Wednesday, October 31, 2012

It's Official: The Genie is Out of the Bottle

The development of non-feminist political awareness is ramping up quite nicely. At the same time, it is spreading into the world beyond publicly visible cyberspace. The world of websites and YouTube channels is increasingly NOT "where the action is".  And so, if your knowledge of things pro-male and non-feminist is garnered chiefly from that realm, then I'm afraid you don't really know what's going on. The significant conversations and decisions are happening backstage now, and what you see on the web -- if that is ALL you see -- will give you the same level of information as if you were overhearing just one half of a telephone conversation.

Yes, the numbers are growing, and quickly. And there is a bit of a communication gap between the "new blood", and the old-timers who have been on the scene for years. The new ones are coming in so speedily it is difficult to get them up to speed, and their understanding of various discourses is sometimes half-baked, or embedded with bizarre novelties. One sighs, and chalks it up to "growing pains". A good kind of pain, to be sure, given that it signalizes growth.

Clubs, cells, committees, think-tanks, networks and activism groups are sprouting up like delicious mushrooms all across the landscape. These entities are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. And while they certainly do make use of cyberspace, they are also moving into boots-on-the-ground mode. They are meeting up, face to face, in taverns and coffee-houses. They are hashing out ideas; they are drafting proposals; they are writing position papers. And in some cases, they are even making plans.

Yes, a social organism is under formation. Or call it a "voltron", if that metaphor suits your fancy. Whatever helps you to visualize and conceptualize things. The takeaway item of understanding here, is that this social organism is going ambient. It is all around, on every side. It is no longer a targetable point.

Oh, and male bonding. Let's not forget about the male bonding. That, too, is happening.

Peace.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Not All Chambers in the Revolver are Loaded

The following political statement was recently posted online by a pro-male activist from India:
"NAWALT

"So, to men who have been through the wringer, when a woman says “not all women are like that,” what we hear sounds like “not all chambers in that revolver are loaded.” The suggestion, of course, is that because not all women are like that, we might as well give it another try.

"If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.

"NAWALT – Not All Women Are Like That – is in fact true, so what’s the real reason this argument has been forcefully rejected by so many men? We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?

"What it really comes down to is risk. The problem is not that all women are horrible — it’s simply that a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. The reality today is that a woman does have that power, just like a round in a revolver’s chamber."
This statement, in its entirety, gets the Fidelbogen stamp of approval.  These words  are not my own, but they might as well be. I find nothing irrational or morally amiss in these words. I find nothing in them but plain truth manfully spoken.

All right, many of you presently reading this are feminists, aren't you? And you are emotional reasoners, aren't you? And so you want to tell me that the statement quoted above is "misogynistic", don't you?

Very well . . . so why don't you? Go on feminist, log into comments right this instant and explain to me why  the statement quoted above is "woman-hating". You know you want to say this, so god damn you, speak up! Get in here right now and defend your position! Just do it!

But feminist, you will never do this, will you? And that is because you are a chickenshit intellectual coward, and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. Cluck-cluck-cluck!
 
---------------------------------------

P.S. I have learned that the statement quoted above was originally published on the Spearhead, and only re-posted by the activist in question. Not that this is critically important, but I have updated the post to reflect that information. The sentiment expressed remains valid as ever, and the challenge stands, as per any demonstrated "woman-hating" in the words cited. Protip: personal feelings about the alleged author's alleged character are not in question here, or in any similar case. Words alone are what matters.

"Misogyny"? Meh!



When such trends occur in advertising and popular entertainment media, you can be sure it is happening for a reason. The reason is, that the media people who create this stuff have done their homework and know exactly what the market will bear. In the present case, they are appealing to. . . a certain demographic, let us say. These media people have concluded that a certain demographic will not only not object to what is being portrayed, but will in many cases enjoy it and applaud it. Time will tell whether these media people are right or wrong in their assessment. I suppose it all hinges upon a certain demographic, and its capacity to process certain realities at a collective mind level, and finally, to transmit the collective message that they "get it."

As I say, time will tell.

P.S. This puts me in mind of a rich and mellow old joke: Q: Why are feminists obsessed with popular culture? A: Because they are too dense to appreciate the classics!

But seriously, I do understand why feminists are obsessed with popular culture. Indeed, pop culture offers as good a core sample of the collective psyche as you'll find anywhere at all.  And it's a pity that the feminists are not obsessed enough with it, that their obsession is "blind in one eye" and therefore does not see the kind of stuff that is portrayed in the video shared above. So I think I may be forgiven if I, for my own part, do not see the kind of stuff that the feminists are caterwauling about. That sounds fair enough, don't you think so? Goosey-goosey-gander!

Monday, October 29, 2012

For Eventual Postering

If You Are Anti-Male, You Are Anti-Human

Documentary on Family Court Corruption



Fidelbogen's first commandment: Thou Shalt Watch This!

And while you are watching, note the greasy thumbprints of feminism all over the human calamity that is being propagated. Anti-male bias, instilled and encouraged by feminist propaganda, pops up at every bend in the trail. Yes, I grant you that the slimey profiteering behavior among court personnel is not feminism per se, but feminism played a critically important role in getting this whole mess started. And feminist lobbying groups such as NOW are among the most vociferous obstructionists to reform. Anything that sucks the blood out of men is good and dandy so far as they're concerned. (But as you will see, the system sometimes gives women the dirty end of the stick too!)

Sunday, October 28, 2012

A Couple of Things You'd Do Well to Read

The feminist narrative of male violence in intimate relations is without doubt the crown jewel of feminism's anti-male talking points. If we could somehow arrange a dramatic Watergate-style exposé of the truth which they've covered up for almost 40 years, feminism would suffer a massive credibility hemorrhage. In this connection, the following links are a worthy investment of your reading time. You'll want to go slow and savor the material drop by drop:

www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/12/30/ampersands-criticism-of-the-idvs-findings-on-sexual-violence-part-2-rp/

linearthinker.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weighing-in-on-the-domestic-violence-debate-a-response-to-david-manboobz-futrelle/

Saturday, October 27, 2012

"Misogyny" Du Jour

This is for all of you cocky "MRA dudes" with "attitude". You guys think you are pushing envelopes and being "edgy" and all o' that, but you aren't. You're just being crude and gross. Fact is, if you wish to play chicken with the boundaries of propriety in order to make a political point, there is both a right way and a wrong way to go about it. What you need is wit, grace, aplomb, and a deft touch. So take a lesson from the master, namely, ME:

>In a compassionate feminist world, no sparrow would fall, and goody gumdrops would grow on trees. And every time a baby bird took a tumble from the nest, Mama Kitty would pick it up gently and nurse it alongside of her kittens.  But most of all, every time a woman got drunk and some dude got too frisky, handsome men on white horses would ride to her rescue. In fact, whenever a woman was unhappy about the slightest thing, the earth would freeze in its orbit until the problem got fixed.  That is how life would be in a compassionate feminist world.<

Refer to points 1 and 2 of Rhetorical Discipline.

http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?page_id=5338

It is debatable whether this violates point number one, but as you can see, I have not hesitated.

The Non-Feminist Voltron

Thursday, October 25, 2012

New Video -- PUAs and the Rest of Us



The PUA movement/community/culture is parasitical upon the pro-male project because it refuses to integrate itself symbiotically.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Men's Rights Edmonton - Vlog Number 4

PUAs and Us Others: Never the Twain Shall Meet

I have made known, a time or three, that I disclaim moral, spiritual or political affiliation with the PUA-Gamer community. And for quite a while, I have wanted to compose a long article that would explore the reasoning behind this. But I have procrastinated -- mainly because I find the subject distasteful and depressing.  But I have done well to put off that project, for it has given me time to hone my thoughts to a point of ideal brevity and clarity.

There is, I submit, an essential conflict between the PUA-Gamer community on the one side, and the MRA-MGTOW-Masculinist grouping on the other. This conflict is irreducible -- meaning that it cannot be resolved or even effectively patched over unless one side or the other discards its worldview and philosophical outlook.

Very well. For convenience, I will call the MRA-MGTOW-Masculinist group the 3M sector, and the PUA-Gamer group the PUA sector. And the core difference between these sectors is easily summarized. Quite simply, the PUA cultural ethos is grounded in the oppositional binary of sexual winners v. sexual losers. In their scheme of things, you are either a player or a "poor desperate chump"; there is no in-between,  no intervening gray-spectrum, and more significantly, no alternative taxonomy of any kind.  These categories are force-fitted as a social definition, and your self-definition counts for diddly.

By contrast, the 3M community believes that the sexual winner-loser binary is immoral,  perverse and unbrotherly, and ought to be put out of operation as a societal paradigm. This conviction is reinforced by the observed behavior of  PUAs, who wish to impose their cultural frame upon the entire pro-male world, and to define their own relationship to the rest of that community accordingly. In short, they wish to dominate the pro-male world and to remake it in the PUA image. And so PUAs have gotten the name of being crass manipulators, power gamers and philistines, and are generally cold-shouldered by vanguard members of the the 3M sector.

All right. The grubby little secret is, that the PUAs are controlled by women. That is the only conclusion you could ever draw about men who make the pursuit of sexual encounter socially mandatory. I say "controlled by" women because, in such cases, women (through no fault of their own) are the controlling factor. And in the PUA universe, you must align to this controlling factor as the price of social validation from your male peer group. Either that or be a "poor desperate chump" -- regardless if you are actually poor, actually desperate, or actually a chump.

It is small wonder, therefore, that high-minded 3M people will shun the PUA world like a sexually-transmitted disease.

Some PUAs might object that they are actually teaching you to control women. But that is only a subtle dodge, to obscure the central fact that whoever joins the PUA community in the first place, does so with the expressed purpose of engaging women in the first place. And engagement, with any object at all, entails a dimension of control BY that object that would be absent in the case of non-engagement.
 
If you consider that the PUA community started life as a business venture whose purpose was to make money, much will fall into place. To this very day, it bears the stamp of its mercantile origins. The idea is to sell a product, and as modern marketers will do, it encourages a need for this product whether the product is necessary or not. And that is why you will never get the PUA culture to allow, on its collective mind level, that the pursuit of sexual encounter is optional -- i.e., that one is permitted to opt out.  For starters, such a notion is irrelevant in such a setting. But more significantly, it is taxing to entertain such a notion at all in such a setting.  To do so, would undermine, and eventually dissolve, the entire PUA raison d'être.

Individual PUAs will sometimes disown the winner-loser binary on an intellectual level, but nowhere is this principle conspicuously posted as a bylaw, or generally talked about with any sense of its importance, among PUAs as a group. For the PUA community recruits from the mainstream population of  "average Joes" whose values are conventional, whose morality is naturalistic, and who might be troubled with a philosophical thought once every three months. In other words, just the people who would be amenable to such manipulation as we have described, and disinclined to think outside of that particular box.

PUA is backward-looking, reactionary, counter-revolutionary, rooted in the age-old social pecking order, among men, which makes women a controlling factor in men's lives. Accordingly, PUA is of more service to feminism than to men. Think for a moment -- PUA wants men to be controlled by women. Likewise, feminism wants men to be controlled by women. This would suggest that PUA and feminism have much in common.  In fact, it would suggest that the PUAs are half-feminist in their cultural DNA.

It would also suggest that the PUA relationship with feminism is paradoxical. And observation bears this out, given that the feminists hate the PUAs even though the PUAs are a tremendous help to them. This, as I say, is paradoxical. And since it will do us no immediate good to contemplate that paradox, I will proceed to other matters.

The PUA sector sells its product by manipulating the age-old male fear of either not getting laid, or being perceived as not getting laid.  Both fears, in traditional mainstream culture, have operated powerfully on the male psyche. But neither one is necessary. Neither one is inherent to the nature of existence. It is possible in either case to cancel the fear, or the sting of the actual occurrence, by a subjective decision. What really feeds the fear or the sting, is the objective behavior of other people, and their ability to transcend your transcendence. As a certain psychiatrist once remarked: "Things don't get you down. People do!" These are words of liberation which belong on the list of ten best things ever said -- right next to "cogito ergo sum", and "suffering arises from craving".

But yes, the last thing we would ever do is heap additional pains and burdens upon men -- who as you know are being treated like garbage already, and don't need any more problems than they've already got. As for the PUAs, if they would behave symbiotically, and respect 3M sensibilities, and knock off the cynical, shit-stirring, backstabbing, power-grabbing behavior which has so often marked them, then we would have no problem with them. But sadly, we have seen through them, and we see that they are incorrigible just as feminists are incorrigible. We know they won't change because, by the nature of things, they cannot.

We are uninterested in debating the merits of PUA pickup and seduction techniques. Whether these techniques actually work, or whether they are snake-oil as many have suggested, is of no present concern to us. Our present concern, is to make clear why we consider the PUA community unfit for political affiliation, and to stress that we ought to distance ourselves from these people in view of  numerous efforts by feminists, the general public, and the PUAs themselves, to conflate PUA with the 3M community. To counteract such conflation, we ought to generate a consistent anti-PUA rhetoric so that our "signal",  as it were, will override  the "noise".

And now, my concluding words. If you throw away what is bad about PUA, and keep only what is good, you will end up with a good, honest life coach who offers good, honest dating advice and would never use fear and social shaming to manipulate you.  Likewise, if you throw away what is bad about feminism, and keep only what is good, you will end up with a good, honest liberal humanist who wants only the best for everybody and would never use fear and social shaming to manipulate you. You see, in either case you would be throwing away what is essential to the thing in question. For both PUA and feminism, their essence is their badness -- and whatever is good about them is only a cover story to camouflage what is bad about them.

And that is the last thing I've got to say about all this. Take care.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Men Who Support Feminism

Men who support feminism are sucking the blood of other men. 

This is an issue between men and men. Ladies, please step to the sidelines.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

David Futrelle Doesn't Really Care about "Misogyny"

The tagline on the Manboobz blog is: "Misogyny. I mock it."

Well just now I was chatting with a Canadian colleague, and he offered up a verrry interesting insight. My colleague informs me that Futrelle wishes to mock misogyny ONLY as a way of attacking people who attack feminism. That is, Davey could frankly care less about some posse of politically naive yokels who merely talk shit about women. Only when the talk touches on feminism in some way, or even occurs in proximity to a conversation about feminism -- as might happen on a forum thread -- does Manboobz feel motivated to swoop in for the attack.

Also, if you attack feminism in a careful, precise, antiseptic way (as I myself tend to do), and never mingle this with anything harsh about women, then Davey can't do anything with it.

So again, David Futrelle is not truly interested in mocking misogyny for its own sake, but only in defusing a perceived political threat to the feminist worldview, by imputing misogyny to a person (or a group) who is talking harshly about feminism.

Thus, in order to be "out of range", you must either talk about women with no harsh allusion to feminism, or talk about feminism with no harsh allusion to women.

In the end, Futrelle doesn't give a snap about defending women, but rather attacking men of a certain type whom he perceives as "the enemy". Defending women is simply a cover story.

That, with elaborations of my own addition, is what my Canadian colleague believes about David Futrelle of the Manboobz blog.  And I am inclined to think that he is onto something here.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Barbarosssaaa on Hypergamy and the Future



Barbarosssaaa was inspired to make this video after hearing certain remarks I made, as a guest, on a recent AVfM radio program.. 

Now, the program was short (as Barbarosssaaa points out) and I could only skim the surface of a few subjects. So in the end -- I gotta say this -- it was fluff. At any rate, I wrote to Barbarosssaaa, making my position more clear, and he understood me perfectly. 

Very well then, life goes on. I will address relevant concerns in the days and weeks ahead.

Friday, October 19, 2012

The Men's Rights Movement in India

The following was recently posted by Sumanth, a men's rights activist in India. In India, the word "MRA" is taken quite seriously because it really means something. You don't call yourself an "MRA" in India unless you have a definite skill set with an established track record of boots-on-the-ground activism: 
"We are starting a Men's Rights Activism Institute in India very soon. It will be called "Men's Rights/Masculinism Leadership Educational Platform".

"Indian Movement already has well established Men's Helpline structures and weekend support group meetings in about 20 odd cities, catering to a population of at least 100 million people (India's population is 1250 million). Men just have to call the helplines if they are abused or they are facing allegations from wife. They are guided to weekend meetings and coached there. The new Educational Institute will drastically improve the quality of guidance and coaching.

"Indian movement is also focused on motivational speaking and developing men's rights leadership, which is often known as "Commando Training"; that is commandos who will eliminate feminist terrorism. The commando trainings are based on many psychological and spiritual techniques. We Indians are lucky enough to have many ancient and modern techniques available at arms length. Many trainers have Business Management (MBA) Degrees.

"Indian movement gets more than 1000 articles (and TV programs) involving men's rights in Main Stream Media alone.

"Indian Men's Rights Activists have regularly testified in Indian Parliament about laws related to divorce, domestic violence and sexual harassment. One of the main results of this is, the huge political correctness that got built around misuse of "Indian Domestic Violence Laws". Today, it is politically incorrect in India to deny abuse of domestic violence laws.

"We have a long way to go. This is just the beginning. We plan for a 50 year activism to reduce misandry to 10% of current levels. The day is not far when we will own management institutes, which will have specialisations on male studies. We already have professors and some real estate. We will establish the institutes in next 5 to 10 years."
For your additional viewing pleasure, here is some information about that "Commando Training" which he mentions:

 http://www.slideshare.net/swarup1972/commondo-trn-20121012final

Fidelbogen the Villain Twirls his Moustaches



Ah....the perils of Pauline!

All right. Here is the feminist art of lying, demonstrated by a master -- Buntzums of YouTube, she of the lead-based paint! Can you spot, or even take a shrewd guess, at how and where she is playing loosey-goosey with things?

Here's a hint: I did not "send" her anything. I posted it on her channel just like any other commenter would do. . . .

Here's another hint: In the second portion, I did not actually say what she paraphrases me as saying. She is being "creative" and "interpretive" -- although it is true the the word "policy" did appear.

And a third hint, which is not so obvious: In the rest of her original video, she details several other "threats" that she got on her channel, and illustrates these generously with screen caps. But in my case alone, for some reason, the screen caps weren't quite so critically important.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

New Video -- Feminism Colonizes Human Communities


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Feminist Colonization of Human Communities

The feminist master strategy is to colonize every discernible human group, tribe or community it can lay its hands on. By so doing, the feminists both extend their influence, and destroy another non-feminist power base. The interesting thing is, that they are not particular about who or what they infiltrate. They care only that another power base has been knocked out of commission.

For example, it's all the same to them whether they colonize the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Pagans or. . . . (get ready). . .  the atheists! There is, at most, a thin dime's worth of difference between a Catholic feminist, a Lutheran feminist,  a Pagan feminist, or. . . . (get ready). . . an atheist feminist! Now, you might think there are critical differences among the aforementioned groups and many others we could name. But if you are a feminist, all of that pales to insignificance in light of the real feminist mission, which is to spread feminist power and control into every discernible human group or community and to render these worthless as non-feminist organizing venues.

So in the end, the Lutheran Church will be colonized by feminists with a radical, innovative theology, and little by little whatever is essential to Lutheranism will be cut out of the loop and discarded, and you will end with something that is "Lutheran" in name only, but certainly nothing that Martin Luther would sign his name to. 

And the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church will likewise get rotted from within, and replaced grain by grain with something completely alien -- similar to the process which forms petrified wood. And you will end with something that is "Catholic" in name only, but certainly nothing that St. Augustine, or St. Benedict, or the Apostle Paul would sign their names to. Nor the Pope. Well no, wait a minute, the Pope will probably sign to it because by then the Pope will probably be a woman, and a feminist to boot!

The Pagans? Goddess worship all the way! The Divine Feminine trumps all! Lunar moonbattery from wall to wall! Again.... you get the idea.

And that brings us to the atheists. Atheists are known for their methodological skepticism, their rationalism, their impartiality, their propensity for logic and the scientific method. All that sort of thing. But wait a minute --just let some little Drama Whore Attention Princess like Rebecca Watson get in there, and watch the fun! And I haven't even touched Atheism Plus and the Femistasi yet, have I?

At any rate, they'll still use their good old Atheistic Skepticism to pound the Lutherans, the Catholics, and every other flavor of Christianity from the outside, while feminist innovation guts those same targets from the inside. Meantime, atheist rationality will go into the icebox whenever feminism or sexual politics are in question, and the atheist community will never-but-never become a non-feminist power base of any sort.

In the end, each of these groups and communities, and many more besides, will be exploited for any feminist purpose that is deemed expedient, crippled as a potential non-feminist power base, sucked dry of whatever is essential to it, and finally discarded as you would toss away a melon after scooping the pulp out.

The "Lutheran" feminists and the "Catholic" feminists would then be so little different that they could roll their churches into one and hardly anybody would make a squeak about it. By then, they would be pagan in all but name, so they could easily invite the officially pagan feminists to join the club. Then they could at last turn their combined howitzers upon the atheists -- whose "rationality" (by now half-rotted from within) would not only be no longer necessary, but a positive hindrance to any projected religion of the Divine Feminine.

The master pattern that we ought to recognize here, is that feminist colonization of any human group, community, club, culture, industry, institution or what-have-you, serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it dismantles non-feminist space. Secondly, it transforms the broader culture by reducing it all to the common denominator of feminism.

Feminism was long ago conceived as a social revolution, and the only way this revolution can ever realize its project of complete societal transformation, is to reduce the entire culture to a fabric of identitarian uniformity. But in a culture as diverse as ours presently is, the only way to make that happen is to take control of non-feminist diversity, module by module. The proposed revolution cannot be leveraged uniformly across a cultural fabric which is so far from being uniform. So feminism is not contradicting itself when it colonizes opposing sides such as atheism and religionism, for in order to conquer both, it must infiltrate both. That way, whatever makes them diverse from each other, can be eviscerated in the only way possible: from within.

Keep in mind also, that feminists are false friends. That should be evident from most of the foregoing, given their long-term strategy of sapping from every community whatever is essential to it. But the betrayal can be even more immediate and poignant, given that even in the short-term they will flagrantly cast you to the wayside once you have ceased to be of use to them.

Here is an interesting PDF file which details feminist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Understand, that I endorse no religious standpoint in this context, but simply present this as documentary evidence in the interest of scholarship:

http://www.catholic-feminism.co.uk/pat3.pdf


Saturday, October 13, 2012

A "Killer" Free Book for You

Does anybody remember The Occult Technology of Power, a book that was sold through the  no-longer-existing Loompanics catalogue?

Well here it is for you, dirt cheap. Free, I mean:

http://ia600301.us.archive.org/35/items/TheOccultTechnologyOfPowertheArcaneSecretsOfPoliticalPower/OTAP.pdf

Friday, October 12, 2012

New Video -- The Occult Nature of Feminism



If you aim to understand what feminism is and how it works, you must peel away the surface layers and examine the underlying psychology of deception. That is, you must discover feminism's occult (hidden) nature.

Feminism: Own Your Shit, or Your Shit Will Be "Owned"!



GWW knocks it outta da park again!

The big takeaway point from this, is that Krista -- and all her kin -- are products of feminism. Feminism created them. All of feminism went into their making. And without feminism, such people would virtually not exist at all.

And while they may not represent all feminists, they do indeed represent all feminism.

Do you follow what I, and GWW, are saying??

If you are a feminist, please understand that we are systematically dismantling your world and your identity. Slowly and patiently, we are sawing out the legs from under your table, until one fine day, maybe sooner than you think, you will have nary a leg  left to stand upon.

So for your own sake, take control of the situation NOW, and get the hell out of feminism while the getting is good. You will find honor and dignity for yourself, and achieve a level of heroism, if you come clean and come out. But you've got to do it right soon. Don't wait. If you stall for time too long, your time will run out and you will be caught in the stampede toward the jam-packed exit doors along with all the other desparate fools. And I can assure you there will be no honor, no dignity, and no heroism for you on that day!

So get the hell out of feminism right this very minute. You can even drop me an e-mail and tell me about it, if you wish:

fidelbogen@earthling.net

 Be a feminist hero. Just do it!

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Briffault's Law and Public Rhetoric

 

I was contacted by the creator of the above video, who had heard me speaking on AVfM radio and sought my opinion on certain points. I was happy to oblige, and did so in the following terms:


Your video was thought-provoking, and I enjoyed it.

When I was on the air at AVfM, I was unable to be expansive about my thinking. It was a free-flowing conversation and it flowed along too quickly to dwell upon anything much.

But I was discussing how pro-male, non-feminist partisans ought best to present themselves in their public rhetoric -- meaning any talk or writing which the world at large is likely to overhear.

For the most part, my focus is political rather than personal or social. This war that we are fighting (yes, it is a war) is largely a war of words. Politics is nothing if not words, and the purpose of all those words is to sway hearts and minds in a chosen direction.

So I am not talking about anybody's private thoughts. I am talking only about their public words. Yes, in the realm of public words (public rhetoric), it is both counterproductive and unnecessary to engage in "women are parasites" theorizations.

Why counterproductive? Because it would alienate plenty of people, and spawn a "moral ghettoizing" effect at the expense of anybody at all with a strong pro-male stance, or a harsh-on-feminism stance. So in the end, it would be politically inefficient.

And why unnecessary? Because any conceivable good thing that might issue from airing such theorizations publicly, can as well be gotten circumspectly. And in the end, that would be politically efficient.

My own policy upon these matters is simple. I adopt a stance of principled agnosticism. That is, I do not claim to know if Briffault's Law, or any similar notion, is either true or false. I merely place the entire question in a state of intellectual abeyance, and treat any woman I meet consistently with this.

Thus, any woman I meet must earn my trust, and meet my standards, as would any man. I don't play favorites. I am neutral. I am impartial. Clear down to the last particle.

Any woman I meet would receive a "level of clearance", both relative to her demonstrated trustworthiness, and relative to the nature of the business being transacted. My maxim is, that any woman I meet is free to prove that she is what she is.

One could ask, how might women as-a-group be expected to behave in all of the turbulent politics which lies ahead? And I would reply, that each woman, singular, would maximize her singular advantage. I am totally confident of this.  I am equally confident, that entire tribes of women would maximize their collective advantage.Therefore it all depends on what, precisely, is to the advantage of whom. And when. And how.

So when it is no longer to the advantage of a critical number of women to uphold a thing like feminism, then feminism will die for lack of life support.

And it is unnecessary to postulate such a thing as "Briffault's Law", in order to feel confident that women either individually or tribally will maximize their advantage. You can believe in Briffault's Law, or not believe in it, and in either case agree that women will maximize their advantage.

Very well. One may think worse of women, or one may think better of them, but either way it is politically efficient to keep such thoughts out of our public rhetoric. So I don't think it is the best idea to publicly talk about things like Briffault's Law.

The forces of history will make the final choice here. And if worse comes to worst one need only wait, and know that the drama will unfold. For if the feminist regime remains in force, history will follow a certain trajectory, and said trajectory will ultimately make the feminist regime collapse -- it's only a matter of time because the feminist regime carries the seeds of its own destruction.

And on the day of collapse, women will most assuredly maximize their advantage.

Yes. Whatever one might personally think of women, I feel confident in predicting that they will maximize their advantage when the hurly-burly at last gets under way. 

But while we are waiting for history to take its course, we can spend our time wisely by explaining these things to as many people as care to listen. Some will be persuaded to make the necessary preparations, so as to cushion the shock of future events when they finally arrive, and smooth the transition into what lies beyond.

Our task is to be the midwives of a growing realization.

I hope that is helpful.

Questions?

Regards,

~Fidelbogen~


Tuesday, October 09, 2012

A Brief Introduction to the Sector System



A compendium of foundationally important matters. If you transmit this stuff over and over, it may grab hold in a critical number of minds. These minds, in turn, may crystallize into a community that will function as a seed, and grow.

Monday, October 08, 2012

I Will Be Appearing on AVfM Radio

Tomorrow (Tuesday, 8 Oct), I will be a guest on the AVfM News and Activism radio program, with hosts James Huff and Robert O'Hara. The show will begin at 6 p.m. Pacific Time (That's my time zone. You'll need to calculate your own.)

Here is a link to the Blog Talk Radio show page, where you can get full details:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2012/10/10/avfm-news-and-activism-fidelbogen

Saturday, October 06, 2012

Intermezzo



Trio sonata by Jan Dismas Zelenka. Early 18th century, splendid, ravishingly beautiful and . . . uncannily like jazz. I don't know if it's misogynistic or not. Puts my head in a politically efficient groove! Recommended.

The Zen of Crumbling Feminism Passive-Aggressively


Once again, we iterate foundational precepts in accordance with the drumbeat principle. It might seem odd to feature part two of this video series without part one, but hey, that's how it goes.

Feminism as We Define It is (Sort of) a Religion

I recently posted a reader comment to the Bitch Magazine website, on an article about the anti-feminist lawyer Roy den Hollander (who filed a lawsuit against Columbia University). You will find the article at the following link:

bitchmagazine.org/post/court-confirms-that-feminism-is-not-a-religion-and-that-roy-den-hollander-is-a-waste-of-its-tim

My comment touches upon matters of significance, and I have screen-capped it (Click to enlarge):


This comment, although intended to subvert the feminist paradigm, is written blandly, innocuously, nonchalantly. Certainly, the Southern Poverty Law Center needs to get very "creative" indeed, if they mean to call it hate speech -- so sue me if you can, assholes!

But I am mainly curious to see if the "Bitch" editors are excited to bitchiness by this, and inspired to do the old disappearing trick. To some, this might seem a trivial exercise. However, it is by small trials and experiments, repeated with infinite patience,  that we learn how the world works under different combinations of experimental inputs. And for me, it is rhetorical discipline to gauge what might or mightn't fly below a particular radar system at a particular time. Take this as preceptory, if you wish.

Friday, October 05, 2012

Free Book -- Historical Writings on Women's Suffrage

The following short book, published in 1916, contains a series of essays by Massachusetts women who opposed the vote for women. While I personally take no stand upon that question, I am bound to admit that some of their reasonings are cogent. I share this book now in the spirit of historical scholarship:

http://manybooks.net/titles/various3568935689.html

"Feminism got women the vote" has always been a trusty standby for feminist apologists who wish to pull the spotlight away from feminism's crimes and toxicities. For them, the fact that women formerly didn't have the franchise serves as Exhibit A that "women were oppressed." But the women's voices in this book would very much beg to differ. These women didn't even want to vote in the first place. Not only did they not consider themselves oppressed by not having the vote,  but they would have considered themselves oppressed if they did have it! And that throws a very concerning light on feminist historiography, don't you think so?

You will enjoy the window into the past which this book provides, and it will amuse you to learn how very little certain matters have changed in nearly a century. Feminist women, and feminist politics, were virtually indistinguishable from what we know today -- we are dealing with the same people, the same behaviors, and the same timeless scenarios, now as then!

We have all heard that if women controlled the world there would be no war, right? Well check this out, from 1916:
"The essential dogma of the Woman's Peace Party (none but suffragists admitted!) was that the adoption of woman suffrage was a necessary and effectual step toward abolishing war. "If women had had the vote in all countries now at war," said Mrs. Catt, "the conflict would have been prevented." But history shows women at least as much inclined to war as men--a fact illustrated in the French Revolution, in our Civil War, in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and in other instances too numerous to mention."
Moving along in the same vein, we read of violent feminists:
"The incongruity of suffragists attempting to pose as a peace party is obvious to anyone with a memory and a sense of humor. Before the war broke out, American suffrage leaders were applauding, feasting, and subsidizing the British virago who instigated the setting on fire of 146 public buildings, churches, and houses, the explosion of 43 bombs, the destruction of property valued at nearly two million dollars (not including priceless works of arts), and many cases of personal assault. In 1912 they justified the destruction of the Rokeby Venus; in 1914 they professed horror at the bombardment of the Cathedral of Rheims. Is this insincerity or hypocrisy, or mere aberration of mind?"
In the following, we catch an early glint of those radical feminist fangs we presently know so well. Note especially the bits about "personal and political" and "emotionalism", the reference to "complete social revolution", and the prescience of Mr. Gladstone: 
"The confusion of social and personal rights with political, the substitution of emotionalism for investigation and knowledge, the mania for uplift by legislation, have widely advertised the suffrage propaganda. The reforms for which the founders of the suffrage movement declared women needed the vote have all been accomplished by the votes of men. The vote has been withheld through the indifference and opposition of women, for this is the only woman's movement which has been met by the organized opposition of women. Suffragists still demand the vote. Why? Perhaps the answer is found in the cry of the younger suffragists: "We ask the vote as a means to an end--that end being a complete social revolution!" When we realize that this social revolution involves the economic, social, and sexual independence of women, we know that Gladstone had the prophet's vision when he called woman suffrage a "revolutionary" doctrine."
By way of counterpoint, here is Miss Edith Melvin describing exactly how oppressed she feels by not having the vote. She was no fluke; women like her were everywhere:
"I have never seen any point or place where the power to cast a ballot would have been of the slightest help to me. For myself I should regard the duties and responsibilities of thorough, well-informed, and faithful participation year after year in political matters as a very great misfortune; even more of a misfortune than the certainty of being mixed up in the bitter strife, the falsifications, and publicity often attendant upon political campaigns."
Again, for the record, I am stating no personal opinion about the issue of women's voting rights. Let the fact be well noted, that I have said nothing either pro or con upon that subject. 

Now, go and read the whole book --  all 55 pages:

http://manybooks.net/titles/various3568935689.html

Thursday, October 04, 2012

New Video -- Cutting Feminism Off Abruptly



The world is reacting to feminism in a chaotic way. This chaos is not an organization, not a "movement", and not a definite group of people. It is simply a force of nature, and we call it the non-feminist revolution. It is not politics, but it spawns politics on the surface. And so, attacking "political" targets will not defeat this underlying primordial force -- the more you squash it, the harder it will come back at you.

Video text here:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2012/10/cutting-off-feminism-abruptly.html

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Cutting Off Feminism Abruptly

The non-feminist revolution is a force of nature -- a primordial force, an ambient force, an exercise of cosmic veto power against feminism and all that feminism has created or proposes to create. And while feminism is a narrative -- a story about reality -- the non-feminist revolution is merely reality itself -- and that is quite a difference.

Feminism, as a project, ignores parts of reality in the process of constructing its narrative. And whatever is stated in defense of feminism is part and parcel of the feminist project, being a product of the very same narrative construction. As such, it too is not reality, but only a story about reality. Thus, when a feminist reads these words and composes a counterattack, that person is only telling a story. But please to observe, a story which ignores parts of reality.

So again, the non-feminist revolution is a force of nature -- a primordial force, an ambient force, an exercise of cosmic veto power against feminism and all that feminism has created or proposes to create. Feminism, you see, can push only so far before the universe pushes back, and the harder you push the universe, the harder the universe pushes back. So in the final tally, unreality cannot drive out reality no matter how hard it pushes. There is nothing quite like that old cosmic veto power, is there?

Interesting times lie ahead -- and by that I mean, unpleasant times. Complicated times. Chaotic times. Such is the character of the non-feminist revolution itself: unpleasant, complicated, and chaotic. The non-feminist revolution is not an organization, not a movement, not a precise group of people, and not a plan of any kind. For though it might sometimes include all of those things, it is none of them in itself. No, the non-feminist revolution is simply the full reality of life pushing back against the unreality of feminism. in an unpleasant, complicated and chaotic way.

But not, however, an indecipherable way. The chaos mightn't always "make sense", but we know it is happening for a reason. The reason is, that feminism as a system of life is unsustainable and must eventually fail. And when it does, reality will come boiling back, chaotically, with a vengeance. You are silly if you expect this to be pleasant. The system of meanings and categories which feminism has established, will crumble as a sandbank before a rising wall of floodwater. A sensation of cognitive freefall will ensue, and this will feel "chaotic" to those who cannot decipher it. For some it will be hell, but for others, sheer liberation.

The non-feminist revolution, being a primordial force, makes no proposals about the future. It simply carries us into the future willy-nilly, setting us on the doorstep of the future and putting us in a way to understand what the future ought to be, and how best to make it so. It breaks icons, liquidates illusions and confronts us with stark choices -- between the better and the worse, the feasible and the unfeasible, the sustainable and the unsustainable. It makes us an offer that we are free to accept or refuse, with less-than-ideal consequences if we accept, but far worse if we refuse.

In short, the non-feminist revolution is amoral and carries no utopian promise. It merely sets us at a fork in the road, where each way leads to an imperfect and humanly flawed world. Furthermore, it puts our wisdom to the test in forcing us to choose between these, and goads us toward spiritual adulthood by reminding us that this is no yellow brick road, and that either way you turn, there is no Emerald City at the end of it. 

Simply stated, the non-feminist revolution forces us to choose either a world where feminism keeps growing, or a world where feminism stops dead in its tracks. If you prefer the former, your system of reasoning is unitary with feminism itself. If you prefer the latter, your system of reasoning transcends feminism because it stands outside of feminism's intellectual gravity well.  Either choice will have something wrong with it, but remember, this is no yellow brick road! And our contention is, that a world with feminism is worse by far than a world without it.

It should be clear that this "fork in the road" has always been available to us, even from the earliest days. It symbolizes a choice that we have always been able to make, and always will be. So the question becomes: when will we?

Put it this way: what will more feminism bring us? My guess is, that it will bring us more feminism. And feminism has been around long enough to establish a track record, don't you think so? Granted that if you are a feminist, you will call this a good track record -- and that is only natural, since you are a feminist! You would say that. And you might even rattle off a list of talking points to support your case. But no matter what you say, all of your speech in support of feminism will be a product of that very same feminism, from start to finish. Being a feminist, you cannot not support feminism, and you cannot take on board any argument or information which does not support feminism.  That is because you must always ignore parts of reality in the process of constructing your narrative, so that in the end you are always confronting reality with a mere story about reality. And some of us wish to take reality straight, so spare us your stories.

All right. We are back to that fork in the road. It confronts us with a choice, and we need to understand that this choice does indeed exist. I mean, the choice needs to become real for us. We and we alone must make that choice, and if that choice does not become real for us, then somebody or something else will make the choice in our stead. And for many years, my non-feminist friend, that is exactly what somebody or something has been doing --  making that choice in our stead!

Yes, we always stand at that fork in the road. Always have and always will. We can postpone our decision for as long as we like, but if we chose not to chose, we still made a choice: more feminism. So tell me then, how do you wager? Will feminism ever bring us anything but more feminism? Personally, I wouldn't lay one brass nickel on it.

No matter how far we travel down the road of feminism, we non-feminist men and women will always stand at the fork, for as the saying is, we can always "go our own way" in regard to feminism. We will never lose that option, but the question is, what are we waiting for? More feminism can lead only to more feminism, and to more of what feminism creates, until hell finally boils over and burns us all. And should we wait that long?

The collapse and meltdown of civilization is the chief danger that we face. And it is precisely what more feminist innovation will bring us. Feminism is simply not sustainable, and as non-feminist men and women, we stand dogmatically upon that position.

To argue the contrary, is to argue from a feminist standpoint. And such a standpoint is invalid, by definition,  within the non-feminist sector. To declare that we have not correctly understood feminism is again to argue from a feminist standpoint because it implies a feminist definition of feminism -- which, from a non-feminist standpoint, is invalid. We know for a fact that feminism as we define it is unsustainable, and we make feminism as we define it the pragmatic gold standard for all of our plans and calculations.

And in the end, we insist that feminism as we define it, must be stopped dead in its tracks and prevented from developing further.

As non-feminist men and women, we would like to prevent the worst. We would like to keep the bad stuff to a minimum. And that is why we take a stand that is radically different from feminism (as we define it) in every possible dimension, to the point of controlling the narrative, the discourse, the language itself.

The non-feminist revolution, as said, is a primordial force apt to be messy. It is existential, growing not from analysis but from gut reaction, by millions of people, to feminist disruption in the social ecology. These people might not intellectualize what is happening, but they can feel it, and their dysfunctional behavior reflects a primitive understanding of it. The clear and present danger is that violence will erupt and be subjected to a feminist analysis, followed by feminist measures to effect a feminist solution which, in turn, will only compound the feminist difficulty and set the feminist cycle in motion again.

So the focus of any vanguard plan must be, to disrupt the feminist cycle as we have described it here. The escalation into ever greater violence, and the continual practice of shifting the blame away from feminism, can be expected to continue unless some kind of intervention occurs.

And I have already sketched the intervention that we have in mind, which is to unseat feminism altogether from its narrative authority and self-definition -- to relativize it -- by establishing a non-feminist authority in opposition to it. Briefly,  we mean to decenter feminism within the culture by violating its monopoly of discourse, in a spectacular way, for all to see. From this, the implication will follow that others may join in the fun. In principle, it is like chiselling the nose off a sacred idol in the public square, in sight of all. Do so, and the mojo is broken; the idol becomes rubbish.

We suggest all of this because we wish to offer a unifying vision, and a lighted pathway out of the maze. As matters stand, there is no such vision and no such pathway, and that can only make the world meaner and uglier all around. To continue along the feminist road will compound the crisis which feminism first set in motion, while it merely postpones the inevitable day of reckoning. On the other hand, to take the non-feminist road will bring about a healing crisis, but a rational healing crisis, leading us finally back to a sustainable world of manageable human imperfection. Feminism will end sooner or later, but we had best make this sooner, from a place of power and control.

And I don't mean feminist power and control.