Saturday, March 31, 2012

An Apology With a Forked Tongue

Here is a tricky, curvaceous manifesto by a psychic vampire. Somebody remarked that it was passive-aggressive. Well, I reckon that's okay; passive-aggressive is a fair enough strategy if you can make it work for you. Anyhow, I would advise giving this a slow and thoughtfully measured read while sipping on a cold brew -- or better yet, inhaling something herbaceous. I would also recommend archiving this for future study, since it reveals so much about the mind of the enemy:

My sagacious response is, be a simple person who lives philosophically. Be as intellectually acute as ever you please, but be psychologically uncomplicated.  Follow that elementary prescription, my friend, and you shall be as a beacon on a hilltop in the deepening gloom.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Look! The True Essence of Feminism!

You know what? I'm a softie. I feel sorry for this sad, lonely, disturbed individual.

But seriously, every feminist on earth has a little bit of this woman inside of herself -- or himself. The proportion will vary. Sometimes it is full strength, as we see here. Other times it is a barely discernible tincture. But if you haven't got at least a drop of this stuff in your psychology, then I can safely pronounce you a non-feminist. And if you insist on calling yourself a feminist, then I must conclude that you do indeed have at least a drop of this stuff in your psychology. For what you see here is the binding element that links ALL feminists in a magnetic chain of karma or, if you will, a common moral destiny.

So remember, if you even so much as call yourself a feminist, then this is what you are in bed with. It's your choice, whether to call yourself a feminist or call yourself something else.

By the way, I heartily agree with the part about "our heroes are all wrong". But flush the rest of this down the toilet, please!

New Video - Feminism's Diseased Underbelly

This has taken me a long time, but here it is at last: my official vid about the Agent Orange Files, and the significance thereof. This is old news, of course. Better late than never, I reckon. But then again, 99.999% of the world still hasn't heard about this.

Oh, and I guess it wouldn't hurt to give you a link to the Agent Orange files:

And here is a Wikipedia entry about Pamela O'Shaughnessey:

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Honoring the "Lived Male Experience"

The academic discipline of Male Studies has gained a toehold, if not yet a foothold:
"The absence of male studies programs in Canada is both a result of and clear evidence that political correctness along with moral panic and gender feminism or third wave feminism have a grip on academe, creating an adversarial schism. Over the last three decades, this has marginalized a more inclusive, multi‐perspective “male studies” discipline to the periphery of academe. It has resulted in mainly feminist and pro‐feminist men’s studies programs and research that focus on men as primarily being violent victimizers, as well as secondary and disengaged parents. Male studies programs and a journal are necessary to reveal the “lived male experience.”"
The above is extracted from an academic article titled Moral Panic: Male Studies and the Spectre of Denial. If  you would like to read the article in its entirety, you will find it on the website of the Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies, as follows:

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Strategy Reversal: Feminism Trying to Outrun Its Own Shadow

Less than a week ago, Amanda Marcotte posted a verrry interesting article to Slate.Com. The following is an extract:
"It's a truism in feminist circles that no one hates men more than anti-feminists, and it's a truism two recent items from the notoriously anti-feminist conservative rag Daily Mail demonstrate neatly. The Daily Mail has a tendency to portray men as hapless dogs. . . etc."
Well Amanda, it's equally a truism in non-feminist circles that no one hates men more than feminists do. In fact, it's a truism in such circles that feminism would collapse into a heap of powder and blow away in the wind if the element of misandry (man-hating) were removed from it.

The truism that no one hates men more than feminists do, is demonstrated by Amanda Marcotte herself. Amanda has clearly opined that men who don't want innocent fellow males to be destroyed by the criminal justice system, are "rape loving scum", or even potential rapists themselves.  So it sounds like Amanda herself is motivated by something other than love for the male half of humanity, don't you think so? I mean, she clearly doesn't give a shit about the lives of innocent men. Male disposability is okay-fine with Amanda Marcotte, I would say.

 All right. So what's up with this sudden scramble to re-position feminism?

There is only one possible explanation. And that is, that a critical number of feminists have gotten the message that a critical number of normal men and women see feminism as an anti-male hate movement. And furthermore, that the non-feminist viewpoint is gaining serious political traction. The feminists know this, and it scares them.

I say a critical number of feminists, because I know damn well that Amanda Marcotte is no voice in the wilderness here. If a mainstream, flagpole person like Amanda is preaching this kind of sermon, then mark my words it is part of a trend. You'll see others preaching likewise, depend on it.

Anyhow, Amanda Marcotte reveals her actual feminist (hence man-hating) colors in the later portions of her article. Turns out, it is "all about teh womenz" after all.

I invite non-feminist men and women to have a look, and contribute to the commentariat action on the discussion thread:

 Portraying Men as Unable to Clean or Dress Themselves Forces Women to do it for Them


Certain members of the pro-male community have achieved a certain notoriety on the subject of Thomas James Ball. It is claimed that such partisans have "lionized" Mr. Ball -- in effect, made him into a hero.

I have reservations about such a policy. With due respect for Mr. Ball himself, I do not feel it is good rhetorical discipline to register such a collective point-of-view in earshot of the general public. Therefore I, as a solitary voice, wish to register something different.

You see, being a member of the SPLC 12 gives me a "bully pulpit". And that gives me a chance to lay down some nuance which is lacking in the propaganda of our enemies.

Very well. I consider Thomas James Ball to be a sign of the times, and one that we had best take seriously.  No, I will not boost Mr. Ball upon my shoulders and carry him down the street in a post-mortem torchlight parade, as some appear to be doing. However, I WILL honor his memory and I will NOT trivialize his suffering. Have I made my position clear enough?

Let me be even more clear: As an SPLC 12 member, I do not endorse Mr. Ball's call for violent revolutionary action. I believe that the revolution which Mr. Ball envisioned can be brought about by more refined methods. Yet, as a reality-based thinker, I consider it my bounden duty to warn the world that Thomas James Ball was only the beginning. Yes, we can undoubtedly look forward to creative action of the kind Mr. Ball undertook, and of the kind that he recommended. This will simply happen, like a force of nature. I merely predict this, but I prescribe nothing. The objective condition of the world cannot, realistically, give rise to anything other than violent upheaval and human dysfunction in all corners of the social fabric. There is a limit to how far you can push people before they start pushing back. And quite frankly, the SPLC 12 has no power to stop this.

So, how can we avoid the worst? How might we prevent the occurrence of  more Thomas Balls, and all manner of future untidyness?

It is very simple. We must begin to take seriously the underlying social conditions which give rise to such people and such manifestations. And then, we must work intelligently to rectify those conditions.

Pursuant to that end, new voices must be heard. And I don't mean feminist voices.

A statement of mine, from almost a year ago, will provide further clarification in the present subject area.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Masculinists TV -- Inaugural Episode

Enjoy this. It is a sign of the times, needless to say.

Incidentally, plenty of people are clamoring to get onto the SPLC hate list too! That includes a number of women. Still, I reckon that being one of the SPLC 12 is quite a distinction for me, even if I can think of some dozens of others who are more worthy. . . .

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Here is a Handy Tip for You

In case of need, here is one way that you can be a so-called "misogynist" while flying completely underneath their radar. First, compose a mental list of traits and behaviors which, to your mind, encompass what is quintessentially annoying (or a least salient) about women. Then, discuss some or all of these items elliptically, as abstract data points, without ever naming women in the same context. In this way, you can satisfy your need to vent about women without manifestly doing so at all. As a bonus, this very same method may be applied to target objects other than women.

Call this technique abstractification. Remember that you can also abstractify your abstraction points, and abstractify those abstractifications still further, until you are clear out into the Milky Way somewhere. You will be weaving your words around the target object, never naming the object itself yet leaving a vaguely felt conversational "hole" in the conceptual shape of the object.

People do such things all the time in the real world, but for the most part they are unconscious of it. Your mission is to be fully conscious of it, and hone it to an art form even while you are treating it as a intellectual sport. Experiment, practice, and have fun with this, chums! ;-)

Friday, March 23, 2012

Strategic Solidarity with the PUA Community?

This is a statement which I have postponed too long. But better late than never.

For the record, I, Fidelbogen, disavow fraternal kinship or ideological parity with the so-called PUA/Game community. I view this cohort as a kind of a stink bug which some of us unwisely picked up, only to suffer the malodorous consequence. The smell, unfortunately, lingers. It does not wash off easily, but I am confident it will wear off, in time. First, however, it is imperative that we cast the bug away.

Now, although I do not consider the PUAs to be peers in a political sense, I am willing to form strategic alliances with them, under the non-feminist umbrella, for purely defensive purposes. That is how it works in times of war. You align with people you don't necessarily like, to fend off a common enemy whom you dislike even more.

Remember that we non-feminists are a hugely varied demographic, often having only one thing in common: a burning desire to throw the feminist monkey off our back. That alone should be enough to make us lay aside our differences, and to work out a manner of co-existence among ourselves. The beauty of this system is that we are not, in any sense, embracing a common morality. We don't need to do that. Obviously, some of us are highly "moral" people, while others among us are less so. But we have no duty to police each other in that regard.

Seriously, when was "the world" ever responsible for the moral perfection of the world? In other words, when was "the world" ever a political movement or party which needed to keep its image clean?

Yes, we non-feminists are very simply that: the world. Or at any rate, we are the world beyond feminism, and we are far too big to be a moral monolith of any kind.

In conclusion, if the PUA/Game community is doing any good on behalf of men, or against feminism, I would ask them to do so at a distance. However, I will close ranks with them, for the sake of universal non-feminist solidarity, whenever the non-feminist sector falls under attack.

I trust that I have made my position clear.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Short Words that go a Long Way

Somebody just wrote the following comment on my YouTube channel. Somebody who very clearly who GETS IT! I was thrilled, and it left me beaming:
"I believe violence is coming, too. When it arrives, feminists will screech, "See! We told you!! Men are violent by nature!!!" The result will be more state control. This is one of the most insidious aspects of feminism. First, it creates discord. Then, it uses that discord to justify MORE FEMINISM. It feeds on its own lies, growing ever fatter and more grotesque with each turn

Yes! Feminism grows fat upon its own lies!

Intermezzo -- Reflections upon the Light Masculine

You may have heard about something called the Mozart Effect. This was in vogue among yuppies during the early 90s of the last century. It seems that listening to the music of Mozart makes you smarter, or more focussed, or some such -- especially if you get a good ear-full in early childhood. So, a lot of yuppies made sure to pipe Mozart into the nursery.

Well, I'm gonna call bollocks on that one. It has the smell of bunk science and urban legend about it -- although it is just the sort of thing that yuppies would lap up, don't you think so? Now, color me philistine, but Mozart's music doesn't do much for me. It doesn't grab me. At best, it is inspired 18th century ear-candy. Smooth like syrup although (to its credit) not overly sugared. Not disagreeable, mind you, but all in all just "okay". That is the best I can say for it: it's just okay.

As for Mozart, the man himself, he was by most accounts something of an asshole. Flakey, complicated, neurotic as hell, a mama's boy. You get the picture. If Mozart were alive today, I've a hunch that he'd be what some might uncharitably call a "m-ngina". Do pardon my vulgar Latin!

So much for Mozart and the Mozart effect.

Our present musical god, Georg Phillipp Telemann, was a very different sort. Yes, he was a good, solid guy. He was well nailed-together. The master craftsman from whose shop Telemann issued spared nothing in point of either material or workmanship. Nor did the craftsman neglect to add a divine spark to what he'd crafted, and what left the workshop might be described as a Stradivarius in human form.

Telemann, all in all, was a simple man. A consistent man. A man made of the same stuff right through. As a musical craftsman, Telemann could craft a disarmingly simple tune that would make you smile and forget your troubles. But then again, he could write a tone poem that sounded a hundred years ahead of its time. In all ways, he was versatile.

Telemann was also a shrewd manipulator who could make things go his way by the sheer force of energy and charisma. Naturally, nobody held it against him. He was a most worthy and excellent man, and he was universally admired during his lifetime. But after his lifetime, he and his music fell into obscurity and were all but forgotten until the middle 20th century, when the Telemann revival got underway.

I spoke earlier of the so-called Mozart effect, and doubted its veracity. Be that so, but if you wanted to sell me on a "Telemann effect", you just might have a buyer.

In Telemann, I see a disillation, in musical terms, of the Light Masculine.

In feminism, I see a distillation, in political terms, of the Dark Feminine.

And yes, I am aware that a Dark Masculine and a Light Feminine must also exist. But I don't mention them here, because that is not what the conversation is about.

Anyhow, I hope you enjoy today's musical selection.

Activism Opportunity -- Write to the Boston Globe

The following has arrived, through channels, from non-feminist partisans elsewhere. I would encourage you to weigh the matter offered for your consideration, and to take action as you deem fitting:
"In an editorial this week, The Boston Globe called on the legislature and the Governor to convene a Shared Parenting Task Force. This could prove to be a breakthrough on shared parenting in Massachusetts, and then, like marriage equality, in the rest of the country. It is the first time The Boston Globe has taken a stand on a Task Force for shared parenting. The Boston Globe said there is “a genuine need to examine the workings of family courts,” Also, “It’s time to break the contentious impasse [on this issue].”

"This editorial will increase the pressure that Fathers and Families has been bringing behind the scenes for the Legislature to act. The Globe’s editorial is a direct result of YOUR past activism and support, as well as the activism of some who are outside of Fathers and Families

"It is time to keep up the pressure! We want you to do two things:

"1. For everyone: Show the Globe that a lot of people care deeply about this issue. Write a letter to the editor of The Boston Globe agreeing with their call for a Shared Parenting Task Force. Keep your letter to 200 to 250 words. Tell The Boston Globe how important shared parenting is for children and the need for genuine reform in our family courts. Women in particular should take this action. Now is the time to push this issue to the front burner.

"Keep your comments positive. Do not criticize the Globe for not writing the perfect editorial. Write from the heart, and tell them BRIEFLY what your experience has been. . . Do not get off track with other subjects, such as child support or feminism, etc.

"For Massachusetts residents only: Here is the second thing you need to do. Contact your Representative and Senator on Beacon Hill (not Washington, DC) and tell them you agree with The Boston Globe’s call for a Shared Parenting Task Force. Ask your Senator and Representative to encourage the Judiciary Committee’s Chairs, Senator Cynthia Stone Creem and Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty, to appoint a Shared Parenting Task Force. The voters of Massachusetts are looking to them for their leadership.

"Again, keep it brief, positive, upbeat, and free of sarcasm, bitterness or anger. Speak from the heart, and tell them your experience. You will probably be connected to a Legislative Aide rather than the elected official. That is standard practice, not a brushoff, so do talk to the Aide. Email us and let us know what they said.

"Find your senator's and representative's telephone number and email address.

I have red-highlighted certain passages above, as you see. I did so because I thought those bits were excellent advice for rhetorical discipline under the circumstance. You see, it is not always good to sound bitter and angry. There is a time and place for that, needless to say, but not here. Rhetorical discipline is all about the when, the where, the why and the how of what you say. Or don't say. In the end, the test of rhetorical discipline is that it generates political efficiency.

Spiritual Foundations

This earlier CF video, about the spiritual foundation of rhetorical discipline, is in keeping with the the spirit of the previous post. It is important stuff, and very much relevant -- even if it is not directly apparent why that is so. But just remember, indirect things which build slowly and create foundations are the most powerful of all.

Furthermore, such things put the enemy to sleep and offer no grappling points.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Mending the Pace

If you ever met me in the real world, you would find that I have a "laid back" manner of speech. I tend to converse in a slow, measured, thoughtful way. Often I make long pauses. My voice is modulated, and it will not grate upon your ear. I do not chatter. I do not babble. In all of this, I am quite contrary to the spirit of the present age.

Yes, I thoroughly relish the art of conversation. I relish it as I relish few other things, for to me it is the breath of life.

Volubility and glibness are a curse. A disease. Don't you think so? People who insist on talking fast are, often as not, trying to hustle you in some way. They are trying to "put one past you" -- for which, speed is of the essence. Well I break their machine every chance I get, for I wish to keep them honest. Both morally and intellectually.

Friends, let us augment this quiet philosophical space, this oasis, this eye of the hurricane. Let us do so both individually and in the metabolic core of our collective endeavor. If we shall grow this force, it shall make us strong and make our enemy weak.

He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

GirlPaintsWhat -- With a Broad Brush!

GWW, wielding a broad brush like a deadly weapon, paints it like it is beginning at 23:05:
"Patriarchal terrorism is the blanket theory of domestic violence that simply will not die, despite it being the most rare form of domestic violence out there. And feminist academics, research and advocates continue, even now, to deny and suppress the truth about both intimate partner abuse and sexual aggression despite a mountain of empirically sound research that proves them wrong. And why? Because feminists broke Sherlock Holmes's first rule. They started with the theory, big P patriarchy, and then set out to find the evidence. They cherry-picked enough facts to "prove" that both rape and domestic violence fit the model of Patriarchy, and were reflections of the grand, unifying theory that informs their entire worldview.

"Now, as far as I'm concerned, women's rights is women's rights, and a woman's advocate is a woman's advocate. To be a feminist, you have to believe in patriarchy theory and all its ugly, ugly bastard children: patriarchal terrorism, rape as solely male perpetrated, rape culture, systemic gendered violence against women, male privilege, and female oppression.If you believe in all of that, then you're a feminist. And I'm gonna paint you with that broad brush. Thank you very much."
And if that description does not apply to you, then please have the common courtesy and good sense to not call yourself a feminist. Call yourself something else, but "feminist" is out. You see, we want to flush feminism into the open, so it has nowhere to hide. And if you're not really a feminist, but insist on confusing the issue by calling yourself one anyway, that makes you a "feminism enabler". And so, by our definition, that makes you a feminist full stop.

So if you don't want to get caught on the wrong side of the non-feminist revolution, then do not, do not, do NOT call yourself a feminist. Or else non-feminist men and women everywhere on earth will paint you with that broad brush. That was your warning. Thank you very much.

Monday, March 19, 2012

It's Happening All Around the World

What, you don't believe me?

Rotten things are being done to men all around the world, and all around the world men are pushing back. It's growing. So what is YOUR excuse for supporting feminism?

Oh wait a minute, never mind, I'm just paranoid.

The screencap above is taken from the The Times of India -- Mumbai edition. It is far easier to read if you click on it. For the original article, see below:

Sunday, March 18, 2012

A Global View of the Great Game

Yes, here is another iteration of basic lessons, for those who haven't heard it yet.

Very well. There is, nowadays, a recognizable sect crystallizing under the appellative of masculinist -- not to be confused with "masculist", which seems to carry a different nuance. The terms masculinist and masculist have been circulating in the vocabulary soup for many years and oftentimes, to my annoyance, used interchangeably with MRA, MRM, MGTOW, PUA, "anti-feminist", and so on. But with the mushrooming of activated non-feminist numbers, it is imperative to establish distinct identities by a distillation of nomenclature.

So, to make this simple, I would say that a masculinist is one who places men's issues, and the existentiality of maleness, in the foreground of his or her rhetoric.

Whereas a counter-feminist is one who places opposition to feminism, together with a strategic overview of all operations, in the foreground of his or her rhetoric.

The difference, as you may conclude, is one of emphasis.

And the present video is, in effect, a counter-feminist battle map spread out upon the table.

Finally, I would note that a PUA is one who is welcome to his lounge-lizard lifestyle -- but elsewhere, please!

Now THIS is Music to My Ears

The following arrived through the wire at a certain point, from a certain source. But I shall be mysterious as to particulars. However, I think it will make you smile. I know it made me smile, since it arrives as if God himself had arranged the world according to my own vision:
"We are joining all men's rights groups, fathers rights groups, parents groups, grandparent's rights, internationally. The heads of the Indian MRM that grew the numbers from 60 to 30,000 in two years, are coming to meet with us in a few months. If we unite all groups while maintaining individual groups autonomy, we can change the world. However, I must warn you that many of the groups that are aiding this endeavor have been labeled "hate groups" by the S.P.L.C. We are peacefully changing the paradigm, which scares the hell out of them, as dismantlement of a petty tyrant's power structure often does. We have identified the problems long enough, NOW is the time for solution."

Translation: The non-feminist revolution has been growing as a variety of separate organisms around the planet. A merger is now taking place, that will unite these varied organisms into a global meta-system. And you may be certain that non-feminist men and women everywhere on earth know what's up.

The world is a mighty big echo chamber, is it not?

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Speaking of Hate Speech. . .

I just happened upon this over at YouTube.

I am not quite sure what to make of it. It seems. . . well, eh . . . terribly sophisticated. Wouldn't you say?

And to be quite honest, I am not terribly sophisticated. Heavens no. So maybe I am missing something.

But anyways. . . feminism says that we should listen to women's voices, so I guess we ought to listen to this young woman here, eh? Right?

The Voice of the Two-Percent

Girlwriteswhat is a two-percenter -- meaning that she belongs to the vanguard portion of the female population, the ones who not only "get it", but do so sooner than almost everybody else. You would say that the two-percenters are quick on the uptake; they see the obvious before it becomes too obvious. For there is no credit in calling attention to the forest fire when it finally engulfs your village. You must spot it long before it gets to that stage. You must discern those billowing smoke clouds on the horizon, and you must entertain a rational suspicion about what they portend. Mustn't you?

When feminism finally falls, the crash will be spectacular and the annihilation will be thorough. The shockwaves from the non-feminist revolution will be high on the cultural richter scale indeed, and feminism will crawl away whimpering to the accompaniment of a general mockery.

And the funny thing is, that people as individuals will not undergo any essential character change. Assholes will still be assholes, but they will seek a different rationale for this. A different subtext. Feminism, as a rationale or subtext, will no longer be available to them. For the crowning accomplishment of the non-feminist revolution will be, that feminism will no longer empower people to be assholes. And if feminism can no longer do THAT, then it will simply fold up shop.

GWW reads off a juicy string of hate material from the Radfem Hub website, and also from the Agent Orange files. The Radfem Hub people, in case you hadn't heard, are now fundraising for the Southern Poverty Law Center because they are so grateful to the SPLC for creating an anti-male hatelist. So as I stated recently, the SPLC and the Radfem Hub are in bed with each other. Do you reckon that the SPLC will pillory the Radfem Hub for their radical anti-male hate propaganda any time soon? No, I'm sure they'll never bite the hand which is now feeding them, will they? Nor will the Radfem Hub -- or any other feminist group -- rise to the defense of the SPLC 12 any time soon, will they? No, of course they won't. And yes, that last statement was pure sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.

The SPLC 12 includes me, of course. Yes, I am on that list in case you didn't notice. And yet, I have never made a woman-hating statement -- go ahead, prove that I have done so! Nor have I ever advocated female genocide. But I guess that doesn't make one speck of difference. I'm in the same club with Marc Lepine now, and the Southern Poverty Law Center thinks that is just hunky-dory. Oh, and they've got S.A.V.E. and the False Rape Society in the same club with Lepine as well. Does that sound right to you?

Why, even Roosh the PUA dude is on the SPLC list. And whatever your opinion of Roosh the PUA dude might be, there is no way in fucking hell he belongs in the same club with Marc Lepine!!

But then, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a radical left-wing organization which belongs in the same club with the Weather Underground. Doesn't it? That certainly makes sense, seeing how they are clearly in cahoots with the male-genocidalist Radfem Hub.

I have spoken harshly against feminism as an ideology and as a movement. That is all I have ever done. But some people have a mental tic which incapacitates them to tell "feminist" from "female". It must be something in that little "fem" syllable which throws them off the track, eh? Sure, those words look a bit similar, but they mean hugely different things. And if you appear not to know the difference, then only two explanations are possible. You are either intellectually dishonest, or stupid. That is to say, you are either a crook or a schnook.

One way or another, every feminist on earth, of any kind at all, is either a crook or a schnook. And ALL feminism, of any kind at all, sits upon a moral-and-intellectual slippery slope pointing directly toward the Radfem Hub and everything it represents.

Such is my considered opinion, based upon years of study and reflection. So what do you think, am I guilty of "hate speech"? ;-)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

When Evil Masquerades as Good

Here is Morris Dees, one of the founding fathers of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Interesting face, is it not? Study it closely. Very closely. Note the squint of the eye and the twist of the mouth. Note also the folded-arms body language.

Is it only my imagination, or does Morris Dees appear to be gazing off into the distance in search of something to hate?

Or then again, perhaps he has just spotted somebody whom he would like to see arrested?

Oh very well. He looks like a guard at Dachau who has just noticed a Jew who isn't working hard enough.

It is not a pleasant face. Not pleasant at all. Mr. Dees looks like a self-righteous pit-viper, doesn't he? A venomous Tartuffe, wouldn't you say?

Just the sort of chap who would lasso the S.A.V.E. organization and the False Rape Society, and brand them as hate groups, and herd them into the same corral with Mark Lepine and George Sodini.

Mind you, not that he personally authored the SPLC articles in question. But the material was published on his watch. And so I hold him accountable. Along with his fellow honcho, Richard Cohen.

All right. So what does the current debacle tell us about the Southern Poverty Law Center? I would say, that it tells us very shoddy things indeed. And it ought to convey a more general object lesson as well. It ought to demonstrate that a mission statement full of angelic rhetoric doesn't mean shit. Any more than the flatulent words of politicians. Such rhetoric is a mask, and here we see the face directly underneath it.

It ought to be an elementary lesson, instilled into every child in grammar school, that anti-fascism is the deadliest form of "fascism" on all of planet Earth.

Monday, March 12, 2012

SPLC and Radfem Hub are "In Bed" With Each Other

Please read the following post at Christian J's. blog:

Have you read it? Good.

I should add that there is no way in hell that the Southern Poverty Law Center can "monitor and topple" the "MRAs". And why?

Because there is no "the MRAs".

"The MRAs" is not a group or movement of any kind, let alone the "hate" kind. The SPLC is barking up the wrong tree -- an imaginary tree, as it happens.

As for toppling the non-feminist revolution, the SPLC would have better luck fist-fighting a fogbank or sweeping back the tide with a broom. They might as well abandon such a futile project this very instant, because they will NEVER stuff us back into Pandora's box! Ever!

Besides, we can easily discipline our rhetoric to where nobody on earth could creditably call it hate speech. We can do this, and still communicate our ideas with perfect freedom, and there is not a damn thing they can do to stop us without overreaching or overplaying their hand.

The worst they can do is cramp our style a bit in the rabble-rousing department. And even their power to do THAT is limited, and won't last forever. For there is just no way they can keep tabs on ALL of the rabble-rousers that will be popping up everywhere, in every neck of the woods.

The bottom line is, that they are scared. And that is why they are mobilizing against us. The feminists have finally condescended to take us seriously. Too late, though!

A Passing Note of Greater Than Passing Importance

A note to any stray feminists who might be wandering in the vicinity.

I am Fidelbogen. I am not the thing known as a an "MRA". You see, the universe is full to the brim with present or potential self-appellatives, and sometimes these get threadbare like an old coat. Sure, you can always patch that coat, but maybe this is too much work. And even if you do patch it, there comes a time when you must patch it again. . . and again. So at last there comes a time when you decide to chuck it, yes?

So, I have chucked "MRA". Other people still call me by that title -- out of habit, out of ignorance, out of linguistic utility, or whatnot. And I don't get fussed about it. No, I just shrug my shoulders since I know what they mean. However, when I am conversing with somebody who seems to be a feminist, and that person glibly utters the phrase "you MRAs", followed by a glib catalogue of ideas or traits which they glibly suppose that an "MRA" would possess, it irritates the tar out of me.

And since I don't enjoy having the "tar" irritated out of me, I will take occasion to correct the person by nonchalantly stating that "I'm not an MRA." Or if I am feeling mischievous, I will say " MRA? What's that? Never heard of it." Whether I have or haven't heard of it is beside the point; the point is, that the person will take my point.

"MRA" is a construct, a fiction, a mental spook, a cartoon character existing only in that person's imagination. So when they address me as a so-called "MRA", they are not actually addressing ME. And maybe I'm hopelessly behind the times, but I still insist that people address me as ME. Because if they don't, then I feel like I am wasting my time with them altogether.

For too many people -- feminists and fence-sitters alike -- "MRA" is a greasy intellectual cop-out which greases the rails so they can slide away fast from what you are really saying. And I do not wish to give them that opportunity. Not if I can help it.

So that, among many other reasons, is why I do not self-appellate as an "MRA".

All right, stray feminist, now it is your turn to reciprocate.

Since I have agreed to not call myself an "MRA". . .

. . . how about you agree to not call yourself a "feminist"?

Eh? ;-)

Post-Argumentalism Briefly Explained

Feminism has been weighed and measured, by us, and found wanting. Since we have found it wanting, we do not want it. And since we do not want it, we shall not take it.

If it is given to us, we shall request that it be taken back. And if it is not taken back, we shall fling it to the wayside.

And having flung it to the wayside, we shall go our way.

That is the executive summary; the rest is details.

Any questions?


You may link to this post as follows:

Friday, March 09, 2012

Here is Something Intriguing

I came upon the following in an article posted to the Ms. Magazine blog. Of all places!
"Too often, though, instead of speaking out on behalf of women’s rights, men remain bystanders. Are we fearful we’ll be put down, castigated as a mangina instead of celebrated as a mangina warrior? Remember the bumper sticker “Keep Your Laws Off of My Body?” It’s not just a slogan for women. Deep down, men know that an assault on women is an assault on us, too. But unless more of us are willing to raise our voices, we risk ending up like the boys who were banished to the back row of middle school chorus. You know, the ones who were ordered to mouth the words while the others sang."
The word in red font is a familiar one, is it not? Clearly, that word is making the rounds -- and here we note migration from one political sector (our own) to another, radically different, sector. It is clearly a sign of something, that such terminology would be colonizing the territory we see here.

I wasn't much interested in the article for its own sake, but I thought this particular bit was worth bringing to your attention. As to the question which the article poses in its title. . .

Where Are Men’s Voices in the Fight for Women’s Health?

. . . I would reply that I honestly have no idea; I don't keep track of such things. The state of the social contract leaves me unencumbered in that regard.

Women Against VAWA

When women, of all people, say that VAWA has got to go, then you've got to wonder. . . haven't you?

Thursday, March 08, 2012

A Stunner!!

What follows is off-topic for the blog, but I'm the God of this blog, so I can arrange these things! ;)

Pat Robertson, of right-wing Christian fundamentalist fame, has publicly gone on record with the statement that marijuana should be legalized.

And why? Well basically, because he thinks the War On Drugs is evil. Which indeed it is.

God bless Pat Robertson!

Damn! I love it when left-right political boundaries get blurred, don't you? It always releases the heady, pungent aroma of freedom. I'm catching a whiff of it here, all right!

Ya know, if Barry Goldwater was around today, he would without-a-doubt be seconding this. (But er. . . ah. . . ahem! . . . let's not forget that Barry was a half-Jew, an atheist, and a pro-choicer! ;-)

Here is the New York Times article which broke the big news:

Pat Robertson Says Marijuana Use Should Be Legal

Hey, I haven't touched the stuff in years. But I look forward to the day when I will sit down upon a barren, windswept mountain-top and fire up a fat one in celebration! And unlike Bill Clinton, I will inhale.

By the way, the War On Drugs is a product of the same underlying moral weltanschauung which brought us feminism. They are kindred evils. You knew that, of course. . .

They Sow Pain and They Reap Accordingly

Here I shall repost an old classic of post-argumentalism. I do this now because I think the moment calls for it. Post-argumentalism is no recent development; we've known for years that we are at war with aliens who play a different game by different rules and do not share our sense of honor, morality, rationality, fair play and so on. These aliens always stack the deck, and they never play a clean game.

Oh all right, they aren't really aliens. They are undoubtedly human, but they have forfeited, through their dishonorable lying and cheating behavior, any right to be treated as such. Their invincible ignorance about themselves, their arrogant rapacity in dealing with the rest of the world, their perverse oblivion to everything outside their cognitive bubble, their privileging of their own narrative, their flat refusal to consider the back-story and political context from which their opposition emerges -- all of these things, and more, set them beyond the pale of respectful consideration.

In sum, feminists despise the spiritual autonomy of non-feminist men and women, seeking only to drive a wedge between them and to instigate violence between them, so as to validate and perpetuate the existence of feminism itself. It is painfully clear that to win any war of ideas with feminism is a quixotic notion from the start. No such victory is possible because feminism was never fighting a war of ideas in the first place. In fact, feminism is fighting the intellectual equivalent of a street fight, and if you fight a so-called war of ideas in an intellectual street fight, then you will not win any war of ideas.

Friends, we know for a fact, through long study and experience, that these are not ethical people. Not honorable people. Not empathic people. So ethical, honorable, empathic terms of engagement are wasted on them. They have licensed the world to treat them exactly as they have treated the world, and the "pain" they eventually suffer will be the crop they have sown. Let history be the judge.

Thank you. Here now is the original article from early 2008:

The Futility of Arguing With Feminists

The feminists can never be pried apart from their dogmas and their fixed ideations. We may certainly undertake to display by reasoned steps the folly of their doctrines, and indeed plenty of us have talked ourselves blue in the face - or typed ourselves into carpal tunnel syndrome - in the course of such efforts. Within our own sector, we've grown painfully wise to all of this over the years. At first we thought to convince them of the heinous error of their thinking, or if not convince them at least confute them and shame them into silence. But the contrary outcome has rewarded us. Their obstinacy grows ever more entrenched even as the baneful effect of feminist theory and its practical application becomes apparent, and "throwing facts at them" is perpetually to no avail.

By virtue of our long-standing debates with feminists and collaborationists, we've become eye-glazingly familiar with their battery of argumentative tricks.

Initially, they will bank upon their interlocutors being naive or stupid, but when they get so tangled in the meshes that no easy exit appears, they will suddenly turn into simpletons - they will play dumb; they will act innocent; they will pretend that they don't know what is going on. All right, I am willing to allow that at least some of them genuinely don't know what is going on - but plenty of them know perfectly well what they are about.

And so, feigning not to comprehend the arguments of their opponents, they will slip out of their skins like moulting serpents and slither away to a different sector of discussion - one where they think they hold at least a temporary advantage. I mean that they will change the subject, hoping the abruptness of the shift will boggle their opponent's mind and throw him off his balance.

The feminists will postulate certain axiomatic platitudes, and if you acknowledge these, they will transfer the application to different issues on a different level of discourse. If you confront them with their chicanery they will wriggle out of it once more, and you will labor in vain to wring any binding statement from them - any "commitment". If you try to get a solid grip on what they are saying, you will clutch only dung and quicksilver - and this will squirt between your fingers and reunite with itself an instant later in the deceitful aspect of something solid. If, owing to the presence of impartial observers, the feminists feel obligated to concede your point, they will develop amnesia a day or so later and repeat their former arguments as if the dialogue in question had never happened. It will be as if you were climbing a hill of mud where you can never gain ground because you slide backward with every step you take.

The feminists will respond to any brief, concise, carefully constructed statement of yours by means of the five-hundred gallon treatment: dumping a bewildering mass of emotionally-based arguments, non-sequiturs, personal imputations and lightning-swift logical fallacies upon you so that you are buried ten feet deep and cannot adequately dig your way out. Your failure to do so will inspire them to declare their own victory. And if by superhuman exertion you fisk ALL of their words, exhaustively and with nuance, they will repeat the original process through infinite rounds, and with each round the mass of verbiage balloons bigger and bigger - and you will never win!

We have learned, gradually but conclusively, through hard experience infinitely repeated, to think very poorly of feminists. The vile, radical ones are bad enough - but at least they lay it on the line so you can see it plainly. Give them points for their more honest style of dishonesty! You are doubtless familiar with the time-worn bromide that "not all feminists are like that!" And that is just the point, for the fact that some feminists are "like that" makes it unnecessary for all of them to be so! The ones who seem personable and charming are the worst, for their deceitful core is buried layers deep in further refinements of deceit - like a blanket of stale, synthetic cake-frosting. Their offense is simply that of complicity - on any level whatsoever - in the feminist project. Owing to such complicity, they are living a lie.

The futility of conversing with feminists as individuals in the microcosm of daily life, scales up quite naturally into the macrocosm - or what you would call the macro-political. It is equally futile for us to converse (at least for debating purposes) with feminism as such. Feminism - as a movement and as an ideology - operates from essentially the same bag of tricks as any individual feminist you might happen to be arguing with. The goal of feminism as a movement is to force men collectively into the same condition of head-spinning befuddlement (and vulnerability to suggestion) which the lone feminist seeks to inflict on the individual non-feminist male. Brotherman, feminism is NOT YOUR FRIEND!

What then, is to be done? Rouse the sleeping dragon of non-feminist political consciousness by simply telling the world the nasty truth about feminism. Then, sit back and mark what must predictably transpire.

Watch how people mock them! Watch how people disrespect them! Watch how people permit them no quarter! Watch how people permit them no rest! Watch how people make them the butt of jokes, and incite others to do likewise! Watch how people turn their lives into a bottomless quagmire of cognitive dissonance! Watch how people inflict upon them a future of never-ending intellectual harassment! Watch how people set stumbling-blocks upon their path! Watch how people engineer the entire culture to their detriment, even as they have done to the entire male population! Watch how the world rallies against them, and puts them perpetually on the defensive!

Watch how the poison of feminism comes back upon the feminists themselves, and grievously sickens them!

It is for the best of all concerned that matters come to pass in the fashion stated above, for any other scenario would be tangibly less desirable by virtue of the chaotic and absurdist character it would possess.

We know that sweet reason and gentle persuasion are lost upon these cultic ideologues. They have relinquished their license to walk unchallenged upon planet Earth. And from henceforth, everywhere they wander they may expect to bear a burden of cynical scrutiny and impolite queries concerning their intentions and their motivations. They have called down these troubles most abundantly upon their own heads, and I for one shall spare no sympathy.

If they are wise, the feminists will learn to not call themselves feminists; they will contrive somehow to misplace that tainted term, setting it somewhere in deep storage under piles of boxes and assorted clutter where they cannot easily lay their hands upon it. This will motivate them to live honestly within the constraints of the ecumenical human condition, and eventually they will learn to get along just fine without the word feminist, and possibly to embrace some more superficial form of evil, rather than one so cancerous upon the root of life itself.

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

In Times Like These, Every Woman Must EARN Male Trust

The following comment was posted elsewhere in cyberspace by one Nick J., a pro-male partisan. This comment throws an interesting light upon matters of importance, because it underscores in yet another way how the feminists (unlike their opposition) are both greedy and uninterested in the truth. They wish only to tar as many men as possible with the crime of "misogyny", and to make the rest live in fear of getting similarly tarred if they don't self-censor and walk a razor-thin line. The bottom line is, that a feminist will lodge an accusation of "misogyny" frivolously, for any reason that feels the tiniest bit plausible, whereas a non-feminist will lodge an accusation of "misandry" after giving careful thought to the matter:

I have edited only slightly, for clarity:
"I for one believe trust is something that should be earned not given unconditionally. . .

"I find it funny that misogyny can mean anything from hate to lack of trust for women, while misandry's definition is highlighted specifically as hate against men and boys. Trust for men never comes into question. Why? Because only thieves and liars require unwarranted trust, or would put it in the same category as hate. Just more proof that women would rather harbor baseless hate for wide portions of the populace than consider they might be fallible as a sex in their ability to make moral decisions about issues that affect the world outside their own gender."
I would differ with Nick J. on one small point. Unlike him, I would not use "women" abstractly, as a blanket term, nor would I say "women as a sex". After all, if a given number of women harbor such feelings, I feel confident they do so one at a time. So in the end, they will account for this one at a time, as individuals.

An Absolute Must-Read

A recent article at the NCFM website drags VAWA behind a truck for forty miles and then throws it in the wood chipper. (Relax, that is only a metaphor! It is physically impossible for a body of writing to do such things to another body of writing.) The article also does a pretty good job on VAWA's chief architects, Andrea Dworkin and Katherine MacKinnon. For example, I'll bet you've never heard the following from Dworkin:
“I keep practicing horse position…and I kick good; I can kick to the knee and I can kick to the cock but I can’t kick to the solar plexus and I can’t kick his fucking head off… I fucking smash their faces in; I kick them; I hit them; I kick them blind; I like smashing their faces in with one kick, I like dancing on their chests,…with my toes, big, swinging kicks, and I like one big one between the legs, for the sake of form and symbolism, to pay my respects to content as such… I like smashing the bottles into their fucking faces and I like taking the knives, for my collection; I like knives. I find them drunk and lying down and I hurt them and I run; and I fucking don’t care about fair; discuss fair at the U.N.; vote on it; from which I enunciate another political principle, It is obscene for a girl to think about fair.”
No, the pro-male NCFM writer didn't say this. The feminist Andrea Dworkin did! And Andrea was every bit as mentally unhinged as Valerie Solanas, don't you think so? More dangerous too, when you consider that Dworkin, unlike Valerie, was able to operate higher than street level and make a practical mark in the groves of academe, the halls of Congress, and suchlike places.

Now, all in all, I think it is fair to say that all feminists are like Nazis.

Let me say it again: all feminists are like Nazis. If that feels a mite strong, consider that not all Nazis were Gestapo officers. For indeed, it is safe to say that the average party member was an innocuous average citizen -- good old Willi or Gustav next door. Similarly, the average feminist does not belong to the feminist "gestapo" as do Dworkin, MacKinnon, Sheila Jeffries, Pamela O'Shaughnessey, and so on. Yet more broadly considered, they are all femi- "nazis", aren't they? However, they are willing to look the other way, or simply not see -- and so their squeaky little fingers remain squeaky-clean always. Right?

You know, I can't help wondering if Andrea Dworkin really did stab or mutilate passed-out drunkards on occasion. . .

So, the moral difference between feminism and naziism lies not in the inherent strength of the poison, but only in the administered dosage. If feminism has not effected wonders on the scale of Bergen-Belsen or Treblinka, this is due merely to a combination of tactical discretion and limited means.

On another note, it is astronomically unlikely that any man would wish to have sex with the pus-ugly, spiritually repulsive Andrea Dworkin. But that didn't stop Andrea, near the end of her life, from circulating a story that she had been drugged and violated in a Paris hotel.

Here's some interesting trivia for you. The infamous Julian Real (a.k.a. Paul Seidman) claims to have been a personal friend of Andrea Dworkin.

The NCFM article also quotes the following from Dworkin:
“I am writing a plan for revenge, a justice plan, a justice poem, a justice map, a geography of justice; I am martial in my heart and military in my mind; I think in strategy and in poems, a daughter of Guevara and Whitman, ready to take to the hills with a cosmic vision of what’s crawling around down on the ground; a daughter with an overview; the big view; a daughter with a new practice of righteous rage, against what ain’t named and ain’t spoken so it can’t be prosecuted except by the one it was done to who knows it, knows him; I’m inventing a new practice of random self- defense; I take their habits and characteristics seriously, as enemy, and I plan to outsmart them and win…”
Oddly, some of this vaguely resembles the plan against feminism that we non-feminist partisans are incubating in our own minds and think-tanks. Yes, we take their habits and characteristics seriously, as enemy, and we plan to outsmart them and win. We are legion, we are both men and women, and no average, honest woman anywhere has aught to fear from our revolution.

If you are a feminist of any shade, you ought to consider defection. You ought to consider conversion. You ought to wipe your slate clean, publicly proclaim your new allegiance, and join the counter-feminist tidal wave that is now forming. A number of feminists, both male and female, have already had their "road to Damascus" experience, and when your inner voice finally speaks, you too will join them!

Alternately, keep your mouth shut and don't blow your cover. You can do damage if you maintain your position as a trusted insider. You can undermine. You can sow doubt, fear and mistrust. You can reveal damaging information to the non-feminist world, Agent Orange style!

Ideally, I would like to see both visible public conversions AND undercover work. Such a two-pronged approach will maximize the benefit because it will operate in the propaganda and intelligence sectors simultaneously.

You know what? I still haven't given you a link to that NCFM article. Well here it is. Enjoy it, share it, and archive it:

VAWA Is A Fraud And Must Be Repealed!

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Prologue to Fempocalypse

Girlwriteswhat (GWW) belongs to a class of women that I call the two-percenters, or alternately "women of conscience."

See, the way I figure it, the great majority of the female population will not spontaneously take up the cudgels on behalf of male interests. Why should they? Since women are not the target of anti-male politics, they can never hope to match the expert knowledge of men upon that subject, and so empathy will quite understandably elude them. In addition, most women are no more inclined toward altruism than anybody else. In sum, the mass of women lack both motivation and competence to go to bat for men in a political way. Accordingly, we should not expect them to do so.

Or at least not until they learn what is in their best interest. Once they accomplish THAT, we can expect them to maximize their advantage by turning against feminism in larger numbers.

I reckon that day is still some years in the future, but in the interim we may anticipate that a vocal vanguard of forward thinkers -- about 2 percent of the female population -- will take up the slack for their laggard sisters. Women in general must be prodded and arm-twisted before they will take the looming cataclysm seriously, and I predict that individuals like GWW will crop up in growing numbers to administer the needful medicine. Truly, nobody can talk to a woman like another woman!

I would normally underscore the takeaway point in a video like this, and write a few paragraphs of commentary. But in the present case there are so many worthy points competing for the prize that I'm at a loss where to shine the spotlight. So let's just give it a broad, sweeping motion.

Hey, GWW was right on the money about one thing in particular. Yes, the feminist detractors of pro-male initiative certainly love to crow that we have no traction, no potency, no "relevance" -- don't they? Well clearly, they are committing the crosshairs fallacy. They don't get that the pro-male movement in cyberspace is only a small chunk of the picture. They don't realize that the non-feminist revolution is growing silently, all around the planet, in a multitude of forms unknown to them -- as I can personally attest from my insider's knowledge! But the ironic thing, I would even say the comical thing, is the emotional energy and sheer venom which people like David Futrelle have invested in their attacks. They scoff, they declare that we amount to nothing, and so on. Yet they go right on lying, distorting and fabricating with as much motivation as if the devil himself was poking a pitchfork in their ass.

Hey, if we are nothing. . . then why the hell should they make much ado about nothing? The only possible explanation is, that we pose a threat. Otherwise, they wouldn't even bother with us. . would they? Of course they wouldn't. But they do bother with us because, frankly, we bother them! We trouble them. And they cannot ignore us, much as they might wish to do so.

Yes, we are a menace to their worldview, their self-concept, their entire psychic investment in reality. And so it is quite impossible for them to leave us alone -- although if they want my advice, that would be their best plan. You see, they are giving us free publicity. But they would be wiser to leave us in obscurity, don't you think so? However, I understand that rational considerations are not driving them. No, something darker is driving them.

And do you know what that is? Have you any idea what impels them to make war, with unabated vigor, against mere nobodies? Any idea at all?

I will tell you. They are driven by the twin emotional devils of FEAR and GUILT. There is simply no other way to account for their behavior. Deep in their guts, the feminists know that not only are they themselves lying sacks of shit, but that their project in life is fraud on a grand scale and that they have dumped a crap-ton of misery and calamity upon the world. Hoooo boy, that's a heavy burden to be carrying, wouldn't you say? Still, we are told that confession is good for the soul -- so do you reckon they'll 'fess up any time soon?

Moving right along, GWW makes clear that the root of the present evil is misandry rather than misogyny. In fact, misogyny dwindles into nearly nothing, and women's afflictions look like two spits in the ocean compared to men's. Men, not women, are the genuinely crucified ones in this world -- a fact that we males have always instinctively known, but it's good to hear the case authoritatively stated by a voice which is hard to argue with, eh?

Feminism is nothing but a movement to advance female interest, and to exploit men more efficiently. It's high time that men themselves woke up to this. Women, after all, are doing just fine. And most everybody, including most men, are pulling for women in every way you can imagine. So men had best start pulling for themselves, and right soon.

Finally, the war on men will have nasty fallout for everybody, and women will learn to curse the name of feminism sooner or later. Better it should happen sooner, that's what I say!

After you have watched this video, I recommend that you click through to GWW's YouTube channel and watch another video of hers, titled Fempocalypse. Look for it.

Friday, March 02, 2012

What is This Thing Called Counter-Feminism?

Counter-Feminism is a movement which is not a movement because it contains all movements, yet is above and beyond them.

Counter-feminism is a mode of strategic thinking whose purpose is to block feminist energy, or "counter" it, by harnessing the energy of all resistance to feminism while simultaneously functioning with autonomous agency.

Counter-feminism is apex thinking -- the mountain-top view; the chess master view.

Counter-feminists are the Illuminati of all resistance to feminism.

Counter-feminism encourages what is politically efficient toward blocking feminist energy, while disavowing what is discreditable or indiscreet.

Counter-feminism is the spider at the center of the non-feminist revolutionary web. But paradoxically, that center is everywhere and nowhere.

Counter-feminism is an agency for change, and it proposes to put feminism out of business in ten days, or ten centuries, or whatever it takes.

Counter-feminism is a transcendental condition which views feminism from the outside, operates independently of all feminist categories, and defines feminism in non-feminist terms.

Counter-feminist agents are everywhere, including within feminism itself, and within feminist organizations.

Counter-feminism is growing and spreading, even as the non-feminist revolution is growing and spreading.

Finally, this entire statement is tongue-in-cheek. Of course it is. You bet it is. It's all just a joke. Lighten up, man! ;-)

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Tabloid-Worthy News Story

The following snippet is from a Washington Post article, and pertains to a story of recent occurrence:

"Prosecutors said Coy had befriended Stice on Facebook and used a stun gun to subdue the pregnant woman last April after luring her out of the house by saying they were going baby-supply shopping. Police said after Coy stunned Stice, she slit her wrists, cut the baby from her body and brought the baby, a uterus, ovaries and a placenta to a local hospital. The umbilical cord was still attached, police said.

"Coy, who has children of her own living with other relatives, initially told police she gave birth to the boy, then said she bought him for $550."

The complete article is available HERE:

A quick lesson in rhetorical discipline. The news item shared in this post is given in PWC mode -- to wit, "presented without comment". The controlling maxim in such cases is res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself."

This is comprehended under the second point of rhetorical discipline, that of tonal mastery.