New Video -- The Futility of Conversing With Feminists

Once again, a remake for the sake of higher production standards. 

Another Conversation at the Crossroad

The accompanying (screen-capped) YouTube exchange has recently occurred between myself, a person who signs as "DarkAquarian", and another person who signs as "Captn Huffy". (Click to enlarge.) It begins with DarkAquarian's remark, which I found irritating and ignorant. My response to DarkAquarian follows directly, and Captn Huffy's response to me (which is the crown jewel here!) rounds off the talk. Captn Huffy's point is well said, but in addition I hope you will see the advantage of casting off "MRA" as a label, and adopting the vague, teflon-coated appellative of "non-feminist". This label stubbornly defies branding and stereotypification, and allows you to intellectually "write your own ticket" in most any conversation. And that is what I, myself, am constantly doing: writing my own ticket.

That Accursed Pay Gap Again

Hey!

"Here’s the truth you won’t hear: The pay gap is exaggerated, discrimination doesn’t drive it and it’s not clear that government can eliminate it -- or should even try."

Read the entire article here:

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html#disqus_thread

It's worth your while. 

Pro-male Street Action in Costa Rica

The non-feminist revolution breaks surface in Costa Rica. Yes, that is a fairly distant and exotic country, is it not?:

"November 25^th, 2012 (InsideCostaRica.com) A group of over 60 people marched through Paseo Colon yesterday, with the message “we are functional parents, not ATM machines.”

The march was to demand men’s rights, and to demand the creation of an institute that could provide them with protection and support when assaulted by their partners or facing unfair legal treatment.

The protest began at about 10:00am yesterday in Paseo Colon, and proceeded towards the central Park in San Jose. There, the group spoke about various problems that men face in a family environment."

Read this article in full at the NCFM website:

ncfm.org/2012/11/action/mens-rights-dozens-march-to-demand-rights-equal-treatment-for-men/

Men Are Out of Touch With Their Feelings?

By now, we have all heard the Official Feminist Truth that "men are out of touch with their feelings".  We know it is a vicious assault on the male psyche, meant to undermine the spiritual autonomy of men. Personally, I recommend the aloof, disengaged, stoical demeanor to any man on earth -- with the occasional ironic grimace or arched eyebrow for variety's sake. This is a noble, honorable and enjoyable way to live -- the way of the sage, the philosopher, the superior man. And damn anybody who says otherwise.

All right. Now I will share with you a motherlode of information on this topic. This gets to the bottom of it -- to the very wellspring of all that feminist dirt and poison, in the cultural ambient, which you've long been vaguely aware of. Do you know what the word "alexithymia" means? Well, you are about to learn:

http://nmalex.blogspot.com.au/2007/05/normative-male-alexithymia-weapon-for.html

Short and Tart -- That's How We Nick 'Em!

Here's a comment which I left at a Jezebel article. (Click to enlarge.) This comment doesn't talk about hypergamy, it doesn't whine about female behavior, it doesn't say anything misogynistic, it doesn't mix the personal with the political, etc etc. It just says what it says and  then shuts up. That's how to do it if you aim to shut THEM up!

Article by Donald Dutton in the Vancouver Sun

Dr. Donald Dutton, of the University of British Columbia, is in my considered opinion the premier DV researcher on planet Earth. His books and articles are a must-read if you want the short-skinny about the feminist lying which has gone on for a third of a century.  Yes, too long!

I direct you now to his recent article (from Nov. 3) in the Vancouver Sun:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Lets+stop+playing+gender+blame+game/7494262/story.html#ixzz2BU5P9ost

Feminism as Fascism -- Article from 1983

Here is an old article by Bob Black, from 1983, titled Feminism as Fascism. Good stuff, even if you don't agree with Bob Black about everything. It is on the Anarchist Library website, and you can also get a PDF  version from there:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-feminism-as-fascism

Here's a teaser-snippet to get you intrigued:

"Male leftists, for instance, are easy and often willing yes-men to feminist aggrandizement. They combine guilt at past improprieties (by and large, those who feel guilty — toward women, blacks, foreigners, whatever — usually are) with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants. . . . These ulterior ambitions obviously don’t, in themselves, discredit the ideologies to which they are appended — one can come to the right conclusion for the worst of reasons. But insofar as the opinions at issue certainly seem to be idiotic to anyone without extraneous interest in embracing them, otherwise inexplicable paroxysms by male intellectuals seem to be most plausibly explainable as self-interested insincere rationalizations."

You will no doubt enjoy reading the article in its entirety.

By the way, I am informed that there is a quite vocal and growing anti-feminist tendency in the anarchist community nowadays. That's good news, I would say.

All Feminists are Feminists

We non-feminist partisans have heard so many times, from so many feminists, that "not all feminists are like that", that we have invented a handy-dandy acronymic way to refer to this:

Not All Feminists Are LikeThat.

NAFALT.

If you wish, pronounce this as "no fault" -- which summarizes what they wish to imply about themselves. 

At any rate, the point is, that we GET IT. We perfectly well comprehend that not "all" feminists are "like that".

What we are really saying, is not that all feminists are like that --  but that all FEMINISM is like that.

Capisch?

All Feminism Is LikeThat.

We know that not every so-called feminist (singular) is like that -- but we aren't talking about those people. The feminists who are not "like that" frankly bore us, by reason of their insignificance. They are naughts. Ciphers. Nobodies. Political zeros.

And yet, they DO serve as a front, or cover-story, or posse of useful idiots, for the feminists who ARE "like that". I mean, as far as WE are concerned, those people aren't even feminists at all, and shouldn't call themselves feminists. But oddly enough, they do. And so we are willing to take them at their word. If they insist on calling themselves feminists, then we too insist on calling them feminists -- by OUR definition of feminism.

And so if they'd rather not be defined by us in the way that we are defining them, then they would do wisely to stop calling themselves feminists. Full stop.

Otherwise, we will go right on calling them feminists.

Here is the "Non-Feminism" Blog

I have been informed, by e-mail, of a blog that bears an intriguing URL:

http://nonfeminism.blogspot.co.il/

I wish I knew what the hell was being talked about there, but the language appears to be Hebrew!

Meet the Elite MGTOWs

Here is a link to a 90-minute video on the YouTube channel of Validationwarfare:

http://youtu.be/Qu8VH5fiY3c

I share this in the spirit of showing you what's out there.  These chaps ramble a bit sometimes, but I think you will find that they talk a lot of good sense..

All right. Despite having a tiny MGTOW logo on this page, I am not particularly affiliated with the MGTOW community. I display that logo mostly for old time's sake, as a tip of the hat, and because the symbolism works well next to the highway photograph. My own affiliation is with the Archimedian (or "Bogenite") community -- which is the elite vanguard, or éminence grise, or Jesuit equivalent, for the entire non-feminist revolution! We Archimedians even have agents in other galaxies because indeed, the femplex is spreading just that far and just that fast! And naturally, we'd like to stay one jump ahead of it.

More About Evo-Psych and Waveband Separation

I recently got the following communique from a person I will call Roy Jones:

"Greetings,Fidelbogen. I'm a big fan of yours, and I watch all your videos. I completely agree with your philosophical views about feminism. There are a lot of concepts you brought up that I was actually aware of for many years but you were the first to speak out what I was thinking. You also brought up some very true points that I never would have thought about such as your video about "female colonization of male space"... I think more individuals like you are crucial to the movement. Unlike Barbarossa and Stardusk, you attack the actual root of the problem which is feminism and not women in general... Women are actually the victims of early indoctrination. Whether the concept of Briffault's Law they mention is true or not is one thing, but the question we need to ask is, "is it helping our cause? or is it fuelling the enemy as evidence to claim we're a hate movement?"

 And I responded to this in the following terms:

Yes...that is why I like to be agnostic about Briffault's Law, etc. That way, I leave the possibilities open without committing myself to an idea that I don't need in order to accomplish what I seek.

A day later, Roy Jones sent me another message:

"All I'm saying is.. throwing theories around without evidence to confirm its validity seems like something feminists would do. I mean when you break down the aspects of Briffault's law, if you think about it, it is within human nature to want to be with a mate and have an ulterior motive for staying with them. Barbarossa and Stardusk try to state for example, that a male having a good sense of humor or the ability to empathize with a women's personal problem is a way for a women to use men, and that once men lose those abilities, women would leave them behind and search for another mate.  I mean come on, who can prove if it's true... for all we know, a women could be under the impression that a guy she is in a relationship with for many years doesn't care anymore to interact with her the same as he used to... The point of what I'm saying is... if Briffault's Law is true, then to an extent, it could apply to any of us. Here is a nice little scenario to think about:  If 2 individuals are standing in front of you, one is a male and one is a female.. the female states she is a lesbian and has opposite sex genitals (androgens received during prenatal stages & gonadotropic hormones which changes brain development to act more like a man).. Let us say the male's condition is the opposite equivalent of the female.  Now for the big question: who is more susceptible to being categorized under Briffault's Law? Still can't be proven, even if Briffault's law can be pointed down at a specific hormone, like estrogen. The average male typically has estrogen within his body, even if it is at low doses.  And that concludes just about all I had to say. Feel free to give me some feedback, criticism, etc. Or if not, that is fine too.. thanks."

 After reflecting upon the foregoing, I composed a reply and got a little bit carried away. So it was lengthy, but I share it for what it is worth, as follows:

 Thank you. You have summarized some of my reasons for leaving Briffault's Law etc, out of my public rhetoric. Not only do I want to focus on other things for political/strategic reasons, but I do in fact have my doubts. Many of the theorizations which people toss around under the banner of "evolutionary psychology" fall into the category of "non-falsifiable assertion". Which means that a lot (maybe not all) of the talk which happens under that banner is apt to be rubbish.

For the record, i DO believe that there are inherent bio-psychic differences between men and women, despite individual deviations from the norm. However, that does not mean that every spin-off hypothesis or stray statement derived from this has enough truth value to make it a "keeper".  Separation of wheat from chaff is clearly the order of the day here, and that is a task I would leave to others who find this realm of enquiry more compelling. I don't need to separate the wheat from the chaff because I am not using the grain from that particular granary in the first place.

For myself, the task at hand is simple. It is to WIN THE WAR. That is the lens through which I view all of this, and that is the imperative which guides and governs me. The way I see it, when group A declares war on group B, then group A has opened a can of trouble for itself. Well, group A is feminism, and group B is firstly men, and secondarily everybody who is not feminist. That is to say, men are the ground zero target, but the fallout spreads. But for now, I focus on ground zero.

As men, we have been bushwhacked, and decked. They made a sneak attack on all cultural and political fronts, and we had no idea what they were up to. And so they have culturally and politically pinned us on our backs and are using their fists -- flailing at will. And we cannot swing our dukes into effective operation; if we try, the screams of "misogyny" and "male violence" will assault and batter us. As I say, they have decked us. And I think it is accurate to call this state of affairs a "war".

So is there a way to overturn this order of things? I believe there is, but it requires a lot of craft, finesse, and a coordination of action by cool heads. The good news is, that we do have such cool heads, and such coordination, and that the necessary slow, patient action is under way. One could wish that the glacial pace would quicken, but for now things are the way they are.

All right. Touching once more upon the starting point of this discussion, I do not talk about Briffault's Law, hypergamy, evolutionary psychology, the mercenary nature of women and so on, because in my considered opinion it would fail a strategic cost-benefit analysis to do so. I feel that my own goal -- TO WIN THE WAR -- can be attained by other means. And I do not mean to discard my own methods of operation. Not only do I deem these methods politically efficient, but I believe it would damage the cause in a material way if one were to give them up.

Additionally, as I have stated elsewhere, I am agnostic about hypergamy, Briffault's Law and all of that. And I don't just say this -- I genuinely am agnostic upon these matters. That is, my outlook truly is halfway between belief and disbelief. So that means I have bracketed the entire subject pending futher information.  Meantime, I am not holding my breath. I can go ahead with plans even if I NEVER get further information. I don't feel I need to think about evolutionary psychology, or anything pertaining to it, in order to WIN THE WAR.

In the spirit of science and free enquiry, I leave certain conversations open to those who would pursue such matters. But in the spirit of strategic pragmatism, I distance myself from said discussions, both because my own project does not require them, and because I seek the philosophical advantage such distance confers. 

So the question becomes, how to maintain distance. The non-feminist sector is becoming more and more activated -- meaning that more and people are becoming politicized against feminism. And along with such growth comes disagreement, and the proliferation of factions and cohorts. AND THERE IS NO HELP FOR THIS. It is bound to happen, for the way of the world is that humans in large numbers will form separate tribes.

Some have lamented that "the movement" is dead or dying. But I would say that "the movement" was never entirely real in the first place, so there is no entity that could properly be said to undergo "death". In fact, all that we are looking at is a series of shifting patterns and energy transformations. And so when one pattern morphs into another, people raise a cry that "the movement" is dead. Bosh! It is not dead; it is very much alive and kicking, but has moved along to a different stage of development and taken a different form.   Yes, that is what movements do -- they keep moving!

The fact that we are growing in number means that we are splitting up into different "schools". And in time, these schools will split up into more schools, and on it will go. This is not a disaster. It is evidence of vitality and a source of strength. It means we are developing specializations. It means we are becoming a complex social organism able to do complex things.

Again, the question is how to maintain distance. How might the different groups within the activated non-feminist sector establish signal differentiation and message clarity? How might they spread out across the waveband and establish their own frequencies, and not JAM each other?

We are only at the beginning of all this, and more questions will arise. But the important thing is to ask the right ones -- when we do, it is like shaking the answer tree and watching the fruit fall.

But to any woman on planet Earth I say this: you have a clean slate. If I do not know you, I will suppose you are a rational adult with moral agency who can make a contract and stick to it.  And excepting you prove otherwise, I will continue to suppose this. I give you the benefit of my agnostic uncertainty, even as I mark your actions well and consult my best interest in all matters. In the end, what you write upon your clean slate is entirely up to you. Mark that well.


All right....I guess that wraps it up.

~F~

Warren Farrell Speaking for Himself

Here is a half-hour interview with Dr. Warren Farrell, who tells us what he is all about. This is the pro-male message which the lefto-fascist feminists at the University of Toronto wanted to banish from their campus, on the ground that it was hate speech. You be the judge.

The Non-Feminist Global Spread

Here we see a pro-male demonstration in front of the ancient Roman Colosseum, on the occasion of International Men's Day -- or "IMD" as we say. (Click to enlarge.) I have left some hints in the screen capture to inform you that this is from a video. To see the video itself, which was uploaded by my Brazilian colleague Aldir Gracindo, go here: http://youtu.be/1CBZe2RdBV8

You might say that IMD "has its foot in the door", given that it operates under United Nations auspices. Truly, the "MRAs" are gaining ground on various fronts. And I know of other plans, now in the brewing stage, for entryism at the UN level. You can debate whether our sector is "activist". However, it is most indisputably activated . .  and active. Stay tuned.

For a timely study in contrast, here once again are the lefto-fascist feminist goons at U.Toronto who don't think much of things pro-male: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tEyxukZiTk

Please observe -- any pro-male speech which has not been cleared by the feminist screening committee, is by definition "hate speech" in the dictionary of such people. Which, as I reflect deeper, means that ANY effectively pro-male speech is hate speech in their dictionary.

How to Handle a Useful Idiot

A certain feminist recently hath said:

"I'm a feminist, my daughter was bought up to cook, sew or play rugby if she wanted to, I taught her how to skateboard. I have told her she doesn't need a boyfriend and to have sex when she's ready. I have told her she can be a mechanic if she wants. By bringing her up like this I have given her more choices than telling her any set roles, please tell me what is wrong with that."

And Fidelbogen hath responded in the following terms:

Oh please, quit thrashing on a dead horse! What you are describing is what most people would generally agree with nowadays anyway. You are no longer "revolutionary" or "hip" or "cutting edge" or anything like that. You liberal feminists frankly bore the crap out of me. So please, either evolve toward radicalism and a radical future (as the plan is), or STFU and stop calling yourself a feminist altogether. If you don't, then you are just a useful idiot providing camouflage for the radicals.

Let Us Now Hear Both Sides

Here is a link to another video about the recent "to do" at the University of Toronto:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=we5SH4Wtgs0&feature=endscreen

As you will quickly discover, the channel owner is not one of us.  So, the comments are held back by a moderation queue. All the same, I left one of my own, as follows:

Oh absolutely, people with blatantly wrong ideas should not be permitted to spread their hate on campus, or anywhere else. There is simply no place for that kind of thing in a tolerant, pluralistic society. And that goes double for people who want to misrepresent women and violate their agency. Ditto for people who want to distort the meaning of "men's rights" and make a complete mockery of the issues under consideration.

I hope you gave that a careful reading. It is phrased very, very ambiguously, so that it might initially be taken to agree with the channel owner's politics. Yet, on further reflection you will see that it can as well be understood in a completely opposite way. In fact, my statement says virtually NOTHING. It is vacuous tripe. Still, I am pretty sure it will fly under the channel owner's radar.

Now, I would like to see some of YOU go over there and do something similar. The idea is to make a deliberate parody of rad-fem and rad-left rhetoric which will sound utterly creepy to the average Joe or Jane.
Give it a go!

Addendum:

The above channel owner has left the following comment near the top of the thread:

"Note: comments that vilify women and refer to women in sexist terms and degrade their rights, their bodies, and their dignity will not be posted or re-posted here. You can share your insecurity and hate somewhere else."

One thing that I notice about these people, is that they are avid to have their mental image of reality fulfilled, and they are forever peering and sniffing about in search of precisely such validation. What is more, they continually attempt to provoke the desired response out of anybody who is gullible enough to fall into their trap. The person I have quoted actually WANTS to hear the kind of statements which are listed. And the very worst thing you can do to this person is to not give her/him what she/he clearly craves. 

Men's Rights Edmonton Flings Down the Gauntlet to the Feminists

Six years ago, in the first-ever post on this blog, I posed the question "is feminism a hate movement?".  But Eric Tiberius Duckman, who is a true son of the Alberta prairie, has gone one better. He puts the question as....

"Is Feminism Hate?"

Eruption of Violent Feminism At U-Toronto

On Friday, Nov 16, 2012 Dr. Warren Farrell thought he was going to deliver a peaceful pro-male speech at Toronto University in Canada. Well the feminist greeting committee gave him a very rude awakening. As you see, only a squadron of riot police could hold them in check. (The feminists are screaming "off our campus! Off our campus! Off our campus!")

What was Dr. Farrell planning to talk about? Well, it was part of an event called  “Men’s Issues Awareness at the University of Toronto (MIAUT)”. A summary of his proposed "hate speech" follows:

Throughout the industrialized world, boys are about a quarter century behind girls --dropping out of school, preoccupied with video games, committing suicide, and demonstrating a "failure to launch." Why and what can we do about it?

But the anti-male elements wanted no part of such doings, and weren't bashful about letting the world know! (I am not aware that any box-cutters were being used, however.)

Here is another video you ought to watch -- this one includes interview footage with a local feminist who talks just like. . . well, a feminist, frankly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv1ZZLNaP0g

Finally, here is a ton of Twitter material to keep you busy for a while, and generally get you up to speed:

 http://t.oronto.ca/protesting-warren-farrell-at-university-of-toronto/

Friends, the game is on! And it is heating up. We can expect more outbursts of a similar character in the future, and I hope you will be very, very careful for your safety in whatever situation you find yourselves. And be prepared to gather evidence with video capture equipment, eyewitnesses, or whatever it takes.

John the Other has posted a video about this. You can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_diZL2tskE 

Oh, by the way, Warren Farrell finally got to make his speech, but it was delayed for about an hour.

Video Response to Fidelbogen on YouTube

He has paraphrased my own position pretty accurately, and added some thoughts of his own. In my own video, the point was to problematize the idea that women's lack of voting rights was a so-called "oppression". The feminists like to make political melodrama about this, and we wish to knock the wind out of their sails.

Breaking Story From Germany

At this very moment, I am talking to a young man in Germany. Here is what he tells me:

" In the schools in Germany, it is common for young girls to make false accusations of rape against young boys. The girls do this for sport, because they are bored. The boys find that their lives are ruined by these accusations. Very often, they must move to a different city in order to rebuild their lives among different people."

That is what he tells me. I am reporting this as it is given.

Another One Who Appears to GET IT

 I've noticed an accelerating number of women these days who sound like they have at least nibbled on the celebrated Red Pill. Cyanos Pool, the narrator of the featured video, says something verrry interesting. She claims that she hesitates to position herself as a "female MRA" because she does not quite trust the motives of other so-called female MRAs, and wants to distance herself.

Now THAT. . . .is nuance! I don't think I've heard anything quite that perceptive and reflective before.

New Video -- Again, Women Were Not "Oppressed"

We Don't Make Threats: We Make Predictions.

Here is somebody who agrees with me. Somebody who gets it. I like it when that happens!

amorvomnia7.xanga.com/765577570/the-non-feminist-coalition-rejects-violence/

However, notwithstanding that I have provided a link, I wish to quote, in full, the item of interest from that website, so that you can read it both here and there if you wish. Here is what the writer had to say concerning an article of mine on AVfM last July:

Fidelbogen: The non-feminist coalition rejects violence

I don't want personal accountability enthusiasts to take any of this the wrong way. I lean libertarian myself haha... But lets be clear. The men in society who do shitty things absolutely deserve punishment. But what we've been completely unwilling to do for the most part, is figure out the reasons WHY men are acting out.

Men know why they act out on a micro level. They know their life story and the hardships they faced. None of it excuses the behavior mind you, but they atleast understand it on a personal/individual level. Mom or dad beat the shit out of them as a kid and no one cared. Mom or dad raped them and no one cared. They were drugged up for "misbehavior" in school. They were jumped on numerous occasions and the only people who showed any concern was family, but even they told the kid to tough it out like everyone else in society told the kid to tough it out. They were punched and laughed at. They were treated like a dog by every girlfriend they ever had; or rejected in embarrassing ways by every girlfriend they wanted to have. They had their kids ripped away from their life by a personality disordered woman and the courts who sided with her. They came into this life having a piece of their dick chopped off; a level of traumatic pain that no adult should experience let alone a newborn. They went to war and came back a gimp to a society that didn't care about them; or a wife and family that didn't care about them. They drank the pain away, or drugged it away living on the streets. Men understand their personal pain very well. And a lot of it ends up expressing itself in suicide, delinquency, deadbeat fathering, rape, violent crime etc..

Men don't seem to understand it on a macro level however. In a sense, they don't understand how a lot of these experiences are gendered. They don't need to in order to make it perfectly clear that they are suffering. We've been content not being receptive to the pain of men. We think that the only way to solve all of this acting out by men is to punish it more severely... And it hasn't worked. Big surprise. We don't want to understand it; find the root cause of it and try to fix those root causes before it leads to more crime, more shitty behavior, more rape, more violence etc... And as Fidelbogen points out, it WILL get more and more violent in this society. It will get more and more ugly. We will continue to have more and more prisoners. We will continue to have fatherless homes. It isn't a threat, it's an accurate prediction.

So if you're fine with the status quo... If you think we've done an excellent job policing men and creating model male citizens; or that we're on our way to doing such things if we can JUST get more feminist theory and more literature on rape culture/patriarchy/wage gap out into the public... We'll solve the issue of testosterone by shaming the fuck out of it. Then be happy with the results that breeds.

What the writer fails to mention is that men won't be the only ones who "act out" in a dysfunctional manner. I mean, this is a social ecology that we live in, and the disease is by its nature pandemic. Women will catch it too! And more feminism will only pour benzine on the fire. So, more feminism is the worst thing that could possibly happen to us. To all concerned: this is not a threat. This is a prediction. And. . . you have been warned. So, the ball is in your court, and the responsibility is yours. I have fulfilled my own responsibility by issuing this warning, and by openly renouncing feminism BY NAME. Now, let's see you follow.

Anders Breivik Belongs on the Doorstep of Feminsm

This is, I am pretty sure, the most recent video by GirlWritesWhat. I will link to it rather than embed it, because I don't want the blog to get too vid-heavy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz3YxFbrwsY&list=UUcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg

As GWW says in the video: "Anders Breivik was one fucked-up dude. And what fucked him up was the cultural and legal norms brought about by feminism."

Of course, some people want to make Anders Breivik a poster boy for the entire non-feminist community on planet Earth. It seems these people hate the idea that men should have human rights and be treated like human beings. According to these people, if you believe that  male human beings have "rights", then you are just like Anders Breivik. Either that, or you are somehow in cahoots with Anders Breivik. Yes,  there are certain people who want to see you in exactly that way, if you are not a feminist. And those people know exactly who they are....don't they?

Peace.

Feminist "Impersonates" the Green River Killer

Somebody on Facebook, who goes by the name of "Gary Ridgeway", has gotten onto the friends list of some of you. In case you don't know, Gary Ridgway is none other than the Green River killer. So this Facebook individual clearly wants to trump up a story that non-feminist people are friendly toward serial killers. It wouldn't surprise me if this individual were none other than David Futrelle, a.k.a. Manboobz. I believe he is capable of such antics, and we all know that he is keen to link people who challenge feminism  with any-or-everything violent.

Anyhow, my pro-male friends, please do unfriend, or refuse to friend, this "Gary Ridgeway" person.

Peace.

One More Time -- Women Were NOT "Oppressed" When They Were Not Permitted to Vote

Here I go, reposting stuff again. It is good to do that, because repetition makes things sink in. I call it the drumbeat principle.

We all know that the feminists like to bang on and on about "feminism got women the vote." In fact, it is one of their favorite items when they are throwing the talking-point trick at you. And that's ALL it is -- a talking point. "Getting women the vote" is not feminism qua feminism. It is just, well. . . getting women the vote.

Feminism, and "getting women the vote", are conceptually different items. They are detachable from each other. The essence of feminism itself does not at all reside in the business of  "getting women the vote". That particular chapter of history was only a landmark along feminism's road, and only a means to an end.  But it was not the road per se, nor was it the end of the road.

So, it is entirely possible to have supported women's suffrage back in the day, and yet not have been a feminist. The women's suffrage campaign was in no way dependent on feminism's core agenda, and the fact that many people identifiable as "feminist" supported that campaign does nothing to undermine the truth of this. Still,  I grant you that it camouflages said truth -- and feminism's propaganda mythos has capitalized on that effect. 

However, we must realize that feminism depended utterly on getting the vote for women. Since feminism is the project to increase the power of women, it was imperative to introduce female voters into the political algebra. The empowerment of women would necessarily be stymied at a certain level if this did not occur, and so feminism's advancement was vitally linked to the success of the women's suffrage movement. It was a necessary stage in feminism's historical trajectory.

In the end, feminism acted the part of a self-serving parasite within the historical narrative of women's suffrage. And you may be a "liberal" who feels that women's suffrage was a noble cause, or you may be a "conservative" who feels otherwise, but either way you can take certain intellectual steps and see the pragmatic need, in feminist terms, of promoting such a campaign.

Therefore, when you are verbally attacking feminism and somebody flings in your face the idea that "feminism got women the vote", you needn't be impressed. Such a thing carries no force of argument. It is only an emotional manipulation trick, and the serpent hissing in the woodpile should be audible to you. 

All right, here is the re-posted part of the present entry:


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 metaphorically 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.

International Men's Day in India

Activism, as we know, takes many forms. It is a multifaceted concept. Here, we see it happening in "boots-on-the-ground" mode. They certainly do plenty of that in India. (Click to enlarge.)

NAFALT in a Nutshell

Not All Feminists Are Like That.

Only the significant ones are.

Feminism Once Again Revealed in its True Colors

Here is a complete YouTube playlist with three videos in a row.  You will want to study this very, very closely. The woman you will meet here -- Renuka Chaudhary -- is the closest thing to a "quintessential" feminist that you will ever encounter. Everything that feminism may be usefully defined as, is here boiled down to its elements and embodied in a solitary individual. Renuka Chaudhary is a one-woman microcosm for ALL of feminism, and when you study her behavior you will understand how feminism as an ideology and as a movement operates at all times and places, worldwide.

To avoid confusion, I should stress that although not every self-declared feminist is quite like Renuka Chaudhary, feminism as a social organism runs almost exactly according to the template established in the behavior of this Indian government minister. That is to say, feminism as a global hive mind, in the composite average of its effects, is Renuka Chaudhary writ large.

As you will see, feminism is a movement to gain every possible advantage for women and to crush men indifferently if they stand in the way. Renuka Chaudhary is not apparently one of those feminists who favor male genocide, but the difference between her and them is only a matter of degree.

The feminist future offers nothing but more of what you see here, so it ought to be clear that no man with a shred of self-respect or any care for his self-preservation should regard feminism as anything but his enemy. And don't waste your time sorting out the good feminism from the bad. Anything that is "good" about feminism has always been a part of the world whether "feminism" existed or not, and will continue to be available if feminism ever goes out of existence. 

A Temptation to Bittersweet "Misogyny"

Roughly speaking, what Stardusk says about "women" in this video, I will say about "feminism".  In fact, I have been saying it for years. I do indeed make a distinction between female and feminist. However Stardusk, and a  fast-growing number of other men, are prepared to write off female nature as a fundamentally mercenary nature. That is, they believe that "feminism" is actually female nature itself. They're a tad bit harsh that way, aren't they?

But you know what? I plan to remain agnostic upon that question. I do not pretend to know if feminism is the macro-political expression of a mercenary female nature. So I am leaving open the gate of possibility to any female individual anywhere who wants to walk through it, and by walking through it prove that guys like Stardusk and Barbarosssaaa are wrong.

Furthermore, I am waiting and watching for a cultural trend among women. Will women rise to the occasion. . . or won't they? I reckon time will tell. . . .won't it?

But in case anybody wonders, I am a pessimist, I think we are screwed, and I think that Fempocalypse in one form or another is on its way. I reallly do. And yet, ironically, I proceed as if there is hope, because no matter how hopeless things look, hope is always at least as rational as despair -- if not more so.

Feminism Breeds "Misogyny"

"Misogyny", that is, bad male feeling about women, takes many different forms and happens for many different reasons. Indeed, "misogyny" is anything but monolithic. And as one who is more-than-normally in the know about such things, I can attest that the growth rate of "misogyny" is accelerating among men everywhere on earth.

 Sometimes women are to blame for fostering "misogyny". However, the chief culprit is not women, but the set of practices known as  feminism, together with its practitioners both male and female.

As for men qua men, they are the very LAST force I would hold accountable for the present state of affairs. In fact, I hardly blame "men" at all. More often than otherwise they are absolutely justified in feeling the way they feel. And I cannot hold them amiss for it. 

Yes ladies, men in growing numbers are pondering you in a mood of cold, cynical, acid contempt. It ain't pretty, and it ain't slowing down.

And  I would have you know that feminism is actively encouraging this trend, and making it unavoidable.. That is because feminism has been instrumental, for many years, in generating the conditions under which "misogyny" is guaranteed to flourish and proliferate. And the feminists show no hint of repentence, or any sign that they mean to slacken their pace.

Yes, I blame feminism for "misogyny".

Ladies, if I were you, I would be gravely concerned about all this, and I would be doing whatever I could to educate myself about the situation. And I would be speaking out loudly and harshly against feminism, denouncing it in no uncertain terms and digging my claws into it any way I could.

That is precisely what I would be doing. . . . if I were you.

Raven Moon Dragon, Feminist

Actually, this is the Canadian non-feminist Typhonblue doing a bit of playacting.

Entertaining, isn't it?

Something Pungent for Your Consideration

Separating the good feminism from the bad feminism is like picking out the undigested corn and oats from horse shit. You would do better to get your corn and oats elsewhere, and spare yourself the bother of mucking around in shit.

Vox Populi: What the People are Saying

What a rich multitude of voices the world contains, holding forth upon the many issues that we find relevant and vital! They speak from every corner of the social landscape, do they not?

True it is, that feminism has wrecked the bedrock social institutions of marriage and family. And I will not tolerate any feminist who gets in my face and tells me that feminism has not done this, or that I don't understand what feminism really is.  In fact I really do understand, all too keenly, what feminism "really is."  Yes, really! And you know what else? I'm gonna re-narrativize your ass, be-yotch! I really am!

The main smile I have with the chap in this video, is his apparent gynocentrism. He seems obsessed, in a characteristically narrow way, with the topic of women and relationships. And long-time readers of this blog will know that I, the present writer, stick to such matters as politics, power struggles, narratives, discourses, spins, slogans, thrones, dominions, principalities, the clash of minds and wills, the forces of history, etc, etc, etc. So the content of my discourse is not quite exactly what you'd call "down home". .  is it? Yet be that so, for we all have our specialized parts to play in this big badass drama. Right?

Still, when the brotherman declares (toward the end of the video) that it's great for men now, I cannot let it pass unremarked. Surely, he can't be serious?

This Here is a Real Head-Spinner

This one is straight from the department of "Presented-Without-Comment". I will stand aside and let it speak for itself, and say whatever it says. No more and no less.  (Click to enlarge.)

Some Excellent News

This is off-topic for the blog, but I am happy to hear that Colorado and Washington state have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. After all, feminism is not the only Big Evil Thing that throws a shadow across our  lives. The War on Drugs is mighty high on the scale of infamy, too, and it destroys the lives of even more cool, decent, honest MEN than false rape conviction does!

So here is a New York Times article about these latest developments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/marijuana-laws-eased-in-colorado-and-washington.html

Really, what's not to like about such developments? Full legalization would generate revenues, boost economies, take a bite out of the cartels and domestic thugs too, break down the prison-industrial complex, pave the way for many useful blessings that hemp can bring us, and infuse a mellowed-out philosophy into the minds of more people. Another nice thing about pot is, that it's a "gateway" drug -- meaning it can be a gateway leading people AWAY FROM smack, crack, methamphetemines, rotgut booze, etc, etc.....

And something else: it is nice to talk about such things on this blog! This is not the kind of baggage I hesitate to bring on board the ship, since I know it would do my cause zero political damage to be linked to the pro-hemp community -- which tends to be populated by lefty-progressive types. You see, most human beings dearly love their stereotypologies, and lefty-progressive types, who are notorious for henpecking other people about the sin of stereotyping, are among the guiltiest of offenders in that department.

Lefty-progressives are also, on average, more apt to be kneejerk supporters of feminism than any other discernible cohort. So picture their queasy discomfiture when Fidelbogen, the "misogynistic anti-feminist dude", moves right into their cultural neighborhood and throws a comradely arm around their shoulders!

I just love to scramble people's cultural radar, don't you??

All right.  Instead of going to a Tea Party rally, or an NRA rally, or whatever you had in mind, consider showing up at the Seattle Hempfest. Circulate among the crowd and strike up a conversation with some likely-looking "suckers". As you pass the pipe back and forth, impress them with your wit, your intelligence, your natural charm and charisma. Be a thoroughly delightful fellow. Make them laugh; make them smile. Then, when a righteous buzz has been copped all around, casually remove your jacket to reveal a t-shirt with some gem of "MRA" wisdom upon it. Note the stilted, wooden expressions which your new friends suddenly acquire. Watch them squirm. Feel the air temperature drop several degrees in the immediate vicinity. Above all, relish the effect you are having on them.

But wait a minute! I don't want to stereotype anybody! Perhaps, instead of giving you the hairy eyeball, their eyes will light up and you will know yourself to be in the presence of allies. And then a lively conversation will follow, and they will tell you about their circle of friends who are also fed up with feminism but fearful of speaking out within their general peer group.

Hey, you never know!

Peace.

New Video -- Two Feminist Fallacies

This is a re-issue in the interest of production standards. In several places, I departed from the script and ad-libbed.

Now is a good time for this release, because it is directly relevant to what was covered in my recent reply to Barbarosssaaa, titled "Becoming Ambient". In case you missed that one, the link follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIJLLb1Evkk&list=UUBleUt0edHdqpJCZS4Tyu6g&index=2&feature=plcp

Intermezzo

It is Not Uncommon for Women to Lie About Rape

Consider the following:

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Police say a 20-year-old student could face punishment after admitting that she lied about being attacked while walking on the university of Florida campus in Gainesville.

No, it is not uncommon for women to lie about rape. It is a recurring social phenomenon, and it happens quite a bit although the exact percentages are hard to know. Of course, it is also difficult to know the exact percentages on actual rape, both because corroborative evidence is generally lacking, and because rape itself is so difficult to define in the culture of balloon semantics which feminism has created. Indeed, actual rape statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt for such reasons, and the worse the purported rape numbers in any given statement, the more salt should be added to the recipe. Feminists will do anything they can to inflate rape numbers in their effort to fan moral hysteria and anti-male loathing, just as they will tell lies (or "half-truths") in any other area, and for the same reason. They do this because. . . well. . . that is what feminists do. It's simply their nature. Adders gotta bite. Scorpions gotta sting. Feminists gotta lie!

Here is a link to the full news story:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-woman-lied-sex-attack-rape-uf-20121101,0,4156136.story

It is a tiny item in a local paper, as you see. It will pass unnoticed by most people. It will make a brief splash, like a rock thrown into the ocean, and then it will sink out of sight and be forgotten. And you can be sure that feminists will not be studying such cases or gathering statistics, or showing any concern about the men whose lives are destroyed by false accusation or false allegation. So technically, I think that licenses me to not really give much of a spit about feminist rape hysteria in general, wouldn't you say? I think it entitles me to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever", and go about my day and not give another thought to the issue of rape. Or at least, no more thought than I would give to . . .say. . . murder, or bank robbery, or carjacking, or suicide bombing, or any number of other unsavory things which happen in this world.

Never Forget This. . .

When you damage feminism, you help men.
When you damage men, you help feminism. 
When you help feminism, you damage men. 
When you help men, you damage feminism.

I wish to help men, therefore I do what I can to damage feminism. I wish to damage feminism, therefore I do what I can to help men. I know it is impossible to do either one of these things without doing the other. It's one-in-the-same, and it's all good.

When you damage men, you damage women
When you  damage women, you damage men
When you help men, you help women
When you help women, you help men

That is because men and women are the two halves of the social ecology. When you poison one half, you poison the other half also because, in a social ecology, poison does not stop half-way any more than poison in a well stops half-way. Accordingly then:

When you help feminism, you damage men. And when you damage men, you damage women.   

Therefore, when you help feminism, you damage women. 

When you damage feminism, you help men. And when you help men, you help women.  

Therefore, when you damage feminism, you help women.

So finally, I wish to help men and women, therefore I do what I can to  damage feminism. I wish to damage feminism, therefore I do what I can to help men and women. I know it is impossible to do either one of these things without doing the other. It's one-in-the-same, and it's all good. 

Therefore, since it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, I concentrate on damaging feminism in order to economize energy and maximize focus in my effort to help men and women.

Men's Rights Edmonton -- Vlog No. 5

Mr. Duckman and I have spent hours conferring about these and related matters, and I can attest that we are of  like mind on all the main points, although we differ on a few details. The core idea of building pro-male communities among people who don't need convincing, takes priority over preaching to the willfully ignorant or even to the lukewarm. It is from such communities that power bases are constructed, layer by layer. And we don't need anything near a majority to begin dominating the public discourse in a targeted region -- e.g. a city or a college campus.

Building local communities is, of course, a micro-strategy. We have not yet discussed macro (or wide net) strategies, but we'll get to it. 

As to the question "what's your job?", I will answer that my job is to agitate, theorize, write pamphlets, plant ideas like seeds, and spend time talking to all manner of people behind the scenes, doing whatever I can to grease the wheels and facilitate things. 

Oh My God, Paul, They're Onto Us!! Run for Your Life!!

The following comment has appeared on the previous post:

Anonymous said...
You and Elam are both a couple of fucking disinfo agents. Why don't you just be honest and tell us all what fucking government agency's payroll you are on, you scumbag motherfucker?

I hope you are one of the people who are killed off when the big earthquakes hit America, you fucking demoniac useless eater motherfucking piece of shit.

JUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh oh, looks like we're in deep shit now. Dang!

Is there gas in the car???

New Video -- Becoming Ambient

It seems that a bunch of people got their panties in a pretzel over an off-the-cuff remark I made on AVfM radio recently. It was almost as if I had attacked their religion.

In fact, some of them were behaving strangely like feminists. ;)

Anyhow, I explained my position to Barbarosssaaa in a private message, and he understood perfectly. Hopefully, a few others will "get it" as well as he does.

The Growth of the Movement and the Differentiation of Signals

Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!

In today's talk, I would like to address a recent video by Barbarosssaaa in which he talks about hypergamy. Barbarosssaaa's video was prompted by certain remarks I made during my guest appearance on AVfM radio.

I make my present statement not simply to clear up misunderstandings, but because the topic in question has importance in its own right. It is a conversation that needs to be had, and right now seems a likely time.

My remarks on AVfM triggered a flurry of reaction, generally negative, among MGTOW types in particular. My words evidently touched a nerve -- a nerve I didn't rightly know was there. And it caught me by surprise.

At a certain point in the interview,  hypergamy cropped up as an offshoot of a larger topic. And I briefly mused that hypergamy should go onto the back burner in terms of what the general public hears people like us talking about. This was an off-the-cuff remark, a passing remark, and the conversation quickly moved right along.

For me, it was an off-the-cuff remark. But for some people, it was a matter of weighty import. It appears that I touched upon something mighty close to the center of their discourse, that my speech was loaded in a way I didn't realize.

So I reckon the best plan is to hit the reset button. Therefore, to all concerned, I say this: Talk about hypergamy, talk about Briffault's law, talk about evolutionary psychology, talk about reproductive strategies, talk about the mercenary nature of women, and all that sort of thing, to your heart's content. Go to town! Talk a blue streak!  Knock yourselves out! And don't let me stand in your way for one split second!

All right?

All right, I think we cleared that one up, didn't we? So let's move right along.

My statement at AVfM was a policy recommendation, directed first and foremost to myself, and secondarily to anybody who might share my way of thinking. There's no way in hell that the whole wide world will act upon Fidelbogen's recommendations, but there is at least a chance that a meaningful fraction will do so. And that's enough for me.

All right, now let's talk about hypergamy, Briffault's law, evolutionary psychology and so on.

In the end, this all boils down to a very simple question:

What is the primordial nature of woman?

Are women fundamentally mercenary creatures, governed by the imperatives of reproductive strategy? ARE they? Well, some would say they are and others would say otherwise. Yes, I grant you it's an important question, and if the truth can be found, we ought to find it. Intellectual honesty, and the spirit of science, demands no less.

And yet, for political purposes, this question DOES NOT INTEREST ME. My approach to all of this is ethical and philosophical. To me, hypergamy theory would have the value of a predictive model, something to filter and forestall female behaviors that might prove harmful. That indeed would be its purpose, if it has any purpose at all.

Now, I too wish to filter and forestall harmful human behaviors -- which, needless to say, includes the female kind. However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know.

That's agnosticism for you!

So, when it comes time to filter out harmful female behaviors, I use a simpler method. Simply stated, I hold women morally accountable. And if they don't measure up, I filter them out. So, any harmful behavior that might arise from the dark workings of primitive programming, would be "cut off at the pass" by my system of ethical standards and security clearances. There is a word for this sort of thing: "civilization".

I should add that this would work for anybody -- even if they secretly do believe in hypergamy et al.  Just calibrate your tests and standards according to your theoretical model, without talking about your theoretical model.

But as for me, I'm agnostic. Hypergamy theory might or mightn't be true, but either way my bases are covered. I know exactly what I don't want in my life, so I make my calculations and set my filters accordingly.  And once again, I do this simply by holding women morally accountable -- just as I would hold MEN morally accountable. Equality, anybody?

And that is why I don't publicly talk about hypergamy and such. Because I don't need to. Nor do I need to self-censor. Every word out of my keyboard (or my mouth) is precisely what I honestly do think. At no point do I ever feel like I am biting my tongue. Nor do I walk on eggshells. I stomp them consistently, thank you very much, but I do insist that it's an art.

Now, there are considered politic reasons why a person might choose not to speak publicly about hypergamy and such. For starters, you are making it easy for people to call you a "misogynist" or whatnot. And do I personally give a snap if somebody calls me that? No, not personally. I've been called a misogynist plenty of times for no clear reason, and I've got a mighty thick skin for it.

But look, here's my game: I make it hard for them. I make them WORK for it. For the plain truth is that I never make anti-woman statements. I attack feminism savagely, ferociously. I call it a social cancer and all manner of bloody awful things, but I never say bad things about women.

That puts the feminists in a moral bind. "Misogynist" is the worst thing they can call anybody, and they want to call me that too, but in order to get away with it they must dig deep into their brains and be highly creative -- which puts them in a mentally strained position. I force them to rationalize their words both to themselves and others, but I give them precious little raw material to work with, which taxes their sanity even as it erodes their credibility.

So in this way, little by little, I draw them onto thin ice. It becomes ever more difficult for them to justify their position, both outwardly to the world, and inwardly to themselves. And this drives them to increasingly desperate and silly outward behavior. In this way, they discredit themselves by making a public spectacle.

Now just picture such operations multiplied by the power of numbers and the strength of organization. I am constantly imagining such a thing; the thought almost never leaves me.

And is the juice worth the squeeze? Oh yes. The juice we can squeeze from them in this way is worth every precious drop. So that is why they mostly stay away from me -- because they'd rather stay out of the wringer.

And what is more, any juice they could squeeze from me would not be worth their trouble. So the only ones who attack me are the fly-by commenters, the crap-and-run commandos, the ones who know they'll never sit in the cross-examination chair.

And yes, I am famous for getting onto the SPLC hate list, but the people who posted that list are a tiny clique of intellectual cowards. They are NOT the general public, for the general public would never throw a second glance at somebody like me. Furthermore, the general public has no idea what the SPLC is up to, and the SPLC knows this, which is why it has the gumption to do what it does.

So in summary, I am not a hypergamy theorist because I want to focus on other issues, because I want to take a philosophical-ethical approach to the problem, because I want to take a political-pragmatic approach to the problem, and because I want to project a separate identity and a separate brand. I would like to discuss the final item on that list.

I think it would be good for us if we were not monolithically branded as hypergamy theorists. That was the spirit in which I made my controversial remarks on AVfM, and if I'd had more time I would have delved into it.

If we are to be monolithically branded at all, let this be only in the sense that we are pro-male and not feminist. That's it. These two things will group us as a political community just as far as we need to be grouped, but no farther. Beyond that, we should split into separate groups that will register separately on the world's awareness.

What's killing us right now is our lack of message clarity, arising from our lack of signal differentiation. Two or three months ago, I compared us to an untuned orchestra with no conductor and no common music. I suggested that we are transmitting a bloody lot of dreadful noise which the general public cannot be expected to understand. And so I concluded that the general public has "understood" us in a false, chaotic way which sets us back.

We are transmitting so many signals from a confined space, that the result is nothing but noise. I propose therefore that the orchestra must break up into many different quartets and combos. These new groups must leave the narrow concert hall and disperse through the big broad city where each can set up on its own corner, play its own music, and attract its own crowd.

That doesn't mean we are quarreling with each other. It means that we want to establish the purity of our separate messages, with enough distance so they don't run together into a slurry. That is why we spread out into the big broad city. In this way we become not a "movement" in the customary sense, but a social organism, or if you will, a social environment. That is what it means to "go ambient". Rather than being a point on the terrain which the public can point a finger at, we become the terrain itself by spreading ourselves all over it -- and you cannot point your finger at a terrain because you cannot point it everywhere at once.

Speaking for myself, I know I don't want to be stuffed into the same bag with a bunch of people who talk about things which I, myself, don't talk about. It's not that I oppose what they are saying. Maybe I do, or maybe I don't, but the point is that I am SILENT about those things -- or nearly so -- for reasons of strategy.

So I'd rather my own message didn't get lost in the general buzzcloud of other messages, and I know that other messengers would feel likewise if they gave it some thought. Yes, I believe it is in the interest of all to establish signal differentiation -- because different people with different strategies should attack the problem from different directions.

So in the end, we must force the general public to recognize our diversity, and stop thinking of us as a point source or a target. In this way we spread out and merge with their world.  That is, we go ambient. And we make clear that separation between us and them is artificial -- that we ARE them, and they ARE us -- flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood -- and that feminism is something radically separate from all of us. And so the binary of non-feminist v. feminist will settle into place as a foundational pattern of life, and feminism will be isolated and pushed to the margins.

To encourage that future, I would make many pathways available to the many publics. Since a lot of people, men and women both, don't wish to hear that they are driven by primitive biology, I will indulge their sense of lofty morality or appeal to their fear of  consequences. Meanwhile, Barbaarosssaaa and others of his school will administer their blunt medicine to all with the hardihood to listen. In the end nobody self-censors, and all roads lead to Rome.

As a parting thought, I note with interest that Barbarosssaaa declines to call himself a non-feminist. Well, since I am pretty sure that he would also decline to call himself a feminist, what does that leave? Yes Barbarosssaaa, it looks like you are a non-feminist whether you like it or not. Unless you prefer to be a feminist? Well no, I didn't think so.

But fear not. Non-feminism is a wide open frontier territory with room to spare for any non-feminist man or woman who wants to carve out a homestead. We are all non-feminists, after all. Or do we prefer to be feminists? Well no, I didn't think so.

I Have a Confession to Make

I, your humble preceptor-general, have a confession to make. I am sick and tired and bored spitless by most of the  nomenclatures and categories which the so-called "MRM" has spawned for its use over the years. And you know what else? I've a mind to fling the lot of it into the scrapyard and start afresh with something radically new.

I would begin by crunching and chucking the word "MRM" itself, with "MRA" and "MGTOW" following close behind. Then "masculinist" and "masculist" would need to go. And thereafter we would undoubtedly think of other items to throw away as well.

I realize it would be difficult for most people to re-imagine and re-conceptualize EVERYTHING in the way I am suggesting here. And so I don't realistically expect that of them. But then, they are not the intended audience here. . . are they?

Al right, here's what I recommend. When you settle into a philosophical tête-à-tête with your political cohorts, make it a rule to outright banish all labels (MRA, MRM, MGTOW, etc..etc.) from the talk, and discipline yourself to get along entirely without them.

I expect you'll find this like throwing away intellectual crutches and learning to walk on your own legs for the first time ever. I think we all need to undertake this exercise. I really, really do. I think we have gotten intellectually paralytic and sclerotic, and it is killing us. We need to think outside the box and see the game in a MUCH bigger way. In other words, we need to go for the mountain-top view. Don't you agree?