seems continuous with the murder spectrum at large, whereas the murder of children specifically, by their mothers specifically, has a self-disaggregating quality. It stands out with unique poignancy.

Needless to say therefore, the cited article is written compassionately and makes reference to the underlying social difficulties that might fuel the social tragedy we are considering. For the mothers in question are, when all is said and done, women. And empathy, in view of their plight, is duly shown. They are, after all, female. Granted that no comparable social tragedy among fathers (who are male) appears to be happening. But if such were the case, we could easily lock the bastards up and throw the key away. Right?

I leave you with the following news item which a correspondent in Poland has recently shared. The bearing of it will not be lost upon you:,Police-search-for-babys-body-after-mothers-confession

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Another Woman Lies About Sexual Assault. . .

. . . and Fidelbogen is a terrible, terrible creepy misogynist for bringing this to your attention!

You see, this woman didn't really lie about anything. It might appear that she did, but trust me, she didn't lie about anything at all. Not really. Or if she did, the case was "different" or "special", and so she was perfectly entitled to do what she did. After all, women are living under patriarchy and they need to level the playing the field by tilting the board in their own direction every chance they get.

Okay, here's a cluebat for the clueless. The woman in this video didn't personally get assaulted, but that doesn't matter because she was serving as a proxy for any woman anywhere who theoretically might have been assaulted in a similar situation, and might not have gotten justice for it. Do you see how that works? After all, the patriarchy has been assaulting women in many ways for many years, and there surely is plenty of payback coming down the pipeline. . . isn't there? Also, as the Redstockings Manifesto makes clear, these things need to be ironed out "politically", which means collectively. So the woman in this video was not just "a woman". No, in a large, abstract way she was women. And the cop was men. Do you follow me here? And men have been oppressing women for thousands of years, haven't they? Damn straight, and its high time women got their own back!

There, you see how easy it is to think like a feminist?

Now, if a particular man's life gets destroyed in the process, that's okay because he had too much male privilege. So it might feel, to him, like his life got destroyed -- but that is only because his male privilege got redistributed in order to create "equality". So he has nothing to whine about, does he?

All right, in the feminist universe women cannot do anything wrong because feminism does not hold women morally accountable. And why should it? You see, if feminism held women morally accountable, this would establish moral equality between the sexes. And for feminism, that is not the recipe -- no, not at all! For if moral equality were established, then a stable benchmark (or fixed landmark) for assessing every form of inequality would also be established, and it wouldn't be long before we sorted out all of those issues, would it?

And that would be the end of "inequality", and therefore the end of feminism. Wouldn't it?

But I say, that woman was a brazen little hussy, wasn't she? I especially like how she tried to pry-bar her way out of her predicament by using a hip, trendy, lefty political angle. But oh, what a worthless piece of shit she is! And what a terrible, terrible misogynist Fidelbogen is for calling this brazen little hussy a worthless piece of shit. Which is exactly what she is!


This kicks ass, all right!

(Scarecrow, I dedicate this one to you! ;)

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

New Pro-Male Website: Men's Voices

Here is an excellent "news roundup" source, published (so far) every day. The blogmaster clearly keeps up on his reading -- has he got time for anything else, one wonders? And every day, he presents you with a nest o' links to important material of pro-male, non-feminist interest. Also, he intersperses this with spicy, timely, pertinent commentary which will make you think, and go "hmmm":

This is a very important addition to non-feminist cyberspace, and I hope you will become a regular reader (as am I), and that you will spread the word and even post links to it every chance you get. Let's drive lots and lots of internet traffic that-a-ways, shall we?

I mean, the blogmaster does all the reading for YOU, and practically spoonfeeds it to you, and saves you the trouble of finding the material for yourself . . . and he does this every single day.

So let's show some support, and eventually make this new website just as big as, oh . . . the False Rape Society, for example. Yes. That big!

Here's the link one more time:


Man-Hating at the University of New Hampshire

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine, way back to the year 2005:

This ought to confirm for you once again that hatred of men and things male is a central driving force in feminism. Well, the theme certainly crops up quite regularly, don't you think so?

The trouble with all of this, as I see it, is that it makes the personal political. There are potentially many reasons why a given woman might become a man-hater, and none of these reasons are truly rational. Bitter experience with a particular man, or a series of men, could make it happen. Plain old envy could also make it happen. And no, neither of these responses are truly rational. The first at least carries an aspect of moral justification (however flawed), while the second is just plain paltry and shabby. But both of them make the personal political because they disaggregate the common lot of human misery into "male" and "female" halves, because they ignore the male half and throw a spotlight on the female half, and finally because they inflate personal female experience into a political struggle of male against female.

Which is precisely what the Redstockings Manifesto, the SCUM Manifesto, and countless other feminist statements (both large and small) have promoted over the years. As you know perfectly well.

Moving right along, the following was framed as being "wit and sarcasm":
"Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun," one participant said. "I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape."
How convenient. Say any rotten thing you like, and if you say it is only wit and sarcasm . . . then it is only wit and sarcasm. That way, you can publicly call men absurdly pathetic polluters and contaminators, and openly state that you hate them -- and it isn't really hate speech.

I thank Mary Whats-Her-Name for setting us straight on what "feminist nature" really is. I've been trying to make that clear for years. Of course, she is only being witty and sarcastic. Never forget that. So I reckon this means that I, too, am only being witty and sarcastic when I call feminists immoral parasites and narcissistic, sociopathic criminal scum who spread lies like a fly spreads germs. I am simply embracing my non-feminist nature when I say these ugly things about feminism, but that's okay, since I am only being witty and sarcastic. After all, that is what happens when I learn to embrace my non-feminist nature.

Feminism as a whole is fairly bubbling over with wit and sarcasm, like a happy barrel of sparkling champagne. Ever notice that?

"Tiny bubbles. . . in the whine. . etc".

So if you are in the mood for even more sparkling wit, scintillating sarcasm, man-hating, male genocide and so on, then download the Agent Orange files. Do it now.

New Video -- Essentialism and Constructivism