Thursday, August 30, 2012

Stop Calling Yourself a "Feminist"!

The word "feminism" is tainted, so you really ought to stop calling yourself a "feminist". I don't give a snap what kind of feminist you are; if you call yourself a feminist for ANY reason, I won't even take the time to look into that. I might not say anything, but in my mind I will regard you as a highly suspect person. A fishy person. A "person of interest", as the police would say.

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen them all.

But if you stand up and declare loudly "I am not a feminist!", then I will smile, and look kindly upon you. And who knows, I might even decide to be your friend.

Now, that's something to think about. Don't you think so?

Political Spectrum Analysis: The Long and Short of Left and Right

The following video, featuring Walter Block of the Mises Institute, does a useful job of sorting out the accursed Left-Right Paradigm. It accomplishes this by showing that the paradigm only makes sense when you define precisely WHAT that axial continuum is purporting to measure. Economics? Governance? Religion? Foreign Policy? Socialism v. Fascism? Monarchism v. Bourgeois Democracy? Good v. Evil? If it is somehow vaguely intended to measure all these things in the same swoop, then you'll end with a tangled mess that makes no sense at all. Watch the video, and you will begin to understand why popular thinking on the question of Left v. Right, or "liberal" v. "conservative", is such a hopelessly muddled clusterfuck. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled for this video, so I'll need to send you directly to the channel:

This is quite relevant, as I'm sure you'll realize, to various tensions and debates that are now brewing within the pro-male community.


Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Barry Nolan Takes the Bait

This is in reference to my immediately prior post, where I share an e-mail I sent to Barry Nolan of The tone of my message was civil, as others may judge. Well, Barry Nolan fired back quick as a greased adder. His tone was anything but civil; indeed, I would cite it as an case of emotional reasoning tinged with hysteria. The message was composed in a white heat of reaction, and betrays either intellectual incapacity, or simple unwillingness to engage intellectually -- I'm not sure which. For starters, Mr. Nolan apparently cannot distinguish feminist from female, despite the gaping, canyon-like difference between these words. (Mr. Nolan, here's a hint: the "fem" syllable common to both words does not prove that they mean the same thing. You need to look deeper. )

And Barry Nolan lazily glosses over some other points as well. Likely he feels that respectful attention to political context, and to nuance, is a courtesy which he doesn't owe in the present case. And that, in the long run, is to his misfortune.

Finally, what I find especially amusing, is Mr. Nolan's suggestion that I suggested that I am a journalist. No. I have never remotely suggested that I am a "journalist", nor do I suggest it now. Granted, that to debate who is or isn't a "journalist", is like debating who is or isn't an "artist" or an "intellectual." But in the end, I claim only to do what I do, which is not at all a difficult claim to uphold.

Oh yes, journalistically speaking, I do wonder about Mr. Nolan. And furthermore, what does it say about Boston Magazine that they'd hire one such as he to provide them with copy? But then again, I reckon they know their market, so I won't tell them how to run their business.

For now, I will simply  post Mr. Nolan's e-mail in its entirety. Later perhaps, I will come back with further commentary. Or maybe not:
"Dear Mr. Fidelbogen,

"Yes indeed I did refer to your post as an example of a far right wing anti-women group. On your front-page for instance, you state: “in the feminist universe women cannot do anything wrong because feminism does not hold women morally accountable.” That is utter rubbish. You link to an article titled: “Feminism Spreads Lies Like a Fly Spreads Germs” where you claim that is a slogan you coined in a “flash of inspiration” – which you characterize it as “brutal”. You claim it is a slogan that will make its way into people’s brains and then never leave. I think that in total and viewed in context - you can reasonably be considered anti-woman,

"And, having spoken to a large number of normal people, I also think that most people would find your views to be both repulsive and pathetic.

"You ask if I would be “willing to address certain questions” that you would pose and then suggest it is because you are somehow a journalist. Mr. Fidelbogen, I know journalists. Journalists are friends of mine. You sir, are nothing remotely resembling a journalist. And what appears to be a veiled attempt to be intimidating by saying you intend to distribute this exchange to your minions around the world, is absolutely fine with me. Have at it. Distribute to your hearts content. Sunlight is indeed an excellent disinfectant.

"Barry Nolan"

Open E-Mail to Barry Nolan at Boston Magazine

I have just sent the following e-mail to Barry Nolan, contributing blogger at In this text, you will find all the needful explanation of what is presently going on. 
Dear Mr. Nolan:

On 8-27-2012, you posted an opinion piece at titled "Is Mitt Romney Dumber Than He Looks?". Link follows: 

In the course of this article, you made a number of interesting statements. For example, that Glenn Sacks is the leader of the False Rape Society.

 In the same sentence, you made reference to "far right wing anti-women groups", and as an example of this latter, you linked to a post on my very own blog, the Counter-Feminist: 

Mr. Nolan, I understand that your article was an opinion piece, and therefore not subject to such rigorous journalistic standards as might be practiced elsewhere. Still, it appeared to me that your work was a bit . . . one sided. As such, it left me rather confused, and I suspect that many others will find themselves in a similar state.

So, I wonder if you would be willing to address certain questions I would pose to you, regarding certain points that you have raised in your article? I propose this in a journalistic spirit of well-rounded enquiry, and look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience, to the address given below:

Additionally, I will post a copy of this mail on my blog, the Counter-Feminist, and circulate it among my various contacts in different parts of the world. I am certain that they, too, will find this to be a matter of lively and engaging interest.

Again, I look forward to your response.



Proof? How Much Proof do you Need?

The following item of vile, man-hating propaganda has recently appeared in the New York Times.


I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing. 

Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!

But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.

Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!

It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, but they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say so? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case manifestly eludes them. Don't you think so?

In conclusion:  every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all. 

Words to the wise. 


Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it. Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece wherein Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:

Update No. 2: A commenter has left the following instructions for gaining access to the NYT article being talked about here:

"To read the article, cut and past the link to google, erase all the url info at the end, and lots of hits will come up, some of which will access the article - this always works. notice, lots of links also to lots of sites talking about this pap. hey, do we need to go ahead and make the biology departments of universities a branch of the women's studies department now? maybe the entire university should simply be a place of women's studies, with various branches of academics under the purview of feminist departments? should we go ahead simply embrace this next logical step right now?"

Tuesday, August 28, 2012


"The Department of Education’s Sexual Assault Directive radically expands the definition of rape, removes the presumption of innocence, and shifts the burden of proof to the accused.  This encourages false accusations and erodes the credibility of true victims."
That's the "Dear Colleague" letter they're talking about.

All right, now go here to learn more:

Then, go here and sign the petition if it seems right to you to do so:

Hey, It's Just the Way Things Are!

Here I go again, reposting videos on the drumbeat principle.

Yes, 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.

Everything in this video should be taken as descriptive of the state of reality. I'm talking about the way things are, and predicting how they will increasingly become if certain trajectories continue.

The fact that men and women are separate political interest groups is precisely that --  a FACT. I am not calling for it, and certainly, I could wish it otherwise. I mean, it does not bode well for any civil polity that men and women are bidding to outdo each other. A house divided against itself, and all that sort of thing . . .

The blame for this status quo lies chiefly with feminism, although secondarily with those passive supporters and fence-sitters who refuse to speak up about it.

Now, the truly ironic and dicey thing -- which I don't touch upon in the video -- is that in order for matters to be put right, men as a political group must indeed (at least temporarily) follow a course that might resemble separatism.  But this is not so much separatism as reality-based politics. For if we are to derail the feminist juggernaut, then men-as-a-group need to mobilize for their group interests in order to be effective as a group. The central initiative against feminism must come from men, because men, being the bullseye of feminist aggression, have a unique expertise and insight that most women can't hope to match.

Yes, the central initiative against feminism must originate from within male territory. But in order for that to happen, there must be a male territory in the first place. So that is why men must galvanize themselves, and begin to exist politically as men. And when I say "exist politically", it is needless to add that I don't mean existing within the feminist narrative. No, that is not existing politically as men.

Feminist women (and their male supporters) will kick like hell, and scream about "misogyny", but women of conscience will understand perfectly what is being preached in the video, and have no problem with it.

Monday, August 27, 2012


Another polished gem from G.P. Telemann, musical god and avatar of the Light Masculine.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Mystery Link

What's in the surprise PDF? Try your luck!

Mystery Link: Clink if You Dare

All Non-Feminists are Misogynists!

This one deserves to make the rounds.

Stolen Treasure

I'd like to share something from the "Nice Guy -- MGTOW" forum, which I just now visited, briefly, for the first time in about 2 years. First, the commenter quotes a passage from a feminist book:
"One of the great insights of second wave feminisms was the recognition that "the personal is political" – a phrase first coined by Carol Hanisch in 1971. We meant by this that all our small, personal, day-to-day activities had political meaning, whether intended or not. Aspects of our lives that had previously been seen as purely "personal" -- housework, sex, relationships with sons and fathers, mothers, sisters and lovers – were shaped by, and influential upon, their broader social context. "The slogan…meant, for example, that when a woman is forced to have sex with her husband it is a political act because it reflects the power dynamics in the relationship: wives are property to which husbands have full access" (Rowland: 1984, p. 5). A feminist understanding of "politics" meant challenging the male definition of the political as something external (to do with governments, laws, banner-waving, and protest marches) towards an understanding of politics as central to our very beings, affecting our thoughts, emotions, and the apparently trivial everyday choices we make about how we live. Feminism meant treating what had been perceived as merely "personal" issues as political concerns."
Then he follows up with some thoughts of his own:
"It's clear to me that ... aside from Communism ... feminist theory is influenced heavily by cooking techniques; like improvising your own recipe for tuna casserole. Their argumentation is fraught with lasagna-like mixtures of ideas and concepts that permit them to play bait-and-switch whenever they debate you. Like a salad bar, they can pick and add anything they want to their desired taste, You go personal ("You're full of shit!"); they go global ("That's misogynyistic!). You go global ("That's an obvious canard."); they go personal ("My but someone is threatened about his masculinity!"). ..

"Every debate with them is like playing three-card monty with the guys on the street corner or trying to discern under which walnut shell the pea is. .Maybe this is the reason for it - they can switch between personal and political without considering themselves to be making any kind of change at all.

"If "the personal is political", how does that jibe with paying your bills on time or maintaining good personal hygiene, fixing a flat tire or grabbing a quick burger after class? Feminist thinking isn't intellectual at all. That's part of their overall pretense. Deep-down, they are anti-intellectual. So why are so many of them college professors?"
That is great stuff. Really great stuff. I'll should check out that forum in the future and see what other treasures I can find. But for all you neophytes who are still learning what feminism is, how it works, and why it is bad, the material I've shared here is pure gold. It affords valuable insight, and you can put that insight to work right away as a set of eyeglasses that will bring feminist (and feminist-influenced) behavior into sharper focus.

This war are in may indeed be a "war of ideas" on some level, but that is not how we play it. You may be aware that I have pretty much given up argument or debate, and learned to view this whole thing as a kind of street fight in which "winner takes all". After all, that is exactly how THEY play it, and will continue to play it, despite all pretensions to the contrary. And we'd be babes-in-the-woods to play it otherwise.

I call my strategy "post-argumentalism". Post-argumentalism does not eschew debate or argument, but simply acknowledges that such methods are not the mainstay of our operations, not the primary manner in which victory will be gained.

Here is a link to the original material on the Mancoat forum:

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Classic Intellectual Ammo for You

"Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates. The 1977 assertion that “the phenomenon of husband battering” is as prevalent as wife abuse is confirmed by nationally representative studies, such as the Family Violence Surveys, as well as by numerous other sources. However, despite the wealth and diversity of the sociological research and the consistency of the findings, female violence is not recognized within the extensive legal literature on domestic violence. Instead, the literature consistently suggests that only men commit domestic violence. Either explicitly, or more often implicitly, through the failure to address the subject in any objective manner, female violence is denied, defended and minimized."
The above is from a now-classic article, by Linda Kelly, in the Florida State University Law Review. If you have never seen this one, you'll want to download it and read it. No, seriously, you'll want to download it and read it. Here it is:

Enjoy, and share. I think it is apropos to what is happening in Australia at the moment.

A Funny Fidelbogen Impression!

And he makes some good points, too!

The original Fidelbogen video which he references, is here:

Friday, August 24, 2012

The "War" on Women

Partidul (Social?) Democrat din SUA și aparatul său de propagandă spune că toți cei care nu sunt de acord ca anticoncepționalele și contraceptivele în general să fie plătite pentru femei (și doar pentru femei) din bani publici sunt de fapt niște porci misogini care duc un „război" împotriva femeilor.
Atâta doar că „război" e un cuvânt prost ales!
Nu ne pasă de disputa internă între două partide corupte și misandrice - dar terminologia insultă victimele războiului pe bune, victime care-s în cruntă majoritate bărbați - oricât s-ar face unii că nu-i așa!

EN: The (Social?) Democratic Party in the USA is claiming through its propaganda machine that those who disagree that the birth control for women (and women only!) to be paid from public funds are just some evil pigs filled with misogyny who take their own „war" on women.
The problem is the term „war" - which is bad choice and an overstatement.
We do not care about the internal dispute between two corrupt and misandric parties - but this terminology insults the genuine victims of war; and these victims are in an overwhelming majority men - no matter how many people try to pretend that it is not so.

Feminists are Irrational Imbeciles Who Don't Live in the Real World

More backlash from anti-male reactionaries.

One of our people has put up posters on the campus of Melbourne University in Melbourne, Australia. These posters make known that women commit half of all domestic violence. So the Melbourne University feminist group has struck back quicker than a greased viper.

Dr. Greg Canning, another one of our people, has this to say:
"Posters put up at Melbourne University stating "Domestic Violence: Women are half the problem" have the fembots of the student union in a flap. They have coerced some males into a campaign against , . . .  holding signs calling for action on "violence against women" but not against men. These guys are half the problem as well!"
Here is what he refers to:

This confirms yet again what we have known for many years, that working with feminists or engaging them as functional adults with grownup emotions is utter futility and a waste of time.  What the hell is their problem anyway? Reading comprehension? Not one of those posters -- NOT ONE! -- even remotely suggested that violence against women is okay!

And anybody who would miss that is either a flagrant liar, an incorrigible dolt, or simply not right in the head!

It is also clear that those little boys with the signs, or their feminist handlers, or both,  think there IS a reason for violence against MEN, that violence against men is NOT everybody's problem,  that violence against men is NOT never okay, and that no joint effort toward ending violence against men is even warranted.

You would think that with women being half the perpetrators and men being half the victims, the rhetoric would to be more two-sided. More balanced.  You would think that, wouldn't you? But evidently, my friend, some people don't think the way we do!

At any rate, this is no news, since we've always known that feminism is an anti-male hate movement. And because we've got this knowledge fixed in our minds, everything they do is transparent to us, and none of it ever surprises us. It makes us want to explode sometimes, but never does it surprise us.

Isn't it weird how some people have the nerve to rattle on and on about so-called "misogyny", and never ever but never shut the hell up about it? Given that our culture so flagrantly disregards male suffering, and so clearly esteems male life no more than a bucket of spit, what the hell obligates me, as a male person, to esteem female life more than a bucket of spit?

I pose that question in a purely theoretical way, devoid of emotional context, as one might pose a problem in logic or geometry. So would anybody care to answer it, in a purely theoretical way, devoid of emotional context, as one might respond to a problem in logic or geometry?


Here is the attack blog which the anti-male group has put up at Melbourne U. Most of what they say sounds like a case of projection. I am pleased to see that many of our people have already populated the comment thread:

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Yee-haw! Lasso that Perpetual Revolution!

Pecos Bill, the legendary Paul Bunyan of cowboys, riding a tornado like it was any ol' twisting bronco in the rodeo. And I think this is the very image of what we are involved in.

Anti-Male Backlash in Vancouver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Plastering the Rancid Heart of Enemy Territory

Feminists are aggressively territorial animals; have you ever noticed that? Not only do they handle disagreement piss-poorly, but they go rabidly on the attack when their physical "village precinct" is violated by unabashed display, or even mere suggestion, of an alien (to them) worldview.

From the earliest glimmerings of pro-male consciousness near the end of the 20th century, clear down to the present day, we have an unbroken chronicle of such behavior stockpiled in our collective memory.  You have only to breathe the tiniest hint that "something is not right here", or "men are being treated very wrongly", and you will be greeted with silence, with mockery, or with hysterical demands to. . . shut the fuck up!! This was true in the 1990s -- and we were far more polite in those days! And it remains every bit as true today, in 2012. The foundational state of things has changed very little, although we've gotten louder, meaner, and at the same time more wily and sophisticated. And the feminists have reacted to our gradual evolvement of methodology by running progressively more complicated editions of what they have always done -- but their attitude has not changed! Not a whit!

In the early days, we never, ever but NEVER talked about "fucking their shit up" or anything of the sort. We grew into that state of mind by slow increments, as we realized that being nice to a bunch of assholes was complete futility, and that we had nothing to lose by turning the heat up. People are not born radical, you know. They become radicalized, and for a reason. We ourselves have been a case in point.

So now we are going on the offensive as never before, and quite predictably, "offending" them. But I'm afraid that's the only way you can ever deal with a corrupt, bloated establishment. You kick it, and hold your nose when the jet of foul gas shoots out under pressure.

Apropos of all this, our very own KARMA MRA MGTOW -- the pioneering "poster boy" from the land down under -- has made a lightning blitzkrieg run on feminist turf.  The turf in question is Monash University in Melbourne, and as I gather, the action occurrred less than 24 hours ago.

Our dauntless lad plastered his MRA MGTOW karma all over the Monash landscape in the form of pro-male posters, of which the accompanying photograph will give you a general notion. Click on it if you want a more legible view.

Anti-male elements on campus were shocked, offended, scandalized by the appearance of this alien worldview. Apparently they found it "disgusting" that the public should be informed that women commit roughly half of all domestic violence. Open dialogue about the state of reality is evidently not a priority for these people.

It's like the 1990s never went away. Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Except that they've gotten worse in this case.

The Monash action made such an impression within the campus community that it garnered headlines in a local news journal,  the Waverley Leader:

When you read the linked article, you will see that the feminists are up to their timeless, time-worn tricks. Take the following, for example:
Monash Student Association president Esther Hood said the inflammatory posters were “disgraceful”.
“To imply that women are responsible for half of domestic violence cases is not only disgusting but grossly innacturate,” Ms Hood said.
 Well, Ms. Hood has made clear that she disagrees with the message on the posters. Fine, she is entitled to her opinion. I mean, we all have opinions, right? But I'd surely appreciate a more detailed statement of  Ms. Hood's opinion, so that if I feel inclined to do so, I'd have equal opportunity to tell her how grossly inaccurate and disgusting it is. And I think the best plan would be for Ms. Hood to personally print up her own posters with her own opinion and plaster them all over campus. I'm pretty sure nobody would lift a finger to stop her. So why the hell can't she get her lazy ass busy with that project, eh?

 The comment thread was a delight to read. Most of the items on it were solidly, and I mean SOLIDLY, on the pro-male side. But I'll start with one that wasn't, or rather, a single sentence from it. It is from one who signs as "Brigitta", and the person she's addressing seems to be Paul Elam:
"You show no sign of compassion or empathy towards anyone."
Now, I left two comments, only one of which got through moderation. What follows is the one that didn't make it, and it pertains to Brigitta's remark above:
"@Brigitta: You have suggested that Paul [Elam] shows "no sign of compassion or empathy toward anyone." To me, that sounds like an incredible statement with no evidence to back it up. But perhaps I am missing something here. So I was wondering if you'd care to provide evidence that Paul [Elam] is lacking compassion or empathy toward "anyone". And while we are on the subject, would "anyone" here care to show signs of compassion or empathy toward men, who are half of all domestic violence victims?"
And I will conclude with my favorite comment on the whole thread, which nails feminist hypocrisy to the barn door with a fat crimson streak running down from it.:
"I've seen university posters across the country demanding that the working classes rise up and over throw the government by means of bloody revolution and NO ONE bats an eyelid at them. Why is it normal to on a university campus to advocate violent Marxist revolution, but to make the very reasonable point that women are as much a part of the problem of domestic violence as men are, unacceptable? Also, who gave them the right to decide that freedom of speech doesn't extend to the viewpoints of the people posting this posters? How dare they silence people they disagree with yet enjoy the freedom to spread man-hate and bloody revolution? "
Well, by now we've had enough experience with such activism to know what will happen when pro-male ideas are shoved unapologetically in the world's face. Yes, we've been down this road a few times, and we know what to expect. And that is, that anti-male elements in the vicinity will react swiftly, primitively and viciously, under the impulsion of fear and guilt.

 Curse me, but this is delicious. And getting tastier by the minute!

I understand that the news of the Monash action also got some local radio play. I was sent an audio file of a campus feminist being interviewed, but this was in a strange format that none of my applications could handle. Damn!

Once Again: It is Time to Go Ambient

The drumbeat goes on, and it seems to me that repetition is the key to drumbeating of any kind. I am confident that none may plausibly dispute this.

One commenter had the following to say:
"Reminds me of theories of Organization: Storming, Norming & Performing. I think we are still Storming."
Hmm. Sounds about right.

Another commenter said this:
"Attempts to politicize MRA are indicative of the persistence of the binary left/right political paradigm. Feminism is obviously leftist identity politics adapted for female gender-specificity. Those who subscribe to the left/right paradigm will frame any argument within the confines of that paradigm. While it is important to recognize this dynamic in order to effectively counter feminist dogma, it is equally important to recognize that the political right is no friend to the MRM, either."
That comment, too, holds considerable philosophy. I do have a smile with the commenter's use of "MRA" and "MRM" as nomenclature, but he zones right in to the nub of the matter when he reminds us that the political right is no friend.  For it is trite, boilerplate thinking of the worst sort, to believe that  feminism is inherently "left-wing", and that "the right" is somehow inherently pro-male. No. Misandry, in company with gynocentrism, runs as a uniform dirty streak clear across the culture. And from this dirty streak, as from a soil, the feminist root system draws sustenance. Those on both the right AND the left, who declare that feminism is strictly "of the left", cannot or will not see the mycelium for the mushroom.

In fact, left and right are equally in the enemy camp so far gynocentrism goes. But the good news is that the red pill demographic is equally represented on both sides. The growth of red pill consciousness is happening clear across the culture, and cannot do otherwise, because the factors of formation are equally present through the entire sociopolitical spectrum.

The left has been quiet so far, due to the Stalinesque anti-male peer pressure which operates so powerfully in that sector. But more and more of them are speaking out these days, and aligning with the non-feminist coalition. And that is good.

On the right, there is and always has been a conspicuous red pill cohort -- and it displeases me that so many cannot see that. In fact, that is precisely what sticks in my craw, when I hear people saying that "the right is no friend".  This is true, but only by half.

What counts now, is no longer the traditional categories of "right" v. "left", but red pill v. blue pill. An entirely new cultural ethos is "slouching toward Bethlehem to be born", and it will be founded upon the pragmatic necessity of holding gynocentrism and misandry (that is, feminism) in check.  The phrase "non-feminist coalition" neatly sums up the requirements of such a task, and charts the necessary course of it. To hold feminism and its destructive consequences in check, a new configuration of forces, and a polite overlooking of historical differences between those forces, will be needed.

It is the feminist worldview, as an over-arching construct, that must be brought low. 

The placeholder terms "right" and "left" may come to be emptied of their present significance, and thereafter filled with something entirely new. This has been the way of it in the past, and I expect the future will be similar.

For now, bear in mind that we are growing in number, and that as we do so, we transition from microcosm to macrocosm -- which is to say, we become complex and ambient, and too big to shake a stick at.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Todd Akin, Feminist Biologist Extraordinaire!

Todd Akin, Republican senatorial candidate from Missouri, has said something stunningly brilliant. In fact, it's the most stellar saying I can recall for a long little while, and Einstein himself would certainly strangle Mr. Akin in a fit of jealous rage. Anyway, I'm sure you've heard it by now. Akin was arguing against abortion, but whatever your stance upon that hotly contested issue, his words will make you drunk with amazement:
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said on KTVI-TV in St. Louis. 
He is saying that, well, rape never got anybody pregnant. But wait, he specifies "legitimate" rape! So I guess he wasn't talking about the illegitimate kind, right? Yeah, that's it! If you are "legitimately" raped, you will not get pregnant. So, does "legitimate" mean that you deserved it? Or, as seems more likely, does "legitimate" mean authentic? Does it mean that the act in question genuinely was rape, as opposed to, say, consensual sex? All right, I'll take a flying guess that is what Mr. Akin means.

Still, I'm confused. We all know that consensual sex can turn into rape several days later, if the rapee reflects upon it and, in retrospect, feels violated.  After all, our good friends the feminists assure us that when a woman feels she has been raped, then indeed she has been. So all she must do is go to the police and report having been raped, and the report will be duly filed and proceedings initiated. Trouble is, in the time lag between the initial non-rape, and the eventual "legitimate" rape which it retrospectively turns into, a pregnancy might get under way. I mean, a zygote might even find time to become a blastula!

So, it must be that the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, right? I mean, the minute a woman decides that yes, it was a legitimate rape, her body goes into auto-abort and terminates the pregnancy. Is that how it works? Yup, by golly, I reckon that must be how it works. Mind-zap your way into feeling that you were raped, and you will not get pregnant! It almost sounds like the morning-after pill, doesn't it? But it's way cheaper, so even Sandra Fluke could save some money that way! :)

My heavens! What amazing progress for women we see nowadays! First, feminism balloons the once-constricted possibilities of the rape phenomenon to include all manner of things you would scarcely imagine. Next, the wizard biologist and aspiring U.S. Senator discovers a new form of natural birth control that can be actuated by, yes indeed. . . rape!

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. . . .

Roll 'em up together and, by gumbo, you've got yourself a winner's blend!

More here:

Interview with DV Shelter for Men

He will be interviewing the director of a DV shelter which accepts men, and would like to have ideas about questions to raise during this meeting. Click through to his channel to leave your contributions.

Saturday, August 18, 2012


Great stuff, don't ya think? I would remind you that we don't (in theory) need overwhelming support from the female population -- or anything close to it!  A mere fifty or so "broad"cast towers like GWW could transmit shockwaves around the world, exploding feminist brains with a collective splat that would reverberate even in the darkest corners of the Canadian arctic.

But seriously, GWW's shitty adventure should remind us who we are dealing with. We are dealing with irrational fanatics and even malignant narcissists, similar to those who made Erin Pizzey's life hell. Their proclivity for criminal violence predictably surfaces when they are cornered. You see, cornered feminists, like cornered rats, will use their teeth. And their milder supporters aren't much better.

This puts me in mind of the recent minor kerfuffle on Davey Futrelle's blog. Some of his undisciplined supporters wished that pro-male YouTubers were more "visible" -- which, I could add, might tend to make them more personally traceable or "doxx-able". (The "demand for visibility" is a recurring theme among many feminists, including Jessica Valenti.) Well Davey distanced himself like a madman from all of that, entering the enemy camp (this blog right here!) to announce that he did not endorse what his undisciplined supporters were saying. 

The lightning-swift touchiness of Futrelle's reaction was interesting. And his motives, in terms of strategy, are clear enough -- at least to me. For quite some time, the mainstay of Futrelle's game has been to smear the non-feminist community using guilt-by-association. He has repeatedly tried to fabricate a linkage between the pro-male project and violent individuals such as Anders Breivik -- typically through a combination of quote-mining and  ignoring the political context. Herein, he walks in step with anti-male policy overall, but he's definitely a point man.

At any rate, Futrelle wants to fight clear of anything at all, on the feminist side, which might suggest that the feminist side is capable of thuggish behavior. For that is precisely what is hinted at, when various feminists demand that politically outspoken non-feminists go public with their names and faces. After all, when you are public, you are publicly available for people to take a poke at you -- or worse.

Manifestly then, Davey fears that some taint of imputable thuggery will attach to feminism, rather than to non-feminist people as he would prefer. And although he can't control what the more undisciplined feminists do or say in this big wide world, he can at least keep his own plump little fingers clean, to some extent, by taking the stand he has taken in the present case. Evidently, it means a great deal to him.

Friday, August 17, 2012

The Original "MRAs"

I can now state for a fact that the MRA acronym dates back to at least 1990. That is how long the Australian Men's Rights Agency, a men's and fathers's advocacy org, has been in existence.They have a very nice website, here:

You'll enjoy reading about what they do, and you'll also enjoy digging through their archives -- evidently dating back to primitive BBS days. Lots of news stories and good information on topics of interest.

Pussy Riot Goes to the Pokey

Note the following:

Now, as a person not friendly to feminism, I would beg to remind you that this band, Pussy Riot, identifies as "feminist". And  for that reason alone, I haven't got much sympathy for them in the jam they've gotten into. Mind you, if they had been "just folks", and not expressly tagged as "feminist", it would put the case in a rather different light. But the fact that they are "feminist" cancels out, so far as I'm concerned, any other political significance or moral credit which their actions might carry. To me, it seems like just another case of feminism horning in and co-branding itself with causes and issues other than its own, in order to shield itself behind the banner of those causes, issues, etc.

Therefore, when I read this story I can only shrug my shoulders indifferently and say "whatever."

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Feminists Aren't the Only Ones Who do Stuff Like This

Study this carefully and learn what you can learn. It is classic stuff. And creepier than shit.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Taking the Bitter with the Sweet

I am re-posting the following brief remark which a pro-male partisan posted elsewhere on the web about an hour ago. I think it nails a certain bulls-eye with acuity:
"Christ made it clear when he stated '“One of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to [Jesus], ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.’ But He said, ‘On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it’ (Luke 11:27,28 NASB).

"Women have no claim in childbirth, they have no claim on the outcome of a child. Women have always sought to be honoured and revered for giving birth to a prodigy, as if they played some important genetic role in the greatness of their child. If this is true then women must also suffer the consequences of giving birth to murderers, rapists, pedophiles and every other evil in the world. It is either one way or the other, there is no middle ground."
I cannot refute the logic of this. It makes perfect sense.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Breakdown on "Patriarchy"

Remember two things about this "patriarchy" idea:
  • It is coherent when too narrowly defined to be broadly useful.
  • It is incoherent when too broadly defined to be narrowly useful.
Summing up: Latitude of utility varies inversely to coherency of definition.

I wrote the script for this video some time in 2005, at least a year before I started the blog. It reflects the earlier stages of my political awakening, when I was working out the basic stuff.

Finally, the most useful way to understand the word "patriarchy" is to know it as a feminist codeword for male power -- in whatever form such power might occur. I talk about this in another early essay, here:

What They don't want You to Know

So in the end, all the intellectual thickets of feminist "patriarchy theory" are nothing but cover or camouflage for the feminist drive to "empower" women by reducing male power as much as possible in every way. The feminists disagree on the details -- for example, the radfems would push it all the way to complete male genocide -- but they all agree that male power must be reduced.

However, the logic of all feminism spirals naturally in the direction of radical feminist thinking. For this reason, the Agent Orange files (or any similar material) are a kind of crystal ball, showing us where the future will naturally trend under the organic development of feminist innovation.

For the record, I do NOT believe the future will arrive in the form which the radfems hope for. Collateral forces of history will intervene in the dialectic and put a rude stop to it. Male power,  for good or for ill, will come barreling back. Hopefully, for good. And if some folks have their way, gynocentrism will never be the same again.

Download the Agent Orange files here:

Monday, August 13, 2012

Oh, Lighten Up About This!

Here is a quick little snapshot of mainstream popular culture. This is comedy, of course, as you can tell from the laugh track...right? Needless to say, it is only fiction. And yet it is represented as funny, or at least nothing to get worked up about. Well I don't know who should be most offended by this: men, whom women are being taught to deceive in the most treacherous way imaginable? Or women themselves, who are being depicted as the most vile creatures imaginable?

It is, however, difficult to imagine a feminist getting riled about this unless she (or he) could find some way to put an anti-male spin upon it. That is what feminists do, after all.

Now, go and download the Agent Orange files if you have never done so:

I would have you observe the very consistent male-negative or male-exploitive pattern which runs like a bright red thread through all of the culture. The tired old argument that radical feminists are only a tiny cult of fringe extremists sounds weary indeed when you reflect on the prevalence of anti-male attitude, in one strength or another, throughout the social fabric. No, the radfems are not the "fringe". They are the concentrated, uncut, undiluted center. Always remember that.  

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Anti-Male Scumbaggery in High Places?

You have heard it said that if women ruled the world there would be no wars, and life would be sharing, caring, nurturing and stuffed to the gills with empathy, etc. Yes, I'm quite certain that we've all heard that style of talk by now, n'est-ce pas?

All right. There have recently come to light some illustrative rumors about women in seats of power -- in this case, the Department of Homeland Security under the watch of Janet Napolitano:
"Two lawsuits have charged the Department of Homeland Security of anti-male discrimination and nepotism. The agency superiors promoted women over men, turned a blind eye on sexual harassment and retaliated against complainants, it is alleged.

"One of the lawsuits that made headlines this week comes from James T. Hayes Jr., a longtime special agent at the DHS division of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He focuses on two appointees of agency’s head Janet Napolitano.

"Hayes claims that Suzanne Barr, ICE chief of staff, would regularly intimidate male subordinates with sexually-offensive behavior. On one occasion she called a male employee to her hotel room and demanded to perform oral sex on him, the complaint says. Another time Barr covertly took a male Special Agent’s Blackberry phone and sent a message to one of his female colleagues indicating that he "had a crush on the female supervisor and fantasized about her," Hayes said. . . ."
 Interesting stuff, yes? You can read the whole story here:

The Beat Goes On

This is a quick sequel to the Vancouver poster riot which I blogged about a couple of days ago. As you might or mightn't know, the pro-male activists at the scene (John-the-Other and Jack Day) spoke with the Vancouver police, and the screaming feminists also spoke with the Vancouver police, and an understanding was concluded. Namely, that the feminists would not tear down posters in the future, and that the activists would not publish photos and videos of said feminists on the internet.

Now, as so often it goes with treaties and ceasefires, this accord didn't last long. Jack Day informs me that he was postering today, and guess what? Those same two feminists AND a male friend were following behind and ripping down the posters almost as fast as he put them up.

Well be assured that this was captured on digital "film", and that the principles are clearly identifiable. But no, this will not be posted online. Or not yet, anyway. The pro-male forces are playing it cool, controlling the narrative, and keeping the Vancouver police on their side. Yes...they're playing their cards just right. Good for them.

In the end, if anybody emerges as a so-called hate group, it will be the Vancouver feminists. Stay tuned.

Friday, August 10, 2012

How do Rape Laws "Rape" Thee? Let Us Count the Ways!

SAVE Services has published an excellent, highly informative article concerning the "state of the art" of rape prosecution in the USA. The article summarizes, in a drily factualistic manner, what you'll be facing if (heaven forbid!) you ever get accused of rape in this country. I am grateful to SAVE for sharing such information, but is this the sort of thing which earned them a place on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate-watch list?

The SAVE article is titled How Rape Laws Remove the Presumption of Innocence, and you may read it here:

Point of special interest: the article informs us that in the state of Washington (where I live), presumption of innocence does not exist for the defendant in a rape trial. That is, that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that no rape occurred. And that is why I, if I were called to rape jury duty in this state, would not vote for conviction under any circumstance.

Thursday, August 09, 2012

The Slime

It's All About Mutual Aid

Here is a young man in a lousy situation, who sounds like he could use a bit of support. He seeks advice, so consider leaving some helpful words on his channel.

On the other hand, if you're a feminist who thinks that male life has no value, then you'll want to kick him into the abyss any way you can...won't you?

Please note: The person you see in this video is not me. So address your comments to him, on his YouTube channel...not to me on this blog.

Words Which Bear Repeating

 The following comment was left by Stu at AVfM, in reference to the late Vancouver poster riot. I am publishing the comment here because it pulls a lot of threads together:
"Without having done any research on the issue, I’ll bet that there were posters claiming the human rights or civil rights of blacks in the civil rights campaigns of the past, and I’ll bet they got torn down too.

"The people that do this are the same as the racists of the past. They are comfortable in their racist communities, and live in fear that people might start to change and become accepting of blacks, then they would have less company in their racist little enclaves.

"Guys, from this, and from all the things that are happening around the world, in Maine with its DV witch hunts, in Australia with its draconian “The Plan”, to the UN with its various declarations, it is obvious that men…….all men…..regardless of color, religion, or any other defining characteristic, are the new niggers, the new Jews, the new subhumans. All of us are men before we are anything else, and it is the rights of men that are being denied and eroded.

"My message to all men, especially those of color, or minority status is this, you can fight all you like for the rights of this group, or that group, or any race, religion, or ethnicity, but it won't do you one bit of good if you are a man, because if men don’t have rights, you have no rights under any banner. Just as men are the new subhumans, feminists are the new racists. Manginas are the new Uncle Toms, and white knights come in all colors."

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Dateline Vancouver, BC: Feminist Fear and Guilt in Action

I cannot begin to tell you how fine this makes me feel. But in a way, I am disappointed. And why? Because it was too easy. It was anti-climactic. All they had to do was make a public stand, and supporters appeared right and left. The feminists, of course, acted true to character. I mean, we all know how feminists are...right? But unhappily for them, they exposed themselves to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze -- and a harsh, unforgiving glare it was!

Well, we all know what cockroaches do when the light goes on, don't we? So my question is, how much of this can they endure before their fear and guilt sends them scuttling for cover. And I don't just mean on the streets of Vancouver or some other city. I mean in the culture generally.

The action detailed in this video is a microcosm for what we can expect as the opposition to feminism starts mushrooming. So let us hope that the enemy will be thoroughly humiliated by the gathering crowd in the culture generally. And then, at long last, we will see the feminists slinking around like guilty dogs.

We'll see who comes down on the right or wrong side of history, won't we?

I would encourage you to watch the video several times so that you will thoroughly absorb what it has to teach.  Isn't it too fucking weird, that the concept of male human rights makes some people go batshit crazy with fear and guilt? So, are you still gonna tell me that misandry isn't real?

By the way, I am expecting great things to happen in Edmonton, Alberta as well! ;)

Chasing the Beauty and Power of Feminism

This video is from the YouTube channel of St37One, who comments on my channel occasionally. It wanders through darkly jagged, and jaggedly dark, psychic terrain -- don't you think so?

New Video -- Feminism is What WE Say It Is

Definition of the word feminism is no longer a feminist monopoly. We, the men and women of the non-feminist sector, are entitled to have a go at this game too! We seek to know what the word feminism means FOR US. What the word means for the feminists has ceased to be a point of any interest -- except when you wish to "know thine enemy" by seeing through thine enemy's eyes.

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

The Consequences of No Social Contract

This video preaches some very strong philosophy. Mind you, there is not a grain of so-called "misogyny" anywhere in it -- and I defy anybody to prove otherwise, preferably with timeline citations.

All the same, I am quite aware that such strong philosophy leaves me open to smearing attacks by hysterical ninnies and emotional reasoners. Well it's a hazard I'm willing to undergo because I serve a higher master than feminism -- namely, the truth.

What I preach here is both descriptive of present conditions and predictive of the growth trajectory which those conditions will follow unless something is done to set the world on a different course. I am not calling for any woeful things to happen, but rather issuing a call to prevent them from happening. Feminists and others are free to cooperate in such a project, or to not cooperate.

I hold every feminist on earth personally accountable for the present and future situation which is spoken of here, and doubly so if they attack or attempt to silence voices such as my own.

Monday, August 06, 2012

A Walk on the Lighter Side

Here is something a tad bit different, which I'm sure you'll find entertaining:

I'm quite impressed by the outlandish menagerie of cretins that David Futrelle keeps for pets. I don't know how he puts up with their little hissy snits and dramas. But then, they put up with him,

Sunday, August 05, 2012

I Decline to "Trust Women"

"Trust Women" is an utterly vacuous weasel statement, and it ranks right up there with "men can stop rape."

Seriously, there is no such entity as "women" on whom to meaningfully bestow "trust" in the first place. I do not "trust women" for the same reason that I do not acknowledge any "duty" toward women -- because "women" simply does not exist in the sense implied here, and so cannot be the recipient of such actions as suggested.

Whosoever craves my trust must earn it, by demonstrating their fitness to be trusted. And a mental phantom such as "women" cannot demonstrate such fitness any more than demonstrate the reverse of it. Now, if you were to point your finger and say "those women, right over there", and I could vet those women one at a time to assay their trustworthiness, then we might have a deal. That is, assuming that at least some of them met my standards.

But just plain "women", with no allusion to anybody particular? Now, that's what I would call a null variable.

So again, I do not intend to "trust women", any more than I intend to "trust men" -- and this is on highly principled grounds! I mean, I don't take it kindly when people use hanky-panky semantics to impose a moral fraud upon me.


Eivind Berge - Norwegian Pro-Male Activist

If you have not made the acquaintance of Eivind Berge, the Norwegian pro-male activist, you ought to do so. (Norway is not quite as bad as Sweden, but getting there.) Eivind Berge's blog is here:

In the page linked above, he talks about his recent arrest, incarceration, and exoneration by the Norwegian court system. I gotta say -- he's got stones! His case made a splash in Norway, and even if some of his written remarks were a tad bit over the top, his victory is a victory for outspoken pro-male partisans everywhere.

Saturday, August 04, 2012

New Video -- Accelerating the Death of Bad Ideas

Let's summarize the main takeaway points from this video, and add some related thoughts which aren't precisely in the video:

1.That our "movement" is not truly a movement, but a collection of movements which jointly compose a non-feminist microcosm of humanity.

2 .That this microcosm constitutes the politically-awakened part of the non-feminist macrocosm.

3. That this microcosm is growing, and pulling in more and more of the surrounding non-feminist macrocosm, and that the latter is becoming politically awakened in consequence.

4. That the (politically awakened) non-feminist microcosm and the (politically awakening) non-feminist macrocosm jointly compose the non-feminist sector.

5. That the non-feminist sector constitutes the world at large, and that "the world" is not a group which can be singled out as a political entity.

6. That as the politically awakened non-feminist microcosm grows and swallows more and more with the non-feminist macrocosm, ideological schisms and organic differentiations of function will naturally form.

7. That such schisms and differentiations are inevitable, are part of  "how the world works", and are a source of strength rather than weakness.

8. That such fractionization may be considered a new twist on "divide and conquer", i.e. that you divide yourself in order to effect conquest, rather than divide the opposition for that purpose.

9. That the specifically feminist system of moral evaluation has been nullified -- hence the saying that everybody is entitled to be liberated from feminism.

Friday, August 03, 2012

Men's Rights Reddit has an Alter-Ego at EpicTopic!

Somebody has talked me into being a moderator on a new web community, similar to a Subreddit. The name of this web community is Men's Rights --Pro-Male Knowledge Base, and it is located at, here: 

As you see, I have posted the very first item. It is a very important Call-to-Action video by GirlWritesWhat, and I know you will not regret giving it a look -- yes, it is that important!  Here it is:

Anyway, please do bookmark this, and spread the word, and help us to make it grow.

Also, join and post your own topics.


Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Let Us Now Bitch-Slap Joseph Biden!

Let us bitch-slap the crap out of Vice-President Joseph Biden. Let us STFU the hell out of him! He is a filthy liar, a piece-of-shit feminist collaborator, a traitor to all men and to all women of conscience, and you can tell him I said that!

Perhaps you have heard about the notorious episode where Biden "plagiarized" a speech by the British politician Neil Kinnock? Well, I'm not terribly fussed about that incident myself. Considering the trifling magnitude of what he actually did, I'd call it a faux-pas at worst. But still, I'd like to quote you the relevant passage. Here is what Biden said, which closely paralells what Kinnock said:
"Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife... is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? ...Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand."
Joe Biden sounds mighty frigging proud of his ancestors who worked 12 hours in a coal mine and played football for four hours when they got off shift. Personally, I think they were a contemptible lot of fools. I would spend every precious second of those four hours recuperating from the trauma of twelve hours in the pit -- that's what I would do! If I wasn't sleeping like a lump of anthracite for that entire time, I would be doing something, you know . . . spiritual! Something intellectual. Something restorative, cleansing, uplifting. Something that would develop my "inner platform", if you know what I'm saying.

 But Joe Biden's ancestors -- oh no, they didn't have much common sense, did they? They preferred to bang around on a field for four hours immediately after banging around in dark, poisonous, life-threatening conditions for 12 hours -- leaving a slim eight hours in which to sleep, eat, wash up and whatever else before they went back down again. You know what? It looks like Joe Biden's ancestors weren't exactly the brightest lamps in the mineshaft. . .were they?

All right, now that I've insulted Joe Biden's ancestors, let's dig down to the real coal seam of the matter. We all know that Mr. Biden is an incorrigible bigot, with a one-track mind, on the subject of domestic violence. He is also what we call a white knight, a gynocentrist, or a woman-firster. That is to say, he is perfectly happy to throw innocent men under the bus in order to serve women. When he was a kid, little Joey's sister Valerie would slap him around with impunity, protected by a parental "nuclear sanction" if her brother should ever strike back -- even in self-defense!
"In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there was an absolute - it was a nuclear sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-defense - if you ever touched your sister, not figuratively, literally. My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager, my confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our household."
"And I have the bruises to prove it."(laughter)
"I mean that sincerely. I am not exaggerating when I say that."(laughter)
And it seems that these were not the only occasions when little Joey would let his sister get away with anything:
"When they were children, Mr. Biden was a member of the safety patrol, but he turned in his shiny blue badge rather than report his sister for her bad behavior on the bus one day. "
 And now that little Joey is a big Liberal Democrat Vice-President, he wants to inflict his own childhood on the entire male population. That is why he sponsored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)  back in 1994 (with a little help from Conservative Republican Orrin Hatch) and that is why he goes on repeating anti-male lies in order to maintain this legislation in its pristine radical feminist form.

So, Teri Stoddard has posted a call-to-arms over at the SAVE Services website, exhorting us all to get in Joe Biden's face. Now, I don't believe for one minute that Biden doesn't know where it's at. He knows perfectly well what the dispute is; many people, in many ways, have informed him over the years. And yet, Biden has never once acknowledged the state of the debate. If he would at least hold a press conference and flat-out tell us we are WRONG, that would be a huge step forward.  The trouble is, that he has never admitted the existence of any controversy at all. He keeps it in the shadows because he knows that if he shines a lamp on it, it will enter the public discourse and there will be no end to it.

So in a nutshell, Joseph Biden is a guilty dog who knows exactly what the problem is but won't step up to the plate because he wants to keep the problem just the way it is. And if I am wrong about that, then he had better call a big press conference and PROVE that I am wrong about that!

Very well, go now and read Teri Stoddard's statement at SAVE. You will find plenty of good links there.And consider e-mailing the politicians in question, especially Biden himself. But I urge you to maintain at least a "barely respectful" tone, difficult as that may be. If you intend to savage him,  you should do this in public statements and not in private communications:

But seriously now, I don't believe this chump will ever amend his ways.  And that is why I'd like to sentence him to a  northeast Pennsylvania coal mine for the rest of his life. He should work the ancestral 12 hours under the same conditions his ancestors worked -- none of these new-fangled union benefits!  And every day when he trudged wearily out of the mine at the end of his shift,  a bevy of Playboy bunnies in swimsuits would be lolling near the exit eating strawberry shortcake. On random occasions, one of them would walk up and smack him upside the head the way Valerie used to do, leaving a bruise to prove it. And if Joseph Biden ever so much as touched that Playboy bunny --  not figuratively, literally, even in self-defense -- then he would directly get a nuclear sanction in the form of a 400-lb company guard pummeling him with a rifle butt. Then he would be sent away, snivelling, to his mandatory four hours of football.