New Video -- The Futility of Conversing With Feminists
Once again, a remake for the sake of higher production standards.
The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.
"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:
Read this article in full at the NCFM website:"November 25th, 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."
"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.
"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?"
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.)
" 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.
Fidelbogen: The non-feminist coalition rejects violenceWhat 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.
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.
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!
Anonymous said...Uh oh, looks like we're in deep shit now. Dang!
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.