Thursday, May 31, 2012

New Video -- Misogyny is a Feminist Production - Part 2

In the second part of this series, the talk continues to peel away the layers of deceit surrounding the feminist buzzword "misogyny".

And man's best friend makes a cameo appearance! ;)

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

A Political Trend

For the past few months I've noticed more and more people of a politically leftward slant voicing antagonistic feelings about feminism. I've concluded that it's not simply my imagination -- something is going on here! People from that cultural neck of the woods -- albeit still chiefly male people -- are now ruefully admitting, to themselves and others, that feminism is a social disaster and a ghastly embarrassment all around. And not only are they distancing themselves from feminism, but they are putting out "feelers" to people beyond their accustomed peer group, with dreams of building a popular front alliance.  Maybe. Perhaps.

Well, for the record, I'm not so terribly far to the "right" myself. In fact, I'm left-of-center, anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and anti-communist, in the same neighborhood with Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. For what it's worth,  I'm in the lower-left quad of the political compass, just a tiny bit askew from dead center on the chart.

So it sounds like I'm "not half bad", eh? And it sounds like I'm somebody that somebody could possibly do business with. If you catch my drift. . . . 

And now, here is one of my old videos again. Just because!

Sunday, May 27, 2012

A Rape Liar Confesses to her Crime

See here:

Yes, it's official. Women who were not raped will sometimes claim that they were. And the criminal justice system will take them quite seriously.

In fact, it happens quite a bit. And it is not trivial. It is a grave problem,  a ticking social time bomb, a judicial holocaust of the innocent.

The feminists, of course, will have none of that. And why should they? They're the ones who launched the rape hysteria industry in the first place, and if they acknowledged the reality of false accusation, the trail of blame would eventually lead back to their own doorstep,and this would force them to face the music, wouldn't it?

So they are motivated by fear and guilt to maintain the status quo.

In addition, feminists are gynocentrists who consider male life expendable. They could frankly care less about men's suffering, and that, brothers, is why feminism is not your friend.

All right. If you're a woman, consider that false accusation (of rape, and other things too) might happen to your son, brother, uncle, nephew, or some other male person whom you care about. That is just one example  -- one of many -- to show how the feminist poison dished out to men gets into the social ecology and poisons everybody in the long run.

Thank feminism for all of this.

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

While you are reading through the Agent Orange files, try to remember that "not all feminists are like that" -- meaning that not all feminists want to see you exterminated, or thrown out a window, or boiled for glue, or struck on the head with a cast-iron skillet. The feminists who speak of such things are only the radical fringe minority, and it would be silly to take them seriously.   After all, unradical feminists know where to draw the line. They might indifferently watch you go to prison for a rape you didn't commit,  or they might deem it a "quite fabulous" avant-garde joke if Catherine Kieu-Becker were to cut your penis off.

But I can assure you that those very same unradical feminists would be horrified at the thought that you should be exterminated!

So let that be a comfort to you.

And then get back to work, and do whatever you can to challenge misogyny and examine your male privilege.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

New Video -- Misogyny is a Feminist Production - Part One

This video peels away the vicious hypocrisy and manipulation inherent to feminism's "misogyny" buzzword..

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Some Cool Entertainment for You

Here, in its entirety, is the epic 1966 movie "Khartoum", with Charlton Heston and Sir Laurence Olivier.  It is full of testosterone, machismo, stiff upper lips, and all sorts of good stuff which feminists hate. (Well, at least they hate it when men are doing these things, but women are always welcome to have a go, if they wish!)

This movie will teach you plenty about how politics works in the real world.

It's about two hours long, so settle in with refreshments. I'm surprised that YouTube hasn't blocked this for copyright issues.

A Quick Global View of Things

The non-feminist revolution is worldwide, as we all know. Things are heating up dramatically in India, and the Indian pro-male activist Anil Kumar has left a gallery of photographs documenting recent action in Bangalore.

Go Here

As you will see when you flip through the images, women are involved quite a bit -- and they are protesting against "husband suicide", among other things. The plot grows thick, does it not?

You can't say those Indian women are not maximizing their advantage -- or trying to do so -- can you?

Meanwhile, back in the West, hip, modernistical, empowered womyn are fighting for. . . well, whatever the hell they're fighting for. The following wretched excuse for a human being lays it on the line pretty clearly, I reckon. Quintessential feminism here, folks! She's quite a caution, eh? Honestly, I don't think I have ever in my life seen so much sheer stupid piled so high upon one tiny spot without toppling -- mercy sakes, it towers to the heavens!

She says "stand by yourself". Well you know what? That is exactly how she and her sisters ought to stand -- by themselves. In a corner. Wearing pointed hats. Truly they are on their own -- and that's just the way things are!

Oh narcissism, thy name is feminist!

Here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Now if you'll excuse me, I must get back to work on a new video about the word "misogyny". Take care.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012


Here is the customary patriarchal soundtrack, chosen for its robust good humor and straightforward masculine spirituality. Yes, the light masculine repels feminism like garlic repels vampires! And that is quite understandable, given that feminism is a distillation of the dark feminine. So in common with all darkness, it is repelled by the light.

A Caricature of Feminism

This video (seemingly a parody) effectively conveys, in an impressionistic way, the image which feminism as a whole projects to the world. This is how a LOT of people (especially male people) perceive the feminist gestalt. Granted, it is a caricature. But remember what a caricature is -- a depiction which reveals truth by exaggeration.

If you are a feminist, you should understand that this is how non-feminist  men and women see feminism. And more importantly, this is how you are branding yourself, by calling yourself a feminist.

So, consider not calling yourself a feminist. Consider finding a different word for yourself. And I'm not talking about changing your ideas, so you can keep what's in the bottle. But you ought to change the label. You really ought to.

If you call yourself a feminist, you can expect to be treated like one.

Here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Monday, May 21, 2012

Hey Look, This is Funnier than "Shit"


Funnier that shit!

But seriously. . . what the hell is funny about shit? I mean, by what alchemy did "shit" become the gold standard for "funny"? How on earth did that happen?

Zurich now has a Male Affairs Officer

The city of Zurich, Switzerland, has created the government post of  "male affairs officer", and appointed the first office-holder. Zurich, as you will recall, was the venue for the first IGAF conference last summer:

Well, a "men's centre" was established at a Canadian university recently, and now we have this! So I reckon I see the beginning of a pattern here.

All right, so does this count as "activism"? Well, I don't have time to twiddle with semantics, so I'll just say that it counts as progress. But I am naturally inclined to ask why it is happening -- especially now. And I think the answer is simple enough. It is happening because heat and pressure were brought to bear upon a power structure, and that structure yielded a bit. There is no other explanation possible, or necessary.

And this is where the distinction between "activism" and "agitation" begins to break down, and to look artificial. Really now, both are just ways of bringing heat and pressure to bear upon a power structure. Different tools with different applications, but they are both applied to the same job, and they both have a vital role to play.'s all one, and it's all good!

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Toxic Anti-Male Bigotry at Simon Fraser University

It seems that Simon Fraser University in BC, Canada, will be establishing a "men's centre" on campus. Well, the local feminists have gone ballistic about this. But so far, our side appears to be winning. Just today (or maybe it was yesterday) a highly sympathetic article appeared in the Canadian "National Post" online publication. Snippet follows:
"Men, too, join in the criticism of the proposed Centre, one curiously warning that it may “become a highly masculinized space.” Another cautions that the project risks creating a “heteronormative space,” while yet another critical male dismisses the Men’s Centre as simply, “a room with a PS3 and a bunch of douchebags playing games.” 
"Bravo, students. . . . . you have effectively demonstrated why such a space is so very necessary.  At present, there is only one other Canadian campus with an official support centre for men — the Men’s Resource Centre at the University of Manitoba. Judging by the crass sociology catch phrases in the aforementioned video, the consensus is that young men don’t need community resources or support." 
You know, the douchebag who made the "douchebags" remark quoted above, ought to volunteer for some Maoist self-criticism sessions, don't you think so? (Seriously, that shit sounds like David Futrelle in the early days of his blog, before he wised up and learned to mask his attitude more effectively.)

Link to the full article follows:

The YouTube video mentioned in the article can be viewed here:

Note the stunning deluge of down votes and down-comments on that video, and add your own if you feel so inclined. I'll betcha the little twits who posted the video never even knew what hit 'em!

Friday, May 18, 2012

New Video -- The Two-Party System of Sexual Politics

Due to feminist meddling in the life of the world, a political division between men and women has been created whether we like it or not. It's just the way things are! This talk lays it on the line, yet lays out some of the grim advantages that can be extracted from the situation.

This is a remake of an earlier video, in the interest of higher production standards.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Yes. Feminists are very much like National Socialists

Mind you, the video presenter is not claiming that feminists literally ARE National Socialists. Nor am I. But I think we might concur the similarities are too striking to let them pass without remark. We need to throw a spotlight on these things every chance we get.

Yes, yes, "not all feminists are like that."

Not all National Socialists were "like that", either.

Martin Heidegger, for example: 

Or perhaps he really was "like that" after all?

Oh hey, I almost forgot the customary link to the Agent Orange files:

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Presented With No Explanation

Has Fidelbogen gone raving bonkers? Has Fidelbogen flipped his wig?

Here is arcane wisdom from years gone by, innocent times when feminism was naught but a tiny cloud on the horizon hardly worth thinking about. Sadly, there is textual degradation in the scroll, where the elements have eaten away sections of papyrus:
The Ryegrass Summit took place in the Spring of [ . . . . ] Church reckoning,  year 19  of the 50K plan.
Notables [. . . . .] arrived from far and wide, since the word had gone out in its usual mysterious way. The venue of this meeting was a certain high point along the interstate auto route between  Ellensburg and the Columbia river. This high point is called  “Ryegrass Summit”,  and we just had to give the  identical  name to our meeting!
The Ryegrass Summit was a bit more crowded than some of our other Church gatherings; I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many distinguished Shudaic luminaries in one place at one time.  Even  the subprophet Luigi Logan was there in his weatherbeaten Ford Econoline van, looking completely unchanged since I had last seen him.
The meeting was unheralded in the mainstream media, as is fitting.  The initial staging point was a popular  highway  rest area in the midst of this classic western American landscape in what are called the Northern Marches of Shudaea. When I arrived in the early grey of dawn,  a number of vehicles  were  present, along with an assortment of bicycles chained to various posts. Yet  being of such inconspicuous makes, models and colors, they were practically invisible.
I parked, I  locked, and  I hefted my rucksack.  The locale was deserted at this hour, and the small barbed-wire fence was a minor obstacle. Directly, I was striding across the open range toward a distant ridge crest -- which lay to the northward.  The familiar and well-loved fragrance of sagebrush enveloped me, and as I inhaled this, I reflected upon the classic line, “consider the sagebrush of the arid plains.”
 Not a trace of wind was present.  Apart from the highway traffic, sparse this [illegible. . .]
I  ambled and shambled up the slope, and the crest grew  near. I paused to look back at the roadside rest area. This had dwindled  to tiny dot by the highway, [which was] itself  a thin grey  line away down yonder. The amplitude of these Shudaic spaces ruled, and I didn’t mind the lingering presence of that other  world, now so dwarfed and distant, because I knew I had the power (physical or otherwise) to banish or recall it at will.
“This sure quite a church I belong to”, said I out loud to myself. And I [. . . . .].
Shortly, I stood atop the crest. The moment was well-timed, for no sooner had I reached the summit than the first  stray  finger of sunlight broke loose [. . . .] the [. . . .] sun's full disk topped the horizon as  ragged clouds gave place to widening patches of blue. 
“How sweet to be to be a cloud, right against the eastern gate, where the great sun begins his state.”  
From quite nearby came twittering birdsong -- a horned lark, if I am not mistaken, and a spiralling trill it was! I sat down on a small boulder and cinched up my shoelaces.
Dead ahead, the slope descended once again.  A hollow lay before me, carpeted with the usual ryegrass [. . .] sagebrush.
Five of us marched back to the highway, while three of us ascended a neighboring ridge. The first five milled about, walked due south for ten miles, then returned to the original meeting  spot by hopping on one foot for the entire distance, an expedient [. . .] understood as a kind of test upon the reader’s whimsical threshhold, [. . .] literary artifice [. . .] mental keyhole exercise inducing a paradoxical mind  state [. . . .] not entirely serious, yet not entirely playful. For some [. . .] irritation, for others an inclination to giggle and then turn to other occupations [. . . ] One in a thousand would stride gracefully through that keyhole to the rolling hills and rivers valleys of that  transcendentally [. . .] New Life. But in this case [. . . ] customary sagebrush -- which isn’t half bad, either!
We conversed, as Shuhites customarily do. And we rambled -- another venerable Shudaic custom. Over hill and over dale. Apollo’s chariot, having issued from the coachyard, mounted the upward highway. The morning grew warmer; all clouds were gone but for a wisp here, a wisp there.
“ Aw, shucks! It hardly matters where you begin: When you stand in Smithic Shoes, all roads lead to......YAKIMA. And if you don’ t
These words were spoken by a young Shuhite, a recent arrival to the Church. I remembered seeing him a time or three before...but maybe not. His face was distinct, and yet non-descript. Unforgettable, and yet I find it hopeless now to call it to my  memory. But I got the feeling that I “remembered” him from somewhere. I suppose he was one of the Nameless Ones, yet I shall give him a name. I shall call him  “the New Shoe”.
“You make it sound as if there are two different Yakimas,” remarked  one of the others present, with  sage and ryegrass  in his voice.
“Indeed I do. This is savoured and salted Smithic Doctrine, is it not?”
“Friend, you speak truly. For it is written here......” And the speaker  rummaged in a rucksack for a moment and produced an old black leather binder that held a goodly sheaf of papers . I think we all had such binders in our backpacks on that day.
The New Shoe chuckled: “It is good to see that we come prepared with Smithword!  As do I. And I shall anticipate the passage in question.” The New  Shoe brought forth his own black binder and flipped through the pages.He appeared to adjust his spectacles fussily upon his nose...although I can’t recall that his lynx-like eyes were encumbered by any spectacles whatever.
The New Shoe was the very soule of Classical High Shudaism. He spoke in a clear, calm, [. . . ] refined voice. There was no snobbish insecurity about him; [ . . .] true natural aristocrat [. . . . ] life energy [ . . .]of the New Shoe.
“Properly speaking,” he read aloud to the assembled apostles, “it is not Yakima that we revere, but rather, our own private Yakima, a place which is in fact closely indexed and cross-layered with the Yakima of Actuality˝ and even identical with it at various points of contact. “
A meaningful murmur and a shared smile made the rounds. Someone declared; “Yes, that was indeed the passage in question.” The New Shoe waggled his slightly bushy eyebrows and continued reading:
“”Yes, our  own private Yakima. Here, the operative word is ‘our’. Yakima is a place that we KNOW. This knowing is a thing that we SHARE. And this sharing helps us to index and cross-layer ourselves with each other, in the sanctitude of our own heads.”
The New Shoe paused again and looked around. “Yes,” he said slowly, “There are indeed two Yakimas. And all roads lead to one or the other of them.”
One of the soules chimed in: “I know Yakima well enough. I was THERE only 5 hours ago. It’s a gritty  little grey  armpit and no mistake!”
“And that”, the New Shoe rejoined smoothly, “is the Yakima of Actuality. It is a place that we all know....well enough! For indeed we are STUCK there, like it or not. Superficially, it is the city of Yakima, but more esoterically,  it is the city of this world!”
No thunder followed that last phrase. The sky was  serene, the sagebrush  dead silent. And yet, we all heard the thunder anyway. Ah, the  city of this world....
Somebody spoke: “Tell it like it is, Augustine!” And a chuckle rippled its way around.
The New Shoe smiled like one  not about to be thrown off his stride -- a poised smile.
And he responded: “Your reference to St. Augustine is just a tad ambiguous. Your tone, sir, could be taken as either encouragement or sly mockery. Knowing [. . . . . . . . . . ] both.
The New Shoe stepped up to a small natural platform in the hillside -- a rocky bench with  more densely packed sagebrush all around  it. He stood for a minute or two, gazing skyward....and nobody said a word.
The New Shoe broke his silence abruptly: “St. Augustine”, he said, “was quite a hell-raiser in his day. But one day, he did a complete flip-flop and became a... Man of God. As for myself;  I have never been a hell raiser, nor  [. . . . . ] be noted.”
“This is getting good,” someone said. “I am interested to see where you’ll go with this line of thought.”
“You shall see indeed. As for St. Augustine, well, he was something  [. . . ] a  very different cult  from ours,  [. . . . . .] points of similarity.
“No [ . . . . ] this crowd, I don’t think.” Everybody seemed to concur with that, including the New Shoe, who grinned and carried on.
“No, I reject any personal comparison with St. Augustine, even though I concur with his ‘two cities’ doctrine up to a point.  And that brings me once again to the two Yakimas.  Have you ever wondered why this Church is so keen upon the concrete particularity of the actual city of Yakima, Washington, as such? “”One may well chuckle at such  a quizzical doctrine. Yakima? Why Yakima?  Is there some magical quality in the air above the city? Is there some occult meaning embedded in the asphalt of its very streets? Is there some ancient manuscript of awesome power, squirreled away  in the cobweb-festooned crawl space above bales of cardboard or fiberglass insulation  [. . . . . ] railroad tracks [. . . . ] grotto on the yonder slope of Yakima Ridge just north of Mt. Delectable? Yakima? Why Yakima??”
Someone spoke: “The conventional answer is simple enough.”
“Ah, the conventional answer. How well I know it! Let me rattle it off: Yakima is special and unique because [ . . . . . . ] conducted his ministry there! Because the Panlogos, in an odd display of particularity, commanded [. . . . ] to go there! Because the first Arctureans touched ground there! Because the mighty Shudakii of Ancient Days tended their three-horned flocks of proto-sheep within the reaches of the Vale before the Diaspora struck them! And most of all...because the Precise Mathematical Center of the Universe lurks only a few short miles outside the present city limits.”
“Those sound like, uh, pretty darn good reasons,”  someone else said, with a twinkle in his voice.
He continued: “Yes, they are excellent reasons, but are they believable?  I mean, would any reasonably intelligent person actually take such stories seriously? And while I’m at it, does anybody HERE take them seriously?”
Here, somebody roared: “BLASPHEMY!!”. But it sounded like a stage roar.
The New  Shoe took it in stride. “Yes, you’re damn straight it’s blasphemy. And yet I say it anyway. But, getting back to my own question: Would anybody take such stories seriously? Or would they treat the whole thing playfully? Would they take it as a cool, sardonic jest?”
Somebody spoke: “Everything I say is a lie, including the present statement.”
“BINGO!!” The New Shoe said this. Then he paused for a few seconds.All at once, with no apparent transition, he was holding up a sprig of sagebrush. Nobody saw him grab it -- he was just holding it.
The moment was [. . . ] magical, one might say -- electrical. We knew exactly where he was coming from. Not just one of us, but all of us.
A brief yet animated discusssion followed among the auditors. Then somebody spoke again: “Yakima, Washington, is NOT a fantasy. It is real; too real, you might say. It is archetypally dessicate. And yet we drink it, paradoxically, without truly imbibing it. Even as [. . . ] so much else the world foists upon us.........”.
As I listened to these prose-like words, I reflected that Shuhites from everywhere on earth occupy their heads, to some degree, with Yakimaica --  even if they have no “earthly” reason  for doing so. And they are persistently amused  by this very procedure!  Such is the serioplayful discipline of our faith.......
What the New Shoe said next clinched it all. He said: “We are IN this world, but not OF it [. . . . . ] Yakima [ . . . . . ] found in a publically shared timespace matrix that few would question. And it holds no romantic appeal in the customary sense, therefore, it issues a clear challenge to our powers of transcendence!”
Here a voice rang out: “Yes, but why Yakima?”
The New Shoe replied: “Why not Yakima?” At this, everybody roared with laughter -- I had never heard anything like it in my whole life! When the laughter settled, the New Shoe continued.
“Let the Others call it what they will, but face [ . . . . ] where great mytho-historical events occured....but THAT is almost an afterthought!.......”
The New Shoe took a drink from his water bottle. He smacked his lips contentedly and replaced the cap.
“Well, after all,  this is pretty dry stuff I’m talking about. Just like the Shudaic homeland, and the Shudaic situation on earth. Truly, we are desert nomads, navigators of outer darkness....yet we are tough, and we will outlast them all! But anyway, about Yakima: It is a gritty grey little armpit, a trou perdu as they would say in France...and it might as well serve as [ . . . . ] symbol [. . . ] way of 'facing reality’ is to be extremely objective -- so much so, that we turn their entire game inside out! They deny us our subjectivity? Fine! We deny them theirs. OUR Yakima conjoins THEIR Yakima only at the level of visual inventories,  legalistic protocols,  courteous driving, and an honest day’s work. Beyond that, it is verily a different universe. Yes, we aim to  to eviscerate their reality, and leave only the hollow shell of  commonplace  fact.  Such commonplace fact is  the sole foundation for our co-existence with them-- no more, and no less. And into this hollow shell, this... vacuum, we might thereafter introduce words for their edification.But only if we have nothing better to do!”
Somebody spoke: “So what about the Two Yakimas then?” ****
“Yes? What about the Two Yakimas? Isn’t that clear enough already? We reverence our own private Yakima, and our own private Yakima resembles their [ . . . . .] already a dark cloud grows, unnoticed today, but  in a few short years[. . . . .]
A further pause.
“Hey, let’s make it simple. They have a certain group mind, and we are NOT a part of it! I repeat, we are not a part of it!!”
Someone called out:”You mean, that we are conscious of their collective unconscious [. . . .] not part of it?"
The New Shoe replied: “Well said, my friend! Well said!”
Then he took another swig from his water bottle. “This water, by the way, comes from the very same rain that fell upon the head of the THE PROPHET in August of 1981, at the moment when he channeled the Seminal Sentence.”  
Then the New Shoe grinned toothily and said: 
"It's holy water!"

Yes! Not All Women are like That

Here is something that arrived in the CF inbox this morning:
----- Original Message -----  From: __________  Sent: 05/16/12 05:27 AM  To:  Subject: I hope you don't believe all woman are like that 
I hope you don't think all females are feminist.  I am not.  and the whole feminist movement has made it very difficult to be able to take good care of my son.  I think nothing has been more counterproductive to females and family than the feminist movement.  It is true that some things weren't very correct in society like the victorian age of breaking ribs etc into 16 inch waist but the feminist movement isn't good either.  What that movement means to me is that I am not allowed to be a woman and that is a very sad state of affairs indeed. 

And I immediately dispatched the following reply:
Thank you for your message. I understand very well that not all women are feminists, so you are preaching to the choir here! ;) 
So. . . we need to mobilize the women who are Not Feminists, and build a coalition against feminism, among all groups in society that can be recruited for that purpose. 
And in order to do THAT. . we need to reach a general agreement about what feminism *IS*. (Target consensus, as I call it.) That way, we know exactly what we are working on, so we will not waste our efforts at cross purposes or get into "friendly fire" situations. 
Then we can go to work on feminism from many sides, and chew it down into nothing. Like an army of termites! 
The non-feminist revolution. It's a big job, but what an adventure it will be! 

All right. As to the thorny question of NAWALT, I will say this. I am a practicing agnostic upon that subject. And I am also a "practical politician".


If it is indeed true that all women are "like that", then there is no sense getting riled up about it, is there? I mean, IF they are like that, then they are like that. . . and that's that!  Right? So there's no sense getting agitated or going on and on about it. Is there?

And there is no need to theorize it explicitly. Just factor it into your plans and calculations so as to render it inert or moot, or even turn it to your advantage.

Once again, I am agnostic about this. So I believe the best plan is allow for the possibility that some women are indeed not like that, and permit them ample scope to so demonstrate. Yet at the same time, stay out of range in case they do finally turn out to be "like that".

The feminists have recently been floating a meme which says "trust women".  Have you noticed that one? Well feminists are vile hypocrites, given that feminism itself has been the chief agent in sowing distrust between men and women, and poisoning the water between them. They have generated conditions in the social ecology which make trust or mutual esteem between the sexes increasingly unlikely, and now they have the nerve to instruct the male population to "trust women". Well this is nothing new; we have always known that feminists are vile hypocrites.

All right. In the final tally, I am confident of one thing: women will maximize their advantage. I mean, that's just human nature, right? We all do that, right? I know I do. And in the objective historical situation that is now coming into focus, I am confident that more and more women (a critical mass, we may surmise) will see very clearly that it would not maximize their advantage to be "like that". And so, they will not be "like that".

All that I have outlined here is practical thinking. It is pragmatism. And I am nothing if not a practical thinker, and a pragmatist, and finally, a planner.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Why S.A.V.E. is a Hate Group -- Your SPLC in Action!

As you know, the Southern Poverty Law Center has placed the SAVE organization on its official watch list as a hate group. (SAVE stands for "Stop Abusive and Violent Environments").

And what vile offense did SAVE commit, to be worthy of such an honor? Well according to the SPLC, they are lobbying against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Now, for the record, this "lobbying against" includes submitting an amended version of  VAWA which corrects the abuses of the traditional version. But rather than write a detailed report on exactly what hateful things SAVE would fob upon the world,  I urge you to download and read the following:

In this PDF file you will find both the relevant passages in the existing VAWA,  and the alterations which SAVE proposes to make. The information is arranged in tabular form and is very easy to read. As a bonus, they clearly explain the rationale for each amendment. 

Here is their executive summary:
"The Partner Violence Reduction Act accords first priority to victims of physical violence, curbs false allegations, removes discriminatory practices, encourages partner reconciliation when feasible, requires accreditation of educational programs, strengthens the research basis, improves accountability, curbs immigration fraud, and reinvigorates constitutional protections."
Why the nerve of these people, to publish such a heinous list of proposals! The gall! The misogyny! The effrontery and arrogance! The cruel mockery of all that is noble and decent! I think I discern a glimmer of why the SPLC  listed these people as a hate group. And the part about so-called "constitutional protections" -- surely we can't have that! Boy oh boy, am I ever glad the SPLC got on the case!

For starters, SAVE has the appalling audacity to suggest that the title of the Act be changed from the Violence Against Women Act to the Partner Violence Reduction Act.  They state their rationale brusquely as follows: 
"Title amended to avert illegal discriminatory effects."
Consistently with this, the editor goes through the entire VAWA text and substitutes the phrase "men and women" nearly every place where the word "women" occurs. So in the end, female victims lose none of the protection which the existing legislation offers. What's innovatory in the SAVE version is that protection is extended to male victims -- who, as we know, make up 50% of partner violence victims. The existing Violence "Against Women" Act fails to consider male victimization, and the SAVE group hatefully wishes to change that state of affairs. Heavens, it is no wonder whatsoever that they got onto that SPLC list!

Elsewhere in the SAVE report we find the following proposed addition to the original VAWA, in the form of a clearly stated directive that would carry the force of  law:
“Certify that all training, education, and public awareness training programs and activities, including each of its instructional manuals, curricula, handouts, and other informational content, are currently accredited by an independent Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization, as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of this Act; that the Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization is allowed to conduct audits of said training and education sessions; and that evidence of said accreditation is made publicly available on the organization’s website.”
And why in heaven's name does SAVE wish to ramrod such a dubious proposal through Congress? I suppose it is to their credit that they are forthcoming about their motivations:
"Many DV-related training, education, and public awareness programs have been found to lack accuracy, balance, and truthfulness, thus biasing the workings of the criminal justice system."
Well now! It is bad enough that SAVE wants  to correct inaccuracy, untruthfulness, imbalance, bias, and everything else feminism has worked so hard to instill upon us. Yet they would also stack insult upon injury by forcing the DV industry to operate with open books and public accountability.Oh how this grieves and sickens me! But if Morris Dees and his band of Southern Poverty Law heroes had their way, none of these abominations would be permitted.

You think it's bad so far? Well you haven't seen the worst of it yet, and I could go on all night. But study these next proposals, which effectively gut what feminism has done for non-patriarchal gender equality in the criminal  justice system:
“. .Grantees must certify that they do not endorse, promote, or follow any predominant aggressor or primary aggressor policy, except for a policy that endorses the law enforcement practice of identifying the party who first offers violence or who threatens to strike the other.”
And by what contrivance does SAVE rationalize such a moral outrage? Have a look. I'm not making this up!
"Predominant aggressor policies represent a bald form of sex discrimination."
Words fail me. Don't these people realize that under patriarchy, sex discrimination against men is impossible?  Or do they simply hate women? But wait, here is more grotesquerie:
“. . Grantees must certify that they do not endorse, promote, or follow any ‘no-drop’ prosecution policy or practice, or any other prosecution policy that does not follow probable-cause evidentiary standards."
Dear God! Don't they understand that men commit 95% of all domestic violence for patriarchal reasons, so that most men are probably the guilty bastards most of the time? Don't these sexist pigs know that just being male is "probable cause" all by itself?? Do these SAVE people seriously want to undo the good feminist indoctrination which has made this clear to police, prosecutors and judges, and helped ensure that men most always get convicted without that silly old "presumption of innocence" garbage? I don't understand how the SAVE people could even dare to show their faces after making such proposals. And yet they have the brass-faced bigotry to proffer THIS in their defense:
"No-drop prosecution policies are unethical, and have been found to place victims’ lives at risk." 
I am stunned. Simply stunned. What more can I say?

But I am ever-so-grateful that the Southern Poverty Law Center has put SAVE on a hate list so the FBI will spy on them. Bless the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI! And I dearly hope that Mr. Morris Dees and his wonderful crew will pull together one of their "innovative lawsuits" and knock those terrible, terrible hateful bigots permanently on their keesters, right quick!


Saturday, May 12, 2012

Conversation with a Traditional Woman

Another replay. This resonates strongly in view of certain discussions now occurring in the community.

Men Have it Worse

Take a look at the following:

This talks about data from a recent survey by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)..  All in all, it offers a picture of reality that a feminist would not find comforting. It would suggest that in some very important categories, women are less victimized than men. Now, you might intuitively figure that if feminism wants what is good for women, then a feminist would be happy to see that women are not doing quite so badly after all.   But such are the paradoxes, that it would actually make a feminist unhappy to see this, because it would suggest that in some very important ways men are more victimized than women. And THAT is a conclusion that would stick in the feminist craw in a very big way.

The average feminist would not find this material comforting, because the existence and raison d'etre of feminism as a whole depends on the continual production of anti-male spin. It is imperative that such production be kept up and periodically refreshed with new outbursts of moral hysteria, else feminism would loose its source of supply and ultimately perish.

The need to portray women perpetually as victims trumps even the man-hating joy that the feminists would derive from male victimization and male suffering. For it is necessary at all costs that women continue to be at least perceived as victims in as many categories as possible. And it matters little whether this perception derives from fraudulent reporting or from actual female victimization; the all-important desideratum is that the perception remain in place so as to exert the pragmatic force of reality in the interest of feminist politics.

So, if fraudulent reporting of female misery is not an option, then feminism's ongoing political interest is better served by actual female misery. Yes, even at the expense of women. Surely that is something to think about, if you are a woman considering feminism. Feminism's driving need is for anti-male spin. Such is the bizarre bottom line to all of this.

The entire 22-page report from which the screen capture is taken, may be downloaded from the following link. I am sure you will want to read this, for it contains very good information -- although not so good for feminism.

Friday, May 11, 2012

New Video -- Agitation and the War of Rhetoric

Ground-Breaking Counter-Feminist Activism in Sweden

I share, almost verbatim, a recently arrived e-mail from a Swedish correspondent.

What's that you say, we are not "activists"?
Then what the hell do you call THIS?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: ________________
Subject: The First Protest Ever of Its Kind In Sweden: The Children’s Rights To Both Their Parents Date: 11 maj 2012 10:35
Google Translation

 'Now we finally have the chance to stand up in a common call for all children in Sweden's right to both parents. This is thanks to Niklas Sundqvist who is the initiator of a joint protest. The first of its kind. It will be held in Stockholm on 13 May 2012. Do not miss this unique opportunity to show the leadership that we have had enough of their incessant violations of our and our children's right to family life. The demonstration will be held in Sergel Square in Stockholm. ... May 13, 2012 - Collection 12:00 Demonstration 13:00 to 16:00 
Organizer: Niklas Sundqvist Link for notification:
News submitted by Ulf Andersson PappaRättsGruppen
All right, so I'm only an agitator. But believe me, if I were able to hop on an airplane right now, and fly to Sweden, I would join that crowd in Sergel Square, Stockholm, and carry a picket sign for a few hours. Then I would return to the USA with material for some good juicy articles.

Feminism, as you know, set out to destroy marriages and families, and to turn fathers into parentally-alienated draft animals. They've had great success so far, but it looks like the tide is turning against them. Yes, in Sweden of all places! This is happy news.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

An Old Classic

This is like wine; it gets better with age. Don't you think so?

Keep in mind that Sharon Osbourne, the panel members, and the mostly female studio audience are not radical feminist fringe extremists.  Heavens no! They bear absolutely no similarity to the sociopaths that we encountered in the Agent Orange files, do they? These are just regular, average, mainstream people like you'd meet every day, right?


Speaking of the Agent Orange files, here's that notorious link once again:

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

More About Agitation and the War of Rhetoric

In a "made my day" moment, I recieved the following comments on the previous post.  
 Anonymous said...
Indeed feminism started as a war of words.Words were their weapons against us. I remember only too well knowing their words were LIES. Their turgid, dreary books and publications were everywhere. By repetition women took the feminist message on board unthinkingly. Men were caught in a sea of devil's vomit.
The feminists had friends in the MSM. They clearly also infiltrated the msm. The BBC is feminist infested, as are most TV stations. But who watches TV now? Only the dumbed down and shallow. I watch Russia Today which has intelligent commentary.
Yes we were verbally out-maneuvered (Verbal Karate). Feminists admitted to these tatcics. The trouble for feminism is, what once was a persistently challenging ideology, albeit a very dishonest one, now looks a lot older and BORING.

We have controversy on our side.We also can shock, provoke and get a message out that has one big advantage over feminism.
It is the truth.
So keep the war of words up Fidel. The pen (keyboard) is mightier than the sword!

Anonymous said...
I debated a feminist in real life today.

Thanks fidelbogen, i won the debate and even my little brother backed me up.

You are right about the non feminist revolution.
Indeed, I am right about the non-feminist revolution. The only way to overthrow feminism is by a revolution, and if I don't miss my guess, this ought to be the "non-feminist" kind of revolution -- as opposed to the feminist kind. Don't you think so?

There are plenty of activists out yonder in the world, working to modify anti-male laws, to create "men's programs", and so on.  The ones that "work with feminism" are worthless, so I am happy to report that many of them are not working with feminism. Take the SAVE organization, for example. The fact that this fine, upstanding lobbying group was listed as a hate movement (alongside of yours truly) by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is proof positive that they are not working with feminism. If the feminists were chums with SAVE, then rest assured SAVE would not have gotten onto that watch list. But they are on that list, which means that the FBI and other spooks are monitoring them. And this is happening because de facto feminist authority wants it to be happening.

As a thought experiment, what do you reckon would happen if Gloria Steinem got on the phone to Morris Dees, and said "Morris, you know, the SAVE group and that Fidelbogen guy are okay, they shouldn't be on the list."?

Yes, feminism is the ruling power of the land and we all know it. And anybody or anything which challenges the feminist narrative in a significant way, will go onto their enemies list. That's right, it's all about the narrative. Feminism proposes to make the feminist narrative the official story of reality. And the non-feminist revolution proposes to attack and undermine the feminist narrative by every possible means, at every point where it infringes on the lives of non-feminist men and women.

And how did SAVE attack or undermine the feminist narrative? It did so by challenging the morality of the VAWA legislation, and proposing a scrupulously fair-minded alternative. The SAVE people merely wanted to purge ideologically based anti-male bias from the existing VAWA, and to pass a new package that would even-handedly help whoever needed help, with no prior assumptions about the sex of the people involved. In other words, a non-sexist, hence non-feminist, measure.

But if their project succeeded, it would be a torpedo strike, midships, to the feminist narrative. Indeed it would! Patriarchy theory, and all that pertains to it, would be politically compromised. And that is why the feminist powers-that-be have attacked the SAVE group with a vile slander that millions of so-called "liberals" will sop up uncritically. You know the people I'm talking about. The stooges. The ones who respond dogmatically to certain shibboleths.  Useful idiots are called "useful" for a reason.

So when the feminists say that such-and-such group "refuses to work with feminism", what they really mean is that said group poses a threat to the feminist narrative -- either through not kissing the flag of feminist rhetoric, or through activism that would sap the feminist narrative by implication.

Now in time of war, the only way to "work with" your enemy is under a flag of truce, when you are negotiating as a sovereign power. We non-feminist men and women are (mostly) willing to "work with" feminism in this way, but none other.  For the only other way to "work with" feminism, is to collaborate with the feminist narrative, and effectively become a feminist yourself. And that is precisely what the feminists are demanding. So in the end, it is the feminists who refuse to "work with" people other than themselves. That is, they refuse to negotiate with non-feminist men and women.

Very well. The enemy will not negotiate, and so the war drags on. And that war, as I have made clear elsewhere, is very much a war of rhetoric -- or as my recent commenter called it, a war of words. No, we don't all belong to the activism section of the non-feminist revolution. Some of us -- me for example -- belong to the agitation section. Both sections are needed. Both sections are vital.

But here, read the following comment on a Counter-Feminist blog post from several months ago. This commenter signs himself by the name of Alphabet Supe:
"I'd go a little further and suggest that the agitator is more avante-garde than the activist. He's the flying bombardier to the activists infantry.

"Failure to properly agitate results in a continuing buildup of settled bad ideas that become harder and harder to remove as time goes on. The result is that less and less space is available for new ideas and the culture stops developing, eventually becoming stagnant and rotten. Agitation is necessary to re-suspend settled notions and flush out the muck.

"I don't think it's possible to change a culture until the settled muck has been shaken loose. We haven't yet reached the bottom layer of feminism, or smelled its foulest odors so, to my mind at least, the agitator's role is of primary importance."
Yes, the settled muck of bad ideas, within a culture, can build to a frightening depth and solidify as hard as rock. And so it becomes as hard as rock to blast it loose again. And the worst of this is, that those calcified layers become the only intellectual raw material available to us, the only "stuff" by which or through which we are able to process reality in the first place. And so the muck of bad ideas defines the limit of what we are able to cognize or imagine, the proverbial box which we cannot think outside of.

In the present case, we must fight our way clear from this sea of devil's vomit called the feminist narrative. We must break free by sheer will and sheer force, and we cannot make use of  ideology which the said narrative furnishes, for that would only pull us deeper and deeper into the hermeneutical sinkhole of the narrative itself. In order to reason independently of feminism we must, well . . . reason independently of it! It is precisely that simple. And in order to reason independently, we non-feminist men and women must plant our feet upon our own ground and, having done so, work to enlarge that epistemological standpoint more and more.

Now,  in order to stand our ground, we must have that ground in the first place. And in order to have that ground, we must claim it. 

But the initial act of claiming our ground can only be an elemental power gesture, a sovereign usurpation, a pure and simple taking. Happily for us, however, this taking turns out to be a taking back of what was originally thefted from us. We are quite honorably reclaiming our stolen property.

How to do this, you ask?

Just do it! That's how.

Chiefly, this doing will consist of mustering forces against our enemy. All manner of forces -- mostly social, intellectual and spiritual. But the nature of this is revolutionary because, after all, that is what revolutions do. They "just do it", and they do not bother to seek permission.

"Please sir, may I have permission to overthrow you?"

No, thank you very much, but that is not how revolutions roll.

Finally, bear in mind that for any conflict, the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. Thus, to simplify the discussion, if an aggressor uses arrogant presumption, then all parties to the conflict are likewise entitled to use arrogant presumption. And, mark well, this includes arrogant presumption about who is or is not the aggressor. Do you catch my drift?

So go forth and agitate. Fight the war of rhetoric, and use verbal ju-jitsu if it suits you. The aggressor has done this for years, and does it still. Do you intend to be their punk forever? I didn't think so.

Sunday, May 06, 2012

My Main Interest is Making Rhetoric Against Feminism

I am not personally interested in "activism" for "men's issues".

In fact, I am an agitator, and not an "activist".

And what I enjoy more than anything, is to attack feminism with words.

So what I really care about is RHETORIC.

Others are doing "activism", and I salute them.

But this is chiefly a war of rhetoric, and so it is all about scoring rhetorical points. Therefore, my endeavor is to score rhetorical points against feminism. As far as I'm concerned, that's the name of the game -- to denounce feminism by the power of words, and to sway hearts and minds accordingly.

I refuse  to "work with" feminism. That is out of the question, given that I wish to pull apart feminism as a societal construct altogether. I wish to make feminism stop existing.

In that way, I am striking at the root of evil rather than hacking at the branches.

And that, to me, sounds like a sensible approach.

Thursday, May 03, 2012

Justin Bieber Sings it like it Is

Mind you, not that I give two spits about the young pop singer Justin Bieber, but the significance of certain events does not escape me. The lad is quite popular among people of a certain generational subculture, and he was recently the target of attempted paternity fraud. The attempt failed, and Justin memorialized the experience in a song as the following tabloid article relates. It won't take long at all to read:

Justin Bieber writes song about fraudulent babymomma

What's this got to do with feminism, you ask? Well, feminism has empowered women to do many, many things -- especially things that would hurt or exploit males. Likewise, feminist propaganda and legal activism has generated a cultural climate in which the "deadbeat dad" trope has risen to special prominence -- aye, to a point of moral hysteria! Finally, feminist complicity with the paternity fraud industry is written in blazing letters by anybody who cares to look. I mean, they very clearly don't want paternity fraud to stop happening. Or at least they feel no moral urgency about this, as attested by their waffling, rationalizing behavior whenever the subject arises.

Very well . . . Justin Bieber's song might just hammer home, in the minds of certain male youngsters, some of the cruel facts of male existence in today's world. And that can only be to the political benefit of the non-feminist revolution. So, on with it!

Interesting Article in the UK Mail-Online

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Once Again: This is Worldwide

Take a look at the accompanying graphic scan (click on it) from a newspaper in India. Feminist aggression against the non-feminist sector, with men at ground zero, is a global cancer indeed. It is happening all around the world, folks!
And so, not surprisingly, non-feminist partisans are mobilizing against it all around the world.

Everywhere on earth, you will see the same pattern repeating itself. First, the feminist ideologues gain power in the government.  Next, the exploitation of men gets underway by means of  growing anti-male legislation. But in countries like India this is taking place with blinding speed, in a fraction of the time it took for Western countries.

That is why I share this clipping. It is one small particle of evidence, but gives you a microcosm of what is happening universally. It is a token of reality, a whiff of smoke which should awaken you to the presence of  fire. Really now, how many stories like this must you hear before you connect the dots and realize that something gravely serious is afoot?

There must surely be a threshhold or saturation point where the truth becomes plain as day even to the terminally obtuse, and where even the willfully "obtuse" must drop their charade of pretending not to know.

This stuff is real, it is happening everywhere, and reports from all around the world are just plain boring in their predictability and sheer consistency. I've read enough, heard enough, and talked to enough non-feminists from everywhere on earth that I know good and god damn well what I am saying. And I would not steer you wrong.

Is that how we wake people up? One particle at a time until the stories reach critical mass among certain cohorts, and finally make their leap to the public mind at large? I don't know, but let's keep doing what we're doing because it seems to be working. Too slowly, I grant you. But it does appear to be working!

They Have Done Something Rash

They have done something rash . .  and we've got them!

Here is another revelation of feminism's true face, on a par with the Agent Orange files. The Real Feminist we are now dealing with calls herself  "Krista", and she even claims to be starting her own movement. The following, taken from her blog, will assuredly whet your appetite for more. Click on this to get a more readable version:

So, Krista is a female supremacist, a bio-essentialist, and undoubtedly a Manichean essentialist as well. You will see from her picture that she looks like the kid next door. But she would be right at home in the Radfem Hub private forum, in the august company of Bonobabe, Luckynkl, JourneyMistress and all the rest.

Bear in mind that such feminists are "extremists" because they represent the extreme development of an organic underlying principle. So they are not outliers.  They are not extreme sui generis. Rather, they are extreme in context,  in reference to a unifying continuum. They are the extremity of a particular something.

So yes, I mean that all feminists are like this, but that not all feminists are so far along the road. But disaffection toward males, whatever its extremity or proximity, is the binding factor that glues all feminism together and makes it "monolithic". And radical feminism is like a crystal ball. It shows us what the feminist future will be if feminism follows its evolutionary trajectory to the logical endpoint.

In the following blog post, Krista allows how castration would be a deuced sharp idea:

Charming stuff, yes?

A bit of encouraging news. We may predict, that as the social heat and pressure upon feminism ramps up and up, more and more such people, saying such things, will be squeezed to the surface where non-feminist men and women can have a good look at them. For you see, the psychic tension within feminism, induced by fear and guilt, will grow unbearable if it cannot vent the toxins in this manner. So I am expecting more Kristas to be popping up. If we are wise, we will manage our rhetorical strategy in such a way as to occupy the moral high ground.

I am archiving the content of Krista's blog, and I would encourage you all to do likewise.

A Propaganda Milestone for Our Side

The BBC news magazine has just published an article about the MRA cohort of the non-feminist revolution. The article is titled Just who are men's rights activists? And although I was not entirely pleased with this article, I was mostly pleased. The article might not have been pure gold, but at least the author wrote in that professionally unbiased manner which is said to be the gold standard for journalism as a whole. The tone was even-handed (if boringly so), and free of egregious lies and distortions, and for that we may be thankful. We have risen a notch higher on the scale of public visibility, and we are hovering in the vicinity of mainstream respectability as well.

The Masculinist cohort was also given a mention. And none other than Aoirthoir his own self was interviewed, and even pictured! Kudos!

A side note here: When the Masculinist credo states that "all men are good", it means that maleness in principle is essentially good, in the way that fire or rain are essentially good. So, individual men can still be scumbags -- especially the ones who support feminism!

All right, the BBC article wasn't radical enough. Honestly, it was dull porridge. That was my principal complaint. But then, what can you realistically expect from the BBC? So I won't look this gift horse in the mouth any more than I've done already.

At any rate, the article was a pathbreaker, a harbinger of additional boring publicity to come. All hail boring publicity! I mean, publicity is publicity is publicity, folks. And it's all good, especially if it is not bad publicity. 

I'll sign off with one of my pet irritations. Toward the end of the article, we encounter the stylistically clunky phrase "men being discriminated against". This commonly heard construction grates upon my fastidious ear, and I would much rather the elegant phrase "men suffering discrimination" should gain currency.

By the way, any cutting edge journalist who wants to give this men's rights business a gritty and nuanced coverage, is invited to contact my honorable self. See the mail link at upper right.

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

New Video -- Feminism is not the World - WE Are!

This is a remake of an old video, but the quality is much better.

Also, the subject is important, and growing much more so of late.