Saturday, September 29, 2012

"Inconvenient Truths"

From the online Otago Daily Times of New Zealand:
"New Zealand mothers kill more children than any other group in society and men are victims of domestic violence as often as women, a police investigation has found.. . . The review of 95 family violence deaths involving 101 victims between 2004 and 2011 revealed some "inconvenient truths", Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said." 
From the same article, further down:
"The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence. . .  One example was White Ribbon Day, which he had been critical of because it focused on female survivors of domestic violence and there was "no comparable day for male victims" . . . "It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame."
 Notice that somebody is not bashful about calling out feminism by name.

 You can read the entire article here:

I reckon Dr. Martin Fiebert will add the survey to his bibliography when he gets around to it, eh? At latest count, the list contains 286 entries:

New Video -- Is Feminism a Good Thing? - Part 2

The War Against Men

Stop the War Against Men. . .
(or there will be no peace)

Makes sense, doesn't it? If a war continues -- any war at all -- then, ipso facto, there will be no peace. This is a straightforward, logical, humanitarian and non-violent statement.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Zooming Out and Zooming Back in Again

The so-called "men's movement" is a complete train wreck. It is not proceeding efficiently toward any goal. There is nothing of discipline or policy or strategy about it, let alone any kind of governing philosophical worldview. Wise heads do not prevail, and braying jackasses dominate the field everywhere you look.

I am frankly bored spitless by most of the yakkety-yak I am hearing among our ostensible comrades-in-arms.On and on they go, flogging the same old dead horses. On and on they go, natttering about the same old dreary, unimaginative garbage. Round and round they go, stepping in the same old pitfalls, the same old pisspuddles, the same old dog shit, time after time after time.

Yup. It reminds me of the Three Stooges or the Keystone Kops. 

You call that a "revolution"? Pshaw!

For the record, there has never been a revolution without a vanguard of some kind. Without a central cadre of some kind. Oh very well: without an elite of some kind. There, I said it!

To balance the gloomy picture, I will admit there IS an inner circle of philosophers and strategic thinkers -- in fact, several such. I have sat in on some of their tete-a-tetes, and can report that my time was well spent. But such occasions are very much an exception to the general hee-haw, jackassery, and time-wasting bullshit that you will find in our visible realm of public rhetoric.

Very well, I shall proffer some words to the wise which ought to be sufficient. The vanguard forms HERE. Yes, I hereby appoint myself  dictator and preceptor-general of the non-feminist project, and invite all who have the right stuff to gather in the vicinity. There, I said it.

Yes, I know. Nobody wants to be the guy with the big ego, but then again, sometimes that's the only way to get things done. Nowadays, sadly, you are required to apologize like hell for even having an ego at all. This is considered "trendy". You are expected to shrink your ego to the size of a pinto bean and hide it in a drawer, like an unclean secret, under meaningless clutter and old papers that should have been thrown out long ago.

Away with all of that! Death to all of that! I don't mind saying that I have an ego of robust and healthy dimension. In fact, I contain multitudes, stretching to the limit of the known universe. . .and even beyond! That is precisely how big my "ego" is, and I wish others could encompass a similar magnitude. I really do.

But enough about me.

This is not about me!

We do not mix the personal with the political, so when I speak ex cathedra as preceptor-general of the non-feminist project it is not about "me", or about any singular personality, or about the personal dimension of reality. It is about powers and principalities, thrones and dominions, forces of nature, forces of history, and other such goodies. In a word, it is about politics in the largest way you can imagine. And that requires the aggrandizement of my ego, and yours, until it breaks through to the other side and . . . pouf! It disappears!

The enemy wants to rid you of your ego by reducing it to the infinitessimal -- that is, by sucking the life out of it. I, your humble preceptor-general, want to rid you of your ego by ballooning it to the infinite -- that is, by filling it with life in superabundance! Hell's bells, why be a "petty Napoleon" when you can be an  infinitely large one, eh? Pettiness is the last thing we need around here. Urbanity and collegiality are the order of the day, my friends! And trust me, those things are deadly weapons.

Sit quietly now, and meditate. Feel your life force rippling in all directions, on the wings of a cosmic particle wind, to the limit of the furthest galaxies and quasars. That is how big I want your ego to become. When this is over, you should never look at "going your own way" in quite the same old way again.

But most of all, you'll need this for the politics that lies ahead, right here on earth.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

New Video -- Is Feminism a Good Thing?

Monday, September 24, 2012

Standing Ovation for Female Masculinist

How can I not share the following?

I have been informed that Deborah Kendrick, prisoner's rights advocate, death penalty opponent and member of the Masculinist community, has given a pro-male speech at a college in North Carolina and gotten a standing ovation from most of the audience. This was to the mortification of the feminists who were present -- and there are nearly always a few of them, at least, on any given campus.

The non-feminist revolution is a cultural groundswell that is bubbling to the surface all across society, and will become more and more apparent. I am lucky to have the "inside wire" for knowing these things well in advance of  most people, and even further in advance of what the mainstream media will tell you.

And it seems that people who aren't necessarily what you'd call "MRAs", might be willing to slap a few pro-male posters onto walls here and there. Little by little this is going mainstream. But that is how these things work; just study history! is good.

But don't get too comfy just yet.  It's still the best of times and the worst of times, and we're nowhere near being out of the woods. So . . . onward!

Sneak Preview of the Counter-Clothesline Project. Shhhh!

Ha! And you thought pro-male mischief couldn't get any "worse" than the postering campaigns in Vancouver, Seattle, Edmonton and. . . elsewhere.  Well have a look at what the near future holds:

 Of course, that is only a trial mockup for the Real Deal, which is scheduled for later this week at a major university. Yes, it is a pro-male parody of the infamous Clothesline Project, which, in case you don't know, is a vicious anti-male psychodrama enacted on college campuses everywhere. The activist involved in this work says the following in a recent communique:
"Attached are some  pictures of what I have done so far. . . .. I shortened the exhibit. 30 feet was just too big for me to handle all by myself. I took a lot of materials back to the store. It took me a long time to get the overall tone and feel of my message stated correctly. I have only mildly spoken unfavorably of Walk A Mile In Her Shoes, White Ribbon Day, and the Clothesline Project on one shirt. I don't want to get accused of trying to censor others. And I only did so because I can effectively argue that having to see all those rallies with sex-specific language, as a man, IS a men's issue and also that my exhibit is primarily about men's issues. If people come up to me and try to change the topic to women's issues (which they will), I will remind them that that rally was last week and there are two other rallies scheduled to address women's oppression and will tell them that right now, I am talking about men's issues and trying to provide a time and place where we are not overshadowed by women's issues. If they get belligerent, I will stay professional and remind them that they are on camera and that no one, not even me,  bothers the demonstrators at the Clothesline, The Walk, or WRD. I can remind them that I have avoided going to those rallies and disrupting them and would like the same courtesy. But, it still might get out of hand so I am going to notify campus police beforehand."   
And I think that gives you the general idea, right? Here is a closeup of a couple of the shirts:

You know, violence "against women" is the least common, and overall, least serious of the several forms of violence which our world contains. Futhermore, it is harshly condemned by society, and everywhere you go there are men who will pummel you within an inch of your life at the slightest hint that you just might have lifted your hand against a woman. Overall, women are the best protected class in society. And that is not to mention that they commit half of all relationship violence -- both against men and against other women. So this hysterical, monomaniacal cultural obsession  with violence "against women", with its accompanying demonization of the male population, seems grotesquely disroportionate to say the least. It reveals a festering cultural neurosis that I don't even want to think about.

All right. If I were in his part of the country, I would certainly drop by and give him a hand with the project so that the original 30 ft. exhibit could be put on display. But alas, I am literally thousands of miles away and stuck to the spot, for now. At any ratre, I will certainly do a post-game writeup toward the end of the week. Hopefully there won't be any Femistasi with box cutters cutting in on the action.

MRA in India

At present, India is the undoubted global hotspot for pro-male activism. The front page of a major daily newspaper, shown here, will convey the flavor of it. (Click to enlarge). We should remind ourselves, every chance we get, that the femplex octopus spans the globe with its tentacles, and that forces are mobilizing in paralell to metaphorically  pile up embers and scorch with hot iron where necessary.

The Pune Mirror article in question is online, for your reading pleasure, here:

I find it interesting that the acronym "MRA" stands for a real-life, brick-and-mortar Indian activist group -- the Men's Rights Association. I am not, personally, a member of that group -- although I wonder if they would accept me as an honorary, overseas correspondent member.  Nor, as is known, do I employ the term "MRA" for a self-appellative. (I prefer the unassuming, teflon-coated term "non-feminist".

By the way, I think the headline was meant to read as "safe HAVEN" rather than "safe heaven".  ;-)

Sunday, September 23, 2012

More Light on the Political Landscape

Wednesday, September 19, 2012


Rhetorical Disciplining

 The following comment has appeared on the post immediately prior to this:
"Women of today are actually easy to deal understand - if her mouth is open for more than pleasuring a man, she's lying. Just accept that she will lie, cheat, and everything else - so your job is to out-smart her. It isn't difficult she's a female and lacks your reason, and ability.

"Use your advantage. And never make the mistake of thinking of a woman as more than someone who will lie, cheat, steal, and murder to get what she wants because she has been taught that she is OWED what she wants...

"Your job is to not give it to her, and use her for your pleasure - they can be trained, but will turn on you if they ever sense fear..."

And I responded to that comment in the following terms:

Your rhetorical style is not politically efficient, and your declaration of sentiments is not in line with the policy of this blog. Nevertheless, you are quite welcome to your opinion, and I will not censor you.

However, I would refer you to the four points of rhetorical discipline, which are:

1. Discreet utterance
2. Tonal mastery
3. Narrative frame
4. Message Discipline

One needs to be firing on all four of these cylinders. You lack fire altogether on cylinder no. 1, and partly on cylinders 3 and 4.

The complete manual of rhetorical discipline is available at the following link, and I recommend that you study it: 
        The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

I might also wonder if you are a feminist provocateur, engaging in false flag tactics. We get a lot of that nowadays, now that the conflict is heating up and entering a new phase. They will do anything they can to prove that non-feminist people are 'violent misogynists', and they love nothing better than to point to words such as yours, in proof of "why the world needs feminism".

But the truth is exactly the reverse. Words such as yours should be cited in proof of why the world does NOT need feminism. "More feminism" will only spawn more of the very same attitude which you are expressing here. And that is is precisely what the feminists wish to see happening, because it will validate them and pave the way for...that's right, more feminism!
The very last thing they want to see, is less of the attitude you are expressing here. They love it when people talk that way, and they can't get enough of it.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Man Refuses to Have Sex. Woman Tries to Kill Him, then Threatens to Cry Rape

From a recent UK news article:
A heavy-drinking drug user has been jailed after stabbing a man in the belly because he refused to have sex with her. Joanne Buckley, 29, would not let her victim David Tawes seek medical help after plunging a knife into his abdomen and told him she would say she knifed him because he tried to rape her.

Read more:
My quick thoughts on this: If we lived in a state of "normality", then this would be just another sordid crime story, to make us shake our heads and shudder. That's all it would be.

However, we do NOT live in a state of normality. Things are, in fact, not normal. And the abnormality in question arises from the present state of sexual politics. What I mean to say, is that context matters. And in the context of cultural and institutional misandry, this story becomes "loaded" in a particular manner.

It speaks tons, that women are morally licensed to lie and take advantage of men in such despicable ways as we see here. The drug-addled little alley cat in this story understands perfectly well that the Dark Feminine is given free license in our culture, and she knows just how easy it is to accuse a man of "rape" or attempted rape, and get away with it. So, the episode described here is not sui generis. It did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in a political context, and once again, context matters.

Granted, the given episode was so egregious that truthful justice prevailed. And thank goodness for that!

All right. I realize that the woman in this story has problems, and no doubt has a tormented life history. But in the present political context, I am not bound to feel any sympathy at all. If she is looking for sympathy then, as the spry old adage goes, she can find it in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis". And that's all I've got to say about that.

Peace. :-)

Pro-Male News Article from India

I like to keep tabs on the international scene. Anti-male bigotry is a global cancer, after all, and so our struggle is necessarily global. Yes, we are brewing a storm in a teacup, and our teacup is planet Earth itself. Consider, for example, the following activist from India, the worldwide hotspot for pro-male political awareness:
"About The Author
Virag R Dhulia, a software professional, has been a prominent men's rights activist. He has been engaged in creating awareness about the abuse of men and their families through anti-male and gender biased laws like Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act etc. He has been instrumental in networking with fellow men's rights activist both across India and abroad and has played key roles in organizing events to create awareness about abuse of men by the society."
All right, so much for the author. Here is the article he wrote for an Indian online publication. Enjoy:

Sunday, September 16, 2012

New Video - An Army Outside Their Door

The only "argument" they will ever pay attention to, is the demographic growth of those who oppose them. When they see an army camped outside their door, they will finally understand the wisdom of negotiating.

This video is a remake for the sake of higher production standards.

I should add, that the present state of historical reality is not "normal". As soon as we fix the currently existing monstrous inequities against men, we can all go back to being happily 'normal' again. But until that day, I'm afraid normality just ain't on the cards, folks!

And we can thank feminism for this.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Adam Kostakis in Portugese!

Have a look at the following:

Yes, that is Adam Kostakis's Gynocentrism Theory, translated into Portugese!

But, if your Portugese is as rusty as mine, you might prefer the work in its mother tongue, here:

So. . . if you have not yet encountered Adam K.'s work, you need to get busy. Now. He is one of our premier counter-feminist philosophers, and I am happy  to see him on the way to reaching a global audience.

Quick Activism -- Give Biden a Push in the Right Direction

Go here, and learn all about it:
Yes, even us agitators like to have a go at activism now and again.

I like the direct link to the White House that you will find there.

The Offer Stands

About two months ago, I posted the following bulletin for the enlightenment of this blog's feminist readers, giving them an opportunity to distinguish themselves -- to stand out from the crowd, if you will -- by an act of non-ideological engagement with the non-feminist world. To date, nary a one has taken me up on this offer.

Well, to be honest, I'm not surprised. I was expecting that. However, be that as it may, I consider it a test. And the results have been entered in the database (tapping my forehead here). These test results will be contributory to a moral judgment which I am forming, toward and about feminism and feminists. The way I see it, you had your opportunity to learn, and ultimately to negotiate, and you did not avail yourselves. And so I am judging you accordingly. The passage of time, along with further silence from your side, will increment the weight of this judgment.

However, the offer stands as always. So here, once again, is the bulletin which I posted in July of this year. Do take it under consideration:
Things are moving faster now, aren't they? Non-feminist and pro-male forces are gathering strength, and spreading their influence in countries around the world. More and more people are recognizing feminism for the corrupt, bloated monster it has become, and are wondering what to do about it.

If you're a feminist, then you ought to have some healthy curiosity about these matters. After all, you are vitally concerned in all of this whether you like it or not, and whether you know it or not.

So if the objective definition of the situation is important to you, then you've come to the right place. I have been part of this scene for almost ten years, and I've been a close observer and contributor. Furthermore, I've got the memory of an elephant, I am very branché (as they say in France), and I have my finger on the current pulse of things. So if you don't quite savvy what is happening over here in non-feminist land, then I'm just the man to bring you up to speed.

Here are the post-argumentalist rules of engagement:

1. I will not attempt to talk you out of feminism.
2. You will not attempt to talk me into feminism.

In other words, no debate or argument of any kind. The goal of these purely political talks is mutual clarification, to shed light upon the political topography. Some feminists appear to have bizarre ideas about "MRAs" and whatnot, so this is your chance to become the cool kid among your peer group, the one who is "in the know".

You may ask questions about what the non-feminist side is really doing or saying, and if I don't find these impertinent, I will offer a clear and frank reply. Trust me, you can learn much indeed from such a one as myself, if you are game for it. Somebody once called me "the E.F. Hutton of the pro-male movement", and I do strive to be worthy of that assessment.

Please note that nothing I might communicate will compromise the interest of the non-feminist side in any way.

Don't let fear, or guilt, or anything like that get in your way. I may be reached at the following address:

Talks may, if deemed appropriate, be ported to the Skype platform.

This is your opportunity. You may take it, or not take it. Your choice, whichever way it goes, will be revelatory.

Friday, September 14, 2012

The Femistasi and the Plain Old STASI

There is a group of what you might call "feminazis" in Vancouver, B .C. who only half-ironically call themselves the femistasi. You have met them by now. They are the same posse who attacked the pro-male placards in the progressive Commercial Drive district, on the grounds that said placards were "hateful", or the like. Let's not mince words: these femistasi are viciously aggressive moral wolverines, and I wouldn' t put anything past them at all. But never forget that they call themselves femistasi by their own free choice, so you and I, dear friends, are free to follow their lead by calling them exactly what they call themselves.

I suppose their rationale might be, that the East German STASI was a Communist org -- hence "left-wing". You know, as opposed to the National Socialists, who are deemed "right wing", hence, I don't know. . . . somehow worse? Mind you, I get that the STASI didn't operate death camps, so clearly they must shine by comparison to the Nazis, nicht wahr? Sure, I guess I can sort of understand why a pro-feminist, anti-male gang in Vancouver, Canada, would embrace the monikker of  "femistasi" in preference to "feminazi." No doubt they find it all very artsy, edgy, and tongue-in-cheek, to call themselves such a thing. And I know they depend on you to smirk knowingly along with their cutesy, masturbatory, avant-garde little inside joke, and to never-but-never remark how closely their own attitude resembles that of the original STASI.

So I will never-but-never call these progressive Vancouverites "feminazis". Feminists hate to hear that word for any reason at all, so Femistasi it is, all the way! See how accommodating I am?

Now, the word STASI is short for Ministerium für Staatssicherheit -- that's "Ministry for State Security", if you're curious. This ministry was founded in 1950, when the smoke of war had hardly cleared and rubble still lay in heaps. And for the following forty years it held the German Democratic Republic under a pythonic reign of Schrecklichkeit which I earnestly hope you can't imagine. (It has been my honor to converse with Germans who lived in those times!)

At any rate, the original STASI never cared one spit about about human rights, so it is all of the same cloth, so to speak, that their current quasi-namesakes in Vancouver become apeshit-angry over the slogan that "men's rights are human rights."

Derek Bedry of is certainly a case in point, and when he fabricated his own news in order to write a fake story about people he wanted to destroy, he operated from the same bag of tricks that his East German role models dipped into for many years. But I should in fairness add that the original STASI had far worse tricks up its sleeves than that. So I reckon these Vancouver femistasi just never get a chance to show their stuff, do they? And so they must discreetly draw the line at pony league projects. For now, anyway.

So with all of that echoing in your brain, I send you to the official Wikipedia article about the original East German STASI. I would encourage you to study the long list of "examples" -- especially toward the end, where it features propaganda smear tricks these gallant lads got up to when they weren't bloodying their hands with matters purely murderous:

And when you are done with that, you will enjoy this:

Finally, to highlight yet again the karmic arc of misandry which runs from all quarters to all quarters, here as usual is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Thursday, September 13, 2012

And Now, the News!

Pro-Male Street Action in Edmonton, Canada

On September 11, 2012, there occurred in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, Dominion of Canada, another Walk a Mile in Her Shoes parade. In case you don't know, that is a feminist skin disease which flares up periodically, as a rash on the surface of the social body. I say "on the surface", but the etiology should be traced to the core.

The purpose of this parade is, ostensibly, to "draw attention to violence against women", or some such rhetorical phrase. But the actual purpose is what you might expect: to affront, degrade and humiliate the male population in a ritual, symbolic manner. Male participants -- some voluntary, some not -- will put on ridiculous spike-heeled footwear (you know, the kind which the patriarchy forces women to wear!) and then literally walk a mile, en masse, in view of the general public. The whole spectacle is designed as a participatory public psychodrama, meant to enact the neurotic tribal narrative of a certain social cohort, and to draw more and more people into that very same script.

And the subtext is, of course, to empower women by making men more manipulable through real or imagined guilt. Well, mostly imagined, but that's fine so long as a self-flagellatory, "male culpa" ethos instills itself into the collective male psyche. That's what feminism is for, after all.

Walk a Mile in her Shoes is but one of several such public psychodramas that are periodically enacted and becoming as culturally entrenched as Easter, Christmas, Chanukah, Valentine's Day, the Superbowl, the Fourth of July, and so on. Other examples of feminist zeitgeist engineering would include Take Back the Night, V-Day, the Clothesline Project, the White Ribbon Campaign, and the Vagina Monologues.

The general public, I'm sad to say, has trotted along with all of this like obediant livestock.You will frankly not find a lot of critical detachment or acerbic intelligence at work in the vicinity of such trajectories. For the most part, people are passively sucking it all up, much as you'd predict of spectator drones who've never known a world without television or similarly invasive media.

But here and there, in a few heads, the light is on. One of those heads, needless to say, belongs to the present writer. But the present writer is not alone. He is part of a growing phenomenon which is now breaking surface and spreading out, in growing sheets and patches, all over the world. Yes, things are moving.

Thus, the recent Walk a Mile parade in Edmonton did not occur without the visible presence of a counter-feminist greeting committee. Their numbers, I grant you, were small. But they were planted in the public eye in broad daylight -- that's the important thing!

My informant, a chap known as Eric, was part of the crew on that day -- and the crew also included the notorious Girl-Writes-What. They came well equipped with signage, handouts, knowledge, the gift o' gab, and a truck with a big banner on the side. (In case you can't read it, that says "Men's Rights". I like the "waving man" logo!)

So anyway, they drove the truck around, displayed signage, talked to the public, and handed out literature. You know, standard stuff for these kinds of gigs. Contrary to what I myself might have done, they did not dangle dog-collars in the air or hold up signs with shaming slogans directed at the wobbly male critters in funny footwear. No, they played it polite and cool, and chatted quietly with people. And that's fine. They're the ones on the spot, so I reckon they know the scene better than I do. Anyhow, on maiden voyages you are generally just testing the water.

Eric told me some interesting, and largely encouraging, things. Overall, he said, the public was receptive and non-hostile. That is good, and it tallies with what we are seeing elsewhere -- in Vancouver, for example. There were a few episodes of snarkery from passing males, but these were minor and infrequent.

There were a couple of intriguing vignettes. On one occasion, GWW spoke with members of a high school football team, and those lads informed her that they had effectively been forced to participate in the parade. If they had not done so, they would not have been permitted to play football. I am told that they were friendly, and interested in hearing more about "men's rights."

On another occasion, a cranky old woman yelled "men have too many rights already!" Needless to say, that's rich. If I'd been there, I'd have said something like, "okay, so which rights do you plan to take away in order to make it even?"

So, I think it went nicely for them, way up yonder in Edmonton. Keep in mind that this was a first run, a shakedown cruise. You can't expect much drama in the beginning, when the enemy has not yet gotten wind of your arrival. And even when they do, they need time to scramble their forces.

This has been a report from the front, from the non-feminist revolution, a social change phenomenon which is breaking to the surface everywhere in many forms, and spreading over the ground with a flow that increases steadily in volume. It is both a force of nature and an idea whose time has come. There is no stopping it, so why not join it?

Why not join it right now?


This is Atheism Plus



This puts me into blissful reverie and contemplation. Life in the vineyard can be that way, you know.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012


What have we here, you ask? Why, this is a dog collar. In theory, it might be ideal for dangling saucily in the air (maybe on a willow wand), in view of spike-heeled male participants at some hypothetical "Walk a Mile in her Shoes" parade. Again in theory, they might not understand the symbolism and what it conveys, but no doubt they'd catch onto it soon enough.

I'm sure there could be other hypothetical occasions where the dog collar might be of use -- for instance, if some dude wanted to pin one of those white ribbons on you. You might just dangle that collar archly, two inches in front of his nose, between thumb and forefinger. In some far-fetched literary scenarios, you could even give him the patented sidewise-arched-eyebrow-smirk®  while you're about it! ;-) I'm sure he would theoretically appreciate the kind thought.

Better yet, take a look at the next picture. Now this here is what we call a dog biscuit. Note how the canine symbology carries through. So if,  in the theatre of your mind, you were to meet the guy with the white ribbon, it is conceivable that you would put on a benevolent, pacifistic face like unto the Quaker man of oatmeal fame, and say unto him: "here, a biscuit for thee, my friend." 

In my mind's eye, I can see the ribbon dude romping happily on his way,  wagging his happy little tail too, if he had one.! :)

Now, take a minute to revisit this old classic:


Another View of the Femplex

Here is an interesting YouTuber I have somehow escaped knowing about until now. This will help fill you in about the definition of the situation. Some of it might even intersect with your own philosophical Venn diagram -- you never know. But it's always nice to know what's out there. And indeed, as I am daily discovering, there is more and more out there. More than anybody can keep up with. It is becoming ambient.

Let's Feed Jezebel to the Dogs!

I attempted to post the following at, but evil computer glitches made this impossible. Happily, I saved a copy. I share it here because I believe that some will find it instructive:
It is interesting how you speak of this nebulous group you call "MRAs", yet never make precisely clear who you mean by that.

Well the plain truth is, that for you, "MRA" is nothing but a one-size-fits-all smear word. If somebody claims to be an "MRA", then you will brand that person as every bad thing your imagination might conjure, regardless of who the person actually is.

And if somebody never claims to be an "MRA", but voices a strong pro-male rhetoric, then you will call her an "MRA" regardless of what she calls herself -- hence smearing her with all of those imaginary, unspecified ne'er-do-wells.

The bottom line is, that strong pro-male rhetoric will cause anybody at all to be branded and smeared as a social reptile. 

And so Jezebel's moral stance, as shown in the present article, is anti-male. The posters proclaimed that "Men's Rights are Human Rights". That was the message.  No more and no less. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not a message that any reasonable, liberally-minded person ought to argue with. You can smear the messengers all you like, but the message itself will shine through eternally and uncorruptibly. You cannot damage it, but only damage yourself if you attack it.

All right. You have made a sneak attack here, and it was clever, but you can't fool all the people all the time. For in the end the fact shines through, plain as day,  that you don't like the idea of men having human rights. That idea sticks in your craw. And when you duck the issue by smearing the messenger, you are concocting a cover story to give yourself an easy "out". But again, you can't fool all the people all the time.

What's that you say? I'm  full of shit? All right, then put your money where your mouth is. How about posting the message on the banner of Jezebel? Wouldn't it look nice up there? Picture it: "Men's Rights are Human Rights." Go on, post that slogan on the banner of, and show some solidarity. Prove to all the world that you are decent people who do not hate and fear men!

But you guys will never do that because you don't like the long-term implications of such a statement. You see, it is a moral tar-baby. By acknowledging it, you would bind yourself to it, and so bind yourself to the endlessly expanding moral ramifications down the road. Wouldn't you??

Also, it would be a moral victory for those mythical "MRA" people. If you complied, you would lose face. Wouldn't you? And if you didn't comply, you would also lose face. Wouldn't you? Sounds like a lose-lose proposition for you. Doesn't it?
Yes, I've got the moral high ground here, and you don't. So don't even dream of coming back at me, because there is no way you can do it. 
On a parting note, can you possibly prove that those postered statistics are wrong, instead of just claiming that they are wrong? Are you all bluff and no bite? Give it a go, champs! ;-)
As a courtesy to my readers, I will provide context for the above. Go here:

I find it both interesting, and damnably revealing, that they call the posters "misogynistic" -- that is, woman-hating. Yet they offer not a crumb of evidence, or even cogent argument, to support this claim.  And so we are left to scratch our heads, and rely on the resources of our own imaginations, to understand why in God's Name it is woman-hating to equate men's rights with human rights.

The Patriarchy Oppresses Women With Shorter Prison Terms

The Huffington Post, as you may know, is considered a "liberal" publication. Well nowadays, the good, old word "liberal" has (let's face it!) come to mean something like "politically correct Tartuffe". So what a delightful surprise it is read to read the following . . .

. . . .which actually breaks the hegemonic narrative, and admits that men have it a lot worse than women by at least one very important metric. Namely, length of prison sentences for comparable crimes. Yes, yes, I know, I know -- we've known this for years. For people like us, it is definitely Old News. However, what is new news about this, is that the information might be gaining establishment cred.

Lest we forget, when men get sent to prison, they enter the most savage "rape culture" on planet Earth. That is especially poignant when you consider that a lot of men get sent to prison for rapes which they did not commit. And convicted rapists (innocent or otherwise) are among the first to get "bent over the sink" in that environment -- that is, if they are not outright killed.

A word to you neophytes:  just remember that the world is rife with juicy examples of women living on easy street by the grace of anti-male double standards. All you must do is cast your eyes hither and yon. And remember to keep a notebook handy so you can jot down such items.

In the end, there is no honest evidence that women, overall, are particularly "oppressed" by comparison with men. It is only through selective blindness (or willful ignorance) that a person might leapfrog to any such conclusion.

Yes, my neophyte friend, that is how people like us become people like us. We study the world and connect the dots and learn to see the big picture. The proof is out there, by bushel baskets. All you must do is unblinker yourself, and roll up your sleeves, and gather the grain..


Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Debate – Has Feminism Gone Too Far? – Live in Vancouver

I cross-post the following from the blog.

Date: 23 September 2012 3 PM PST
Location: 1315 East Hastings Street, East Vancouver, B.C.
A Father’s Story[1]
and A Voice for Men presenting:

Has feminism gone too far?

YOU are invited to answer that question. Yes it has, or no, it has not.
That is the question asked in September of 2012, by a woman of integrity and courage. She posited this question as the premise of a public debate. It was to be discussed by three individuals from the contention that yes, feminism has gone too far, and three individuals arguing that no, feminism has not gone too far.
Unfortunately, following the announcement of this scheduled debate on the social networking site Facebook, that woman was rewarded for her attempt at public discussion by a torrent of abuse and threats. Some individuals apparently did not want a debate. Not only did they not want to participate, they wanted nobody else to either. Under the weight of abuse and threats, that woman whose integrity and courage moved her to propose a public discussion – cancelled the event.
Understandable as the cancellation was, it was also disappointing. But there’s good news.
The debate is back on!
With very special thanks to the East Vancouver Debating Society, A Father’s Story [1] and A Voice for Men will be presenting the re-scheduled debate: “Has feminism gone too far?”
Chris Marshal the manager of CC Motors will be graciously hosting this event at his business CC Motor Cars[2] – where his concept on business is that a good deal is one where buyer and seller is happy.
The debate will be held on Sunday 23 September 2012, 3PM at 1315 Hastings St in East Vancouver, B.C.
The debate format will be three speakers presenting arguments affirming the debate proposition and three speakers presenting arguments against the proposition. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to present an opening argument, alternating between for- and against postions. Following opening arguments, each speaker will have 5 minutes to address presented arguments. A third round of discussion will allow 3 minutes to address counter arguments, and final statements will be formatted within 3 minutes per speaker, for a total of four rounds of discussion for all speakers.
Following the scheduled debate, speakers will address questions and commentary from audience and observers for 55 minutes.
The debate will be moderated by a controller – and recorded on video to be shared online in full.
Note, this event is intended as civilized, civil, and friendly discussion, and sharing of views. Although individuals may feel very strongly about their own positions, participants and audience members will be expected to behave with cordiality, and courtesy.
A Facebook page for the event has been created here.
To participate as a speaker or to inquire about attendance – please email questions and commentary to

The original post at is here:

Monday, September 10, 2012

We Have Met the Enemy, and He is NOT Us!

Here, I'd like you to meet some people who cannot smell their own spiritual B.O.  That is a not uncommon human malady, and among people of the political Left it assumes a localized form which I call gauche nez. So observe the Vancouver street segments in GWW's video below. Note the shabby lies and rancid idiocies of those male collaborationists, and how they tuck and skeedaddle when the copps show up:

 I wouldn't quite call them "feminazis". Femi-bolsheviks would hit closer to the mark, don't you think so?

You know what? It occurs to me that if you simply omitted the "Voice4Men" URL, those wankers would have no warrant (by their own involuted sphincter logic) for tearing the posters down. So clearly, they are attacking the messenger.

But are they also attacking the message? All right, I would make those people an offer. Well no, more like a challenge. I would say to them, "If we replace the URL with the URL of a website that you would create, would you then agree to the message of the poster, and show solidarity by posting it under your own name?"

I'm pretty sure they would not rise to this challenge. In fact, I am virtually certain of it. I know perfectly well that deep down, the very idea that men have human rights -- and especially the right to speak up as men in a political way -- agitates these people to the brink of hysteria.

Well, let's just say it sticks in their craw!

Yes, at the mere suggestion that MEN HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS, these people get irrationally angry. And in the future, as things heat up, they will even get violently angry. I know it wouldn't take much before they'd swing those boxcutters at flesh instead of paper.

 I wish I had been there in person, to have some mind-fucking fun with them, Fidelbogen style! Yup. I'd give my boxcutter tongue a workout at their expense, all right. Although that could be dangerous unless I wore suitable protective clothing. Maybe I could borrow a chain-mail shirt from one of those "Creative Anachronism" people, to wear under my customary hoody.

But you know what I say?

Feminists must control themselves.


Now here is a link to the Agent Orange files:

Postscript:  The following comment appeared on this post:
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and watching these White Knights in the video is confirming it: I'm starting to believe that pro-feminist men are actually MORE dangerous and irrational than feminist women.

"I don't doubt for one moment any more that any potential feminist regime could fill legions of inquisitors and enforcers out of males like the guys in this video."

Sunday, September 09, 2012

New Video - The Foundational Points of Counter-Feminism

Saturday, September 08, 2012

Counter-Feminist Foundational Points -- Part 1

What follows is a point-by-point compendium of Counter-Feminist philosophy, in considerable depth. I will extend this through as many separate blog posts as necessary.

1. The dictionary definition of feminism runs as follows: "The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." This definition is inadequate owing to the problematic nature of the term "equality", which has no stable meaning outside the realm of mathematics. Consequently, the meaning can forever be refreshed, reframed or updated so that new demands for "equality" can always be put forward. So there will never be enough "equality", and feminism will never go out of business because it will always find new "inequality" in need of correction.

2. Feminism's binding principle and driving force is disaffection toward men and maleness. This is arrayed on a spectrum, with mild disenchantment to the lower end, and vitriolic animosity, bordering on psychopathic, to the upper. If disaffection toward men, as men, did not exist in the world generally, then feminism itself would not exist. Feminism is not driven by vehemence about mere issues and abstract principles. Its politics are rooted in personal feelings about men.  Feminism's political, you might say, is personal. And so personal emotion is the only thing that keeps feminism in motion.

3. Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: Academic feminism (more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them. Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual vanguard -- so that the snake will have a head, in other words. The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers -- so that the snake will have a body, in other words. Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.

4. At any point on the academic-pop continuum, you will find feminists from any point on the disaffection spectrum. Simply observe that the identical range of viciousness shows up at every intellectual level. Along with viciousness comes irrationality or intellectual dishonesty. All of this is transparent among the undisciplined pop feminists, but concealed under layers of erudite doubletalk among the academics. 

5. Feminism at large should be understood as a social organism, or mechanism if you prefer. The bottom line, is a division of functions which generates the illusion that "feminism is not monolithic." That cliché is either true or false, depending on how you apply the term "monolithic". It is true that feminism has many brands, flavors, schools of thought, "aspects", and so on. In that regard, it is anything but monolithic. But when you consider that these different manifestations combine toward a common purpose as the parts of an organism or mechanism would do, then feminism emerges as One Thing -- hence "monolithic". Accordingly, so far as we are concerned, feminism is indeed monolithic.

6. Several counter-feminist (or reality-based) definitions of feminism have been proposed, all of  which point in the same general direction. One of these runs as follows: "Feminism is the project to increase the power of women." When you combine this with the dictionary definition (which describes feminism as a quest for "equality") and when you consider that "equality" is a mirage shimmering always out of reach, it is easy to see that chasing so-called "equality" ad infinitum, will only increase the power of women ad infinitum. But to increase the power of women, you must increase it in relation to something, and that "something" can only be men.  So by its inherent logic, the feminist project can only be the project to put women in a state of power supremacy over men. In sum, therefore, feminism is female supremacism.

7. Feminism's most effective safeguard against discovery, is to ridicule the very idea that it (feminism) is female supremacist, and to mock whoever might advance such an idea. Such words as "paranoid" or "misogynistic" will characteristically be employed to this end.

8. The project to increase women's power does not positively require disaffection toward men. But without it, the project would face a practical limit -- to wit, the constraint that mutuality and unselfish regard for the other might impose. Yet sweep all that aside and you can pave the road of depredation as far as your lack of scruples will carry you. Indeed, that is where disaffection toward men comes in handy, and where the project to increase female power hits no glass ceiling of any kind. 

9. Advocacy for women's interests, in whatever form, will increase female advantage and thereby increase female power. Yet the advocates involved in such work needn't feel any conscious hostility toward men. They need only carry on industriously, disavow anti-male sentiments, and draw attention away from high-disaffection feminists by such distractionary statements as "not all feminists are like that", or "I'm not that kind of feminist", or "those people are only fringe extremists." At times, they will deny that such feminists are even feminists at all. Still, the latter will continue to exist, and to do what they do, while their milder sisters look the other way. 

10.The proclivity of feminism is to grow in the direction of greater female empowerment. In so doing, it initiates changes in the surrounding world. These changes create endless new obstacles to the female empowerment project, and force endless modifications to feminist policy in order to overcome said obstacles. At times, these modifications will involve changing the rules of the game altogether. There is no help for this, for if feminism operated from a fixed and finite set of rules, it would leave degrees of freedom that would permit male autonomy to operate. And this, in turn, would set an absolute upper limit on female empowerment. Code-switching, from one code of rules to another, is therefore an inherent feature of feminism as a social organism. 

11. Feminist code-switching operates through space as well as through time, since at any given moment an indefinite number of distinct feminist rule systems, planet-wide, are found to be operating.  This is quite understandable, given that women differ greatly as to taste, inclination, personality, station in life, and so on. Hence, their exact empowerment needs will differ, and each must employ a suitable code of rules.

12. We may summarize by saying that feminism's being is identical with its being-in-motion. "Perpetual Revolution" is the name we have given to this condition.


The list of foundational Counter-Feminist points will be continued in future installments.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

New Video -- Finding Your Mountain-Top

Friends, We Taught Them a Lesson!

Our social heat and pressure campaign against the NoProject, conducted only yesterday, has borne fruit. The offending, pustulently anti-male and anti-father graphic image, was removed. The following link formerly took you to the picture in question, but now it takes you to . . . . zippity-doo-dah! ;)

I must say, I'm right proud to be the one who pushed the first domino.

I'm sure that in the future, these people will be a shade more circumspect about launching anti-male memes into the world. I think they've gotten the message that slamming and sliming men is unacceptable, especially in the political context we've got nowadays.  So I reckon we've made the world a shade less toxic for men and maleness. A small victory, but victory it truly is!

I 'd recommend archiving the accompanying image for the sake of fond memories!

Women Couldn't Vote -- and That Was Not "Oppression"

This video (and the article it comes from) is gadfly material. And I love to be a gadfly occasionally, if you haven't noticed. The feminist horse needs all the gadflies it can get, until it is literally bitten to death. Or if you prefer, call this death by a thousand cuts. I mean, if the so-called "hate speech" is kept to a very, very low threshhold, it becomes impossible to call it hate speech. Instead, you might call it "get-under-their-skin speech" -- it makes them dance, it makes them squirm, but there ain't diddly-doo-bop they can do about it. Or at any rate, not without showing their hand. The point is to apply social heat and pressure slowly -- call it the crock pot principle. What the hell are they going to do, pass laws against "get-under-their-skin-speech"? No matter what they do, you can ALWAYS stay just an inch outside of any boundary they set, and you will make your message perfectly clear while keeping out of range. So you are always pushing the envelope, a bit here, a bit there, drawing them further and further from the center of their world, and deeper and deeper into the desert where you can ambush them.

As for the video -- a lot of people hated it, but there is no "misogyny" about it. I proposed an outrageous idea -- a "you wouldn't dare say that" thesis which indeed I dared to say!  That much is true. But there is no "misogyny" in stating that women of the nineteenth century were not "oppressed" when they were denied the voting franchise. The so-called oppression, you see, was never factual but only theoretical -- by virtue of a "theory" concocted ex post facto and then retrojected. To put that another way, the "oppression" was an ideological artifact of later times, crafted as a rhetorical weapon for those same times. But it never existed, in a purely objective way, at the time of the actual situation.

And remember that plenty of women, in olden times, not only didn't give a hoot about gaining the franchise, but often actively opposed it. Furthermore, not all men opposed the franchise for women. Some did, and some didn't. So in the end, we are entitled to say that certain people (male and female both) supported women's suffrage, and that certain other people (likewise male and female both) did not. Accordingly, the notion that women of the nineteenth century were somehow "oppressed" because they couldn't vote, is shown to be highly problematic.

Misogynist? Who, me? No, there is not a speck of misogyny about anything I've said here, because no hatred of women is stated or implied, ever, in any form. And if you feel otherwise, then you are frankly an emotionalistic, chickenshit little ninny.

Now, if I the present writer were to propose that the nineteenth amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed, and that women be banned from the polling stations, then in the present historical context you might have a case that I had proposed an "oppressive" measure. And you would have a stronger case that I was "misogynistic" to float such an idea -- but it would still be a weak case.

But if such a measure were indeed carried through, then assuming that women en masse had loudly opposed it, you might plausibly argue -- in THAT historical context -- that women were "oppressed".

However, I the present writer propose no such measure. Let that be officially known and entered in the record. And let the feminists stop crowing that feminism delivered women from "oppression" when it  allegedly secured them the franchise. Feminism did not deliver women from that oppression -- it created that oppression!

Now, go and watch the video in order to round out what is written here.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

A Campaign for You!

Please go to the following page and make your assessment of what is happening there. Then, if it seems right to you, tell those people what you think about the rotten, man-hating poison which they are pumping into the world like raw sewage:

Aoirthoir An Broc got in their face pretty keenly, and they blocked him in ten minutes. Here, in his own words, is how he earned the honor:
"Aoirthoir An Broc  - Notice...all I did was go down the posts and say.. this post is gender neutral..good..this post is her telling her own story so it doesn't need to be gender neutral..good .. this post is yet another one showing men as sexual abusers and ignoring all the female sexual abusers, it is gendered..

"For this I was banned. Notice...I was pointing out their duplicity."
And this, also from him:
"When a girl tells her story I say nothing. I am talking only about GENERIC posts that label men as abusers and females as victims when there are no reverse posts whatsoever..the reverse posts MUST be in euqal number...

"No post that shows a bunch of women with with signs on their faces that say mother, wife, daughter, aunt, and the caption saying that she raped ... not a one.

"Notice too how they say that a SEPARATE site devoted to my points would be good.. WHY are WE MALE victims NOT allowed on sites about victimization of sexual predators? WHY NOT?

"We DO have separate sites for this and for having sites dedicated to male sexual abuse we hear "why not the women!" and we hear "YOU ARE A HATE MOVEMENT"

"So long as we are excluded from the GENERIC conversation on abuse of males and rape victims we will be further exploited."
So that's the way to do it -- point out their duplicity! That gets under their skin.

But oh, the magic of sharing a link. I shared this one earlier today, and minions came swarming to gave those people merry hell -- even though many of their posts have been deleted. But let's not stop now. Let's keep it rolling, chums!

And here is their e-mail address, in case you have any use for it:

False Rape Accusation Caught on Video

I understand that this video is in process of going viral, and I thought I'd give it a little extra boost, here and elsewhere. The scenario, as I'm sure you'll agree, is archetypal and classic.

The gallant dudes are hypnotized by her boobs. They're the ones who want to be porking this flagrant little actress, and if that means betraying another man (a competitor, you know!), well, so be it! I believe this epitomizes most (though not all) of the gynocentrist male psychology. The pro-feminist lefties, and the conservative white knights, are identical in their biological underpinnings -- although they doll it up with different intellectual trimmings.  But both groups are fine with betraying other men.

The feminists, deep in their psychological guts, understand this male psychology to perfection -- and they capitalize on it in a thousand ways, both personal and political.

Elite males, at the top of the power pyramid, also understand these things in a global way, and know just how to exploit it all, in order to keep the entire population on lockdown.

In the end, it's not about men OR women. It's the whole human race that's rotten.

But smile, my friend. We're better! ;)

Another One Bites the Dust

Another rabid, batshit, fruitloops feminist has crossed the bar into feminist happyland. This time it is Shulamith Firestone, who was found dead in her East Village (Manhattan) apartment recently. Apparently, she had been that way for about a week, but finally somebody got wind of the event. Well, de mortius nil nisi bonum, and all o' that. As you will see from the following NY Times article, Firestone was one of those "sensitive artists" who lives in Feminist House:

Shulamith Firestone was a charter member of several radfem groups in the New York City area during the late 1960s. One of these groups was known as the Redstockings, and Firestone was a co-author of the Redstockings Manifesto which that group published in 1969. Redstockings is our official "go-to" source for making clear to newbies what feminism, at its core, is all about. Meaning, that if we meet somebody in the early stages of political awakening (still rubbing their eyes, so to speak), we send him or her to that document for orientation, with instructions to come back for further discussion: 

Mind you, it would be misleading to consider the Redstockings Manifesto a sack of culture spores that scattered on the wind and sprouted up across the social landscape. It was not, in my opinion, a sole point source -- any more so than the present "manosphere" is a sole point source. You should see it rather as a condensation of ideas that were already "in the air", and destined to take root anyway. So in that sense, it was a crystal ball for the cultural future that developed from 1970 onward.

But note that such phrases as "patriarchy hurts men too" and  "I blame patriarchy", are strictly post-Redstockings developments. Redstockings makes harshly clear that "men are the problem", and later feminists found it politic to backpeddle from this by obfuscating it.

"Shulie" Firestone was perhaps best known for her 1970 book "The Dialectic of Sex". Read Chapter One for free, here:

 For you history buffs, Carol Hanisch, who originated the saying that "the personal is political", was also a member of the Redstockings Group. Here is her original essay, with commentary: 

And in the present context,  I should include a link to the Agent Orange files, so as to establish a certain "karmic arc." :

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

New Video -- Feminism is Perpetual Revolution

Feminism must remain in motion, and continual expansion, or it will stop existing. This will ultimately prove its undoing, because there is only so far it can push before outside forces surround it and destroy it. When feminism becomes more trouble than it's worth to the rest of the world, the world will rise up against it.

Monday, September 03, 2012

Hey! Don't Bogart!

The Lawrence Welk singers will now sing, for you, the classic ballad "One Toke Over the Line."

Sunday, September 02, 2012

Slogan for the Day

Next time you meet one of those asshats who gets MRA, anti-feminist,  MGTOW, masculist, masculinist, Marc Lepine, father's rights,  PUA, SAVE Services, Tea Party, MRM, right-wing, misogynist, racist and so on, all heaped up in a jumble like they're part and parcel of each other,  I have a simple way to sort their shit out and maybe even shut them clear the hell up.

Just look them dead in the eye (through your computer screen) and say to them, in the serenest voice imaginable:

"Oh, but not all non-feminists are like that".

That is a killer little trick, by the way. Perhaps more than you realize. So start using it even if you don't (yet) understand how powerful it is.

You could abbreviate this sentence as NANFALT. As for the justly ill-famed NAFALT ("not all feminists are like that"), remember that all feminists in fact ARE like that. And why? Because if they aren't like that, then they aren't feminists.  That's right, if you've seen one feminist you've seen them all!

Saturday, September 01, 2012

This Bears Repeating: Feminism Is Not The World!

This seems a bit apropos in the wake of the previous post.

All right. So what does it mean, to say that feminism is not the world?  At a minimum, it means that feminism and the world are not synonymous with each other. Otherwise you would say that wherever feminism ends, the world also ends . . . and that would be the end of it. And you could no sooner get outside of feminism, than you could get outside of the world.

So if we take "the world" to mean "everything there is", then we would understand that feminism is not everything there is. We would understand that there is more beyond feminism.

But to date, the feminist project has treated the space "beyond feminism" as precisely that -- space. A mere nullity waiting to be filled with feminism, or at best a mere chaos waiting to be organized in feminist terms.

Feminism, in short, regards non-feminism as nothing. But the non-feminist revolution proposes that non-feminism must become something -- a positive thing, an active thing, an intricately organic thing, a self-aware thing inhabiting the world on its own terms and able to assert those terms. Non-feminism, made aware of itself, will surround feminism, dismantle it into 1,427 pieces, and finally dissolve it back into the primordial elements from which it sprang.