The Counter-Feminist

New Pro-Male Website: Men's Voices

2012-02-01T20:34:00.000-08:00

Here is an excellent "news roundup" source, published (so far) every day. The blogmaster clearly keeps up on his reading -- has he got time for anything else, one wonders? And every day, he presents you with a nest o' links to important material of pro-male, non-feminist interest. Also, he intersperses this with spicy, timely, pertinent commentary which will make you think, and go "hmmm":

http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/

This is a very important addition to non-feminist cyberspace, and I hope you will become a regular reader (as am I), and that you will spread the word and even post links to it every chance you get. Let's drive lots and lots of internet traffic that-a-ways, shall we?

I mean, the blogmaster does all the reading for YOU, and practically spoonfeeds it to you, and saves you the trouble of finding the material for yourself . . . and he does this every single day.

So let's show some support, and eventually make this new website just as big as, oh . . . the False Rape Society, for example. Yes. That big!

Here's the link one more time:

http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/

Enjoy.

Man-Hating at the University of New Hampshire

2012-02-01T11:43:00.000-08:00

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine, way back to the year 2005:

http://networkedblogs.com/tkBLE

This ought to confirm for you once again that hatred of men and things male is a central driving force in feminism. Well, the theme certainly crops up quite regularly, don't you think so?

The trouble with all of this, as I see it, is that it makes the personal political. There are potentially many reasons why a given woman might become a man-hater, and none of these reasons are truly rational. Bitter experience with a particular man, or a series of men, could make it happen. Plain old envy could also make it happen. And no, neither of these responses are truly rational. The first at least carries an aspect of moral justification (however flawed), while the second is just plain paltry and shabby. But both of them make the personal political because they disaggregate the common lot of human misery into a "male" and "female" half, because they ignore the male half and throw a spotlight on the female half, and finally because they inflate personal female experience into a political struggle of male against female.

Which is precisely what the Redstockings Manifesto, the SCUM Manifesto, and countless other feminist statements (both large and small) have promoted over the years. As you know perfectly well.

Moving right along, the following was framed as being "wit and sarcasm":

"Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun," one participant said. "I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape."

How convenient. Say any rotten thing you like, and if you say it is only wit and sarcasm . . . then it is only wit and sarcasm. That way, you can publicly call men absurdly pathetic polluters and contaminators, and openly state that you hate them -- and it isn't really hate speech.

I thank Mary Whats-Her-Name for setting us straight on what "feminist nature" really is. I've been trying to make that clear for years. Of course, she is only being witty and sarcastic. Never forget that. So I reckon this means that I, too, am only being witty and sarcastic when I call feminists immoral parasites and narcissistic, sociopathic criminal scum who spread lies like a fly spreads germs. I am simply embracing my non-feminist nature when I say these ugly things about feminism, but that's okay, since I am only being witty and sarcastic. After all, that is what happens when I learn to embrace my non-feminist nature.

Feminism as a whole is fairly bubbling over with wit and sarcasm, like a happy, sparkling, barrel of champagne. Have you ever noticed that?

"Tiny bubbles. . . in the whine. . ".

So if you are in the mood for even more sparkling wit, scintillating sarcasm, man-hating, male genocide and so on, then download the Agent Orange files. Do it now.

http://agentorangefiles.com/

New Video -- Essentialism and Constructivism

2012-02-01T00:17:00.001-08:00

Essentialism and Constructivism: How Feminism Uses Them

2012-01-27T02:04:00.000-08:00

In the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women's lib era of the '60s and '70s, our superfriends the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this, too. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.

Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, this school of feminist thinking is known as "constructivism". It is the "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate.

In opposition was the theory called essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were spiritually or psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.

The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population -- the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women -- and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.

But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative, you see, is that women are "oppressed", and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time -- thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society -- wife, mother, homemaker, and so on. And that is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn't need to "oppress" anybody into doing this.

And so, essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.

Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn't want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but I digress.

Thus far the story is simple, but now it gets complicated. However, I will do my best to give you the short version. At a certain stage, the feminists and their leftist cohorts introduced a thing called "gender theory". They shanghaied the grammatical term "gender" and pressed it into the service of constructivist thinking by making it mean the constructed male or female roles in society. Meanwhile, the word "sex" continued to mean biological maleness or femaleness. But with both terms in use, a state of muddled thinking arose in the average person's mind. Gradually, "gender" came to be used indifferently in cases where "sex" was meant. The fact that "sex" is also an abbreviated way of saying "sexual intercourse" gave a boost to this tendency. And to this day, even non-feminist men and women who ought to know better will say "gender" when they mean "sex". They have been duped into internalizing the categories of gender theory and thinking like feminists.

When men and women were forced together into the same social spaces, conflicts based on their difference naturally arose. This is what you might predict when dissimilar behavior idioms run athwart of each other. But rather than acknowledge natural difference, the feminists shifted blame for the conflict onto men, and emphasized the need to culturally reprogram men in order to make them more like women. This led to a predictable escalation of tensions, and whenever men acted ornery about the situation, the feminists would cite their attitude as male intransigence.

The weight of evidence -- folkloric, historic, sociological, anthropological, neurological and so on -- does not favor constructivism as an explanation of sexual behavior differences. Indeed, if I were gambling at the racetrack, I would not hesitate to put my money on the horse called "essentialism". Mind you, I am not disputing that men and women are trained into different cultural roles. However, I cannot buy the idea that such training is the sole point of origin for the apparent differences. I believe the differences are inborn, and that cultural training merely "improves upon nature". If you think of natural sexual difference as a landscape with bumps and hollows, then cultural training is the snowfall which obscures the detail in this landscape while leaving the main contours evident.

Certain old-school feminists, in a grasping-at-straws effort to save constructivism, will acknowledge what I have just described. They will concede that "nature" indeed might play a role in sexual identity, but quickly brush this aside by insisting that training, too, enters into the mix. And then they will build the subsequent conversation around that point alone -- as if it had any real significance. For if the "constructed" part of sexual identity is merely an add-on to what nature has originally set in place, then it is pointless and fatuous to insist that sexual identity is culturally constructed. Indeed, we must enquire why humans would have ordained sex roles at all if nature had not provided a foundation for it.

In fact, if sexual behavior differences arise from nature to any degree, then constructivism -- at least for feminist political purposes -- is done for. You might scrape away the overlay of cultural training, but the natural foundation directly below would always confront you, as if in mockery -- and what would you do about this? And patriarchy theory, which depends upon constructivism, is next up on the chopping block.

As a writer, I will declare my own position. And that is, that I don't personally care which of the two theories, essentialism or constructivism, eventually proves correct -- just so I know what is true. The truth is what matters to me. Right now, as earlier stated, I am betting on essentialism because I think the evidence weighs heavily in its favor.

But however this finally turns out, I will insist that everybody live according to the pattern of consistencies which the outcome logically generates. I will demand that such consistencies be assimilated into the culture with nary a glimmer of hypocrisy or double-standard. Chiefly, I will not allow any form of "code-switching" from constructivism to essentialism or the reverse. If paradigm A is reality, I expect we as a society shall hew to it through all viscissitudes. I do not expect that we shall capriciously adopt paradigm B whenever it is useful for women or seems to put them in a better light -- although that is clearly what feminism wants for women.

For example, if you enjoy snarking on the theme of "men can't multi-task", then you had better make up your mind to live in the essentialist camp, because essentialism is what you are supporting. Or if you avow that women are inherently "more verbal" than men, then you should put your money where your mouth is and verbally vote for essentialism. Or again, if your name is Barbara Jordan, and you declare that women have a capacity for sensitive feeling which men are just not capable of, then you had best declare yourself an essentialist or else retract that statement. Or again, if you are a great booster of the transgendered cause, then you are co-signing with the idea that there is an independent male or female essence which sometimes gets packed into the wrong kind of body. In other words, you are an essentialist and you ought to maintain that position consistently. This could go on and on.

All right. We know that constructivism gained traction early and logged a lot of miles. Partly, that is because it sounded like a cool idea. It sounded groovy and democratic -- just what the utopian zeitgeist called for! So plenty of people signed on and sopped it up.

Yet there is more to constructivism's staying power than all of that, and nature itself provides this "more". Granted the "essential" difference between male and female is difficult to dispute. However, this difference occurs as a statistical average, or if you will, a norm, from which individual men and women sometimes vary. And so we often encounter women who seem, all in all, rather "mannish", and men who seem somewhat "womanish". You will note that the essential polarity of masculine and feminine remains uncompromised. And yet the presence of such natural deviation clouds the issue and furnishes a rationale for constructivist thinking. The deviation makes it seem that constructivism might be true. There is just enough creative ambiguity or wiggle room for constructivism to shoehorn its way in, with the help of bias-confirmation from people who want it to be true anyway.

Now, we know the feminists love to rattle on about luckless folk who feel oppressed by certain behavior norms. Aye, heaven pity the sensitive chap who wants to wear pink shirts. And spare a thought for the girl who wants to take welding classes with the boys. Well so far as the present writer is concerned, they are both welcome to it. They have my blessing. But apart from that, I'll not march down the street carrying placards on their behalf. They are on their own. And if they seek anything special from me, anything "above and beyond", then they had best make a social contract with me, by proving that they are worth something to me.

Very well, the take-away point from all this, is that patriarchy theory sits on a rickety foundation. In order to be true, it needs constructivism. Without constructivism, patriarchy theory is shot to hell. And if patriarchy theory is shot to hell, then the all-important female victim card becomes worthless plastic.

And that brings me to the final subject of my talk, which is: the future.

The feminist regime has profited greatly by the constructivist theory, because that theory makes it possible to suck a lot of blood out of men in a lot of ways. And so with the passage of years, advantages for women have piled up and up. Yet the feminists are still hymning that old refrain about the oppression of women, and they are doing this despite nagging questions about the veracity of it. Well, those nagging questions are set to grow. Long story short: women are now virtually the royal sex in the western world and beyond, and this fact, if it is not yet acidly self-evident to all, is on the way to becoming so. I know a lot of people are blocking that realization, but they can hold out only just so long.

Things are objectively rotten for men. Barring dramatic political action, things will not get better. Nor will things stay the same.

No, life for men will get steadily more rotten because the course of feminist innovation (barring dramatic political action) is bound to continue unchecked. Truly, it can do none other. Feminism is not static; its very being is identical with its being-in-motion, and if motion stops, feminism stops. Full stop.

Therefore, feminism will remain in motion. It will grow and develop as always, on a trajectory that can be roughly predicted. Collateral damage from the war on men will spread into the social ecology, and true to form, the feminists will nail the guilt for their own crime upon the collective back of men. They always do that. But I digress.

At some future date, it will be obvious to everybody that men are getting a raw deal compared to women. The rhetoric of oppression, equality, redistribution and so on, simply will not work any more. And when that day arrives, feminism will need to tack to a very different wind if it wants to stay in business. It will never go out of business if there is any help for that, for if it did, the natural configuration of power between men and women would quickly reassert itself -- men would be men again, and women would be women again, and that would be that.

The development of feminism has always involved turning the screws tighter and tighter on men, and for feminism to keep existing as feminism, it would need to keep busy at this. But there must be a rationale for doing so, otherwise a growing clamor for social reform will stop feminism dead in its tracks -- and I do mean dead.

So constructivism will be shucked like an old skin, and a new essentialist snake will emerge! The only excuse to keep oppressing men would be an essentialist excuse, and so the idea will come into vogue that men and women are essentially different -- and that women are essentially better than men. Some combination of propaganda and bunk science will drill this into the culture, paving the way for anti-male "Nuremburg laws" in one form or another. The alleged inferiority of the male sex will become state doctrine, the necessary traitors will be found to enforce the system, and the third-class citizenship of men will become a legalized and normativized fact of life.

We know that a good many feminists are essentialists already, either in thought or in effect. Indeed, the most radical of the radicals are militantly essentialist -- often Y-chromosome theorists -- and talk seriously about culling the male population. Other radical feminists may still be constructivist but they are not the wave of the feminist future. That future can only be essentialist and, at the extreme, genocidalist.

But will that future ever materialize? Certainly, the logic of feminist evolution dictates such a future and will accomodate none other. However, if you want my honest opinion, I think that a social upheaval will collapse the trajectory. That is my prediction, although I can't predict the details any more than I can predict every ripple on a surging wall of floodwater. Yet I can sense that violence is on the way, and that it requires no help from us. Truly, we can sit beneath a tree and play our balalaikas and, willy-nilly, violence will happen. Knowing this, we are left with one consequential power, and that is the power to make our plans by the light of our knowledge.

The only question is, what plans?

Intermezzo

2012-01-25T22:50:00.001-08:00

Time for another shot of that Higher Spiritual Energy.

(Takes the golden flask down from the cupboard, and quietly uncorks it . . . )

Feminism Spreads Lies Like a Fly Spreads Germs

2012-01-25T12:13:00.000-08:00

The accompanying graphic image was created by a pro-male blogger who was inspired by a slogan which I coined recently.

Memes can take many forms, and what you see here is among the most elemental and effective of those forms.

I am posting this graphic image for anybody on the planet who wants to fly away with it and spread it around.

Hell man, you could even print it on T-shirts and coffee mugs. Certainly you can post it on your website. Best of all, you can print it on little squares of paper and leave these in all manner of places where all manner of people will happen upon them.

This is the sort of thing that will land in people's brains, and buzz around there, and never leave!

It will find its way into the general buzz of conversation, too!

I kindly thank St. Estephe, the blog keeper who created this. I am honored to see my words so skillfully combined with pictures, and made ten times more effective by that method.

Go now, and visit the The Unknown History of Misandry -- the source for this and tons more good stuff that you will want to look into:

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

New Video -- Patriarchy Theory and Female Accountability

2012-01-25T04:01:00.000-08:00

Patriarchy theory is the intellectual core of feminism. The purpose of patriarchy theory is to give women a complete pass, as regards moral accountability, in their dealings with men.

Schwyzer and Kimmel are MRAS!

2012-01-23T16:40:00.000-08:00

Hugo Schwyzer and Michael Kimmel, professors at Pasadena City College and SUNY Stony Brook, respectively, have
decided to turn their coats, and their backs, on feminism. These erstwhile staunch pillars of what is called the pro-feminist men's movement, will henceforth be contributing their professorial gravitas and savvy to the pro-male men's movement instead. The two have informed me in confidence that they will stay on in their teaching posts as though nothing had changed, yet will, as Kimmel put it to me recently, "work to undermine the feminist agenda by subterfuge, merely pretending to support it while planting mixed messages between the lines."

S chwyzer in particular has confided to me his "complex feelings of guilt" for all of the time he has spent boosting feminism and "filling the minds of young men and women with dreck." He then quoted an obscure passage from the book of Ephesians, which I forgot to make note of, and concluded with the statement that "a great weight has departed from my shoulders -- almost like casting off a worthless bag of rocks!"

As you will surely remark, we have not failed to use the occasion as a photo opportunity. However, I would ask you, my readers, to keep this in confidence. Okay? We don't want to blow Mike and Hugo's cover, see?

A Wicked New Slogan for You. It is Brutal!

2012-01-23T15:09:00.000-08:00

This occurred to me in a flash of inspiration today. I grabbed the first scrap of paper I could find and jotted it down:

Feminism spreads lies like a fly spreads germs.

You like it? I thought you would.

So . . . spread it around, and make it part of the "buzz"!

Make Your Voice Heard Re: VAWA Reauthorization

2012-01-23T14:19:00.000-08:00

The following, originating from Teri Stoddard, was posted on AVFM. I hope you will take this under consideration. If you are a feminist -- that is to say, a moral idiot -- then I am certain you will not take this under consideration. But if you are a compassionate, empathetic person of conscience, you'll get on it straightway, because there is nothing in the proposed measure that a person like yourself could possibly object to:

From SAVE and AVfM News

Email Subject: The Senate Judiciary Committee Needs Your Calls By Thursday
Title: The Senate Judiciary Committee Needs Your Calls Before Thursday’s Vote On VAWA

Dear (Contact First Name),

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this coming Thursday at 10am. As you know, we have found many flaws in this bill, which is why we created the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA).

The Partner Violence Reduction Act:

Gives priority to real victims.
Reduces false allegations.
Removes provisions that violate the Constitution.
Protects families.
Provides legal assistance for alleged victim and alleged offender.
Requires third-party accreditation.
Curbs immigration fraud.
Makes the law gender-inclusive.

Today we’d like you to call members on the committee. Tell them to reject VAWA and to support the Partner Violence Reduction Act. More info: www.saveservices.org/pvra

Please contact the members listed below:

Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Orrin G. Hatch (202) 224-5251
Jon Kyl (202) 224-4521
Jeff Sessions (202) 224-4124
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
John Cornyn (202) 224-2934
Michael S. Lee (202) 224-5444
Tom Coburn (202) 224-5754

Call them once, call them twice, call them several times. Call Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Ask your family, friends, church family, co-workers and neighbors to call. And don’t forget to ask your facebook, twitter and google+ friends too.

It’s now or never, folks!

Sincerely,

Teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

By the way, if anybody is scoffing at the lack of "activism" in the so-called "MRA movement", then the above is one of numerous examples which ought to make you eat crow.

Actually, there is no such thing as the "MRA movement". The proper term is non-feminist revolution. I, myself, belong to the agitation section of the NFR, but I certainly don't mind lending a hand with the activism from time to time. (Right now, for example. Or the Kevin Driscoll case, for another example.)

The original AVFM post is here:

www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/an-important-announcement-from-save/

Video Redux -- The Root of the Present Evil

2012-01-19T20:52:00.000-08:00

Remember that when we talk about the death of the social contract, we aren't just talking about the traditional 'patriarchal' contract between men and women. No, we are talking about the compact which binds together our entire civil polity. This is prediction, and not prescription. It is based upon careful, deliberate study of objective reality.

The future prospect is both frightening, and empowering. But let us overcome fear, and use the power wisely in order to steer clear of the worst. The future is what we make it.

New Video -- Notes Toward an Efficient Political Worldview - Part 2

2012-01-17T21:28:00.000-08:00

Some Stupid Son-of-a-Bitch

2012-01-16T12:41:00.000-08:00

Today, I was driving along a remote, forested road. All at once, some stupid son-of-a-bitch pulled his white car very ABRUPTLY out of his private drive, preparing to make a right turn. He pulled forward far enough to block almost all of the right lane directly in my path, and then stopped dead -- apparently planning his next move.

I was forced to stomp hard on my brakes and swerve sharply to the left so that I wouldn't crash into him.

That stupid son-of-a-bitch!

Good thing there was no oncoming traffic in the left lane at that moment.

So. . . how was your day?

A Little Slice of Life

2012-01-14T17:25:00.000-08:00

Where I live, raccoons are quite common. You will often see them dead along the roadways in various states of discomposure. And you will often see them alive as well, nosing around garbage cans and the like. Indeed, they have pretty much lost their natural fear of humans, and when they see you coming they will mostly take their sweet time getting out of the way.

Just the other day, near my home, one of those bandido-masked critters came out of the woods. He wasn't doing much when I saw him, just sort of hanging out and sniffing the dirt at the bottom of the big cedar tree. I watched from my doorway. Right about then, I heard a cherubic young voice. A little girl, maybe four years old, had also seen the raccoon, and she was enchanted.

"Hi, kitty!", the apple-cheeked darling piped up, waving her chubby little arms enthusiastically.

She was not much of a zoologist, this young one, for she had mistaken procyon lotor for felis domesticus. In view of her tender years, such an error was understandable and even charming. But it was fraught with peril. Raccoons, you see, are wild animals. They have wicked sharp teeth, they are known to carry rabies, and you really don't want to get cozy with them. Yet little Goldilocks, waddling toward that glorified, ringtailed rat with squeals of innocent delight, was clearly intent upon so doing.

Now, picture yourself in my place. As a dutiful citizen, I had the choice to act in loco parentis, meaning that I could lay a firm-but-gentle guiding hand upon the little one, and guide her firmly but gently out of harm's way. Yet in view of modern reality, with the rabies of feminism and political correctness coursing through the social bloodstream, it was needful I should have a care for my self-preservation. Surely, the undue imputations that might be drawn should I, a burly adult male, lay hands upon a four-year-old girl, offered a wicked set of fangs in their own right.

It took me all of two seconds to make my decision. I would let the little girl have her rendezvous with the "kitty". So I went back indoors and sat down, and quietly thanked feminism for creating such a dilemma. A moment later the tragic screaming and sobbing reached me faintly through the wall.

Stunned silence in reader-land.

But lift yourself up, gentle reader. The ending to that story never really happened. In reality, the little girl's mother was standing nearby, and she immediately stepped in and dragged the girl to safety, admonishing her sternly: "That's not a kitty! That's a wild animal! Stay away!"

Ah, thank goodness for mothers! Who the hell needs fathers, anyway?

Radio Program About Saul Alinsky

2012-01-12T22:16:00.001-08:00

Thought-provoking stuff here. Worth a careful listen.

Hey Feminist Morons! Here's a New Poster Boy for the "MRA Movement"!

2012-01-12T10:46:00.000-08:00

Here, if you will, is a new George Sodini. A new Darren Mack. A new Anders Breivik. A new Perry Manley. Or even a new Ted Bundy, if you dare! Whatever. It matters only that this citizen is a man, and seems to have done some nasty things. And if you are a feminist, the details will mean less to you than the chance to spin a new morality tale about masculinity. Yes, I said spin. For that is just what you intend to do with this, and you know it.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45968804/ns/us_news/#.Tw8NfoGZBJE

"SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — An investigator has testified that a diary detailing sexual assaults of women was found along with posed photographs of two Northern California slaying victims in the home of a suspected serial killer. . . The lead investigator on the case made the disclosure Wednesday during a preliminary hearing for Joseph Naso, a Reno, Nev., man charged in the "Double Initial" killings. . ."

And nowadays especially, when the non-feminist revolution is rearing up on its hindlegs at long last, you'll want to dig ever-so-deeply into this, in search of any dirt that it contains. If you are really, really creative, I'm sure you can prove that this Joseph Naso guy is the quintessential elixir of everything which is not feminism.

And that will help you greatly, because non-feminism is everywhere these days, rising up from the cellar and precipitating from the clouds, and things are starting to look sticky for you. Aren't they?

I'm sure you'll want to pay close heed to the sexual nature of the crimes, and milk that aspect for all it is worth. Because we all know that MRAs and other non-feminists are just a pack of bitter misogynists, holding down the lid on a bubbling cauldron of frustrated sexual rage. We all know that anybody who attacks feminism, or defends men falsely accused of rape, or declares that VAWA is evil, is harboring ulterior motives. So here is your big opportunity to play armpit Dr. Freud in your time-honored way once again, and "make the political personal", and really jab the shit out of these creepy non-feminist people who just want to be left alone by feminism.

I invite feminist readers to log in to the comments, and submit an essay proving that this Joseph Naso fella is really a non-feminist "MRA" who drinks bourbon in the same oak-panelled club room with Angry Harry, Hugh Hefner, Norman Mailer, Benito Mussolini, Glenn Sacks, G.P. Telemann, Pierce Harlan, RockingMrE, Adam Kostakis, Fidelbogen, and Karl (at Antimisandry.com).

If I get enough entries, I will announce the winner and publish it in a post unto itself. Have at it, grrls and grrrly guys! And you too, Schwyzer!

I Am An Agitator -- Others Are Doing "Activism"

2012-01-11T17:29:00.000-08:00

Here I go again, hammering on timeless messages in order to catch up to all the people who haven't heard them yet.

But really. . . what IS so-called "activism"? Broadly considered, I would say it is any kind of politically goal-directed activity.

And is agitating an activity? Why, certainly. And is it poltically goal-directed? Well, it certainly can be.

So I, and many others like me, are "activists" in the broad sense of the term. We are actively agitating -- meaning, actively stirring things up for a politically goal-directed reason. It is all part of politics, and all part of a larger, orchestrated game. Orchestras have fiddlers, bassoonists, trombonists, clarinetists, timpanists -- you name it. So, you don't fault the drummer because he is not a cello player, right? There is just no way that a drum can do what a cello does, or vice-versa. But they both have a vital part to play.

And yes. . there are traditional activist groups in operation, lobbying for men's right, father's rights, family rights and so on. They're out there. And they are doing "activism" as it is customarily understood. What they are NOT doing, in most cases, is aggressively going after feminism specifically -- or at least not by name.

But they are damaging feminism in a different way, by attacking the vital centers of feminism's operative power structure. Yes, even if they don't always mention feminism, they are still undermining it in a practical way. You can see this by the amount of flak they catch -- it means they are over the target.

So finally, we agitators too are "activists", for to score rhetorical points against feminism is indeed, in the larger political frame, "activism". But if you are a stickler for semantics, just understand that activists and agitators have separate but equally important parts in the orchestrated business of collapsing feminism. That is what we ultimately strive to accomplish, and what will ultimately do the greatest good for men and women.

A Dynamic Duo of Videos

2012-01-09T15:00:00.000-08:00

The following YouTubes, viewed in conjunction, make such a perfect point-counterpoint that I am bound to post them here. Girlwriteswhat (who is female!) makes it starkly clear to us why Barbarossssssaaaaaaaaa's "misogyny" is rational, justifiable and, given the present state of things, inevitable:

Next, Barbbbaaarrossssaaa's video. I will not second his sour assessment of women, yet I will accept that he is a rational adult who formed his conclusion honestly, and that he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. The present state of the social contract certainly does not obligate me to be a white knight in defense of the Female Collective. So, let Barbarosssaaa speak his mind like a free man:

I trust that these videos have made you say "hmmm", and turned you into a sadder, wiser person.

Oh What a Friend We Have in Feminism!

2012-01-08T20:49:00.000-08:00

Some earnest feminist, out yonder, will watch this video and earnestly demand to know what this has got to do with feminism, and then earnestly make us understand how she deplores what happened to this ill-fated man and does not condone his suffering in any way.

All right. Fair enough. I will credit the earnest feminist for her good faith. And furthermore, I can allow that the evil "girlfiend" in this story might not think of herself as a feminist, or know much about academic feminist theory and suchlike.

So, how DOES all of this pertain to feminism?

Let me answer for the zillionth time, because I'm sure that somebody reading this right now has only recently arrived in these parts and cannot be expected to know it all.

Episodes like this are happening a lot more nowadays because feminist social innovation has generated a culture that naturally gives rise to such things. Feminism has empowered women to act the way this woman has acted, and to get away with it.

So that even if this woman is not personally a "feminist", she is a disease vector of feminist influence in society, helping to spread the consequences of feminist innovation by inflicting harm upon a man. Note how the police department "always took her side, even when they had no evidence to back up her story." That is exactly how the feminists want it to be, because feminist patriarchy theory and feminist anti-male law has taught police officers and criminal justice people to view MEN, sight unseen, as "primary aggressors".

Well it looks like the wheels of justice eventually turned in this particular man's favor, but that only proves that Perfect Feminism is not YET in effect. But they're working on it. Rest assured, they're working on it.

And so, earnest feminist, now you know what this has got to do with feminism. So my question to you is: why do you insist on calling yourself a feminist?

Really, what is your excuse?

For when you stick the word "feminist" to yourself, you are linking your good name to such injustice as this, and to a long list of other things which are very, very nasty indeed!

Your best plan is to stop calling yourself a feminist. Non-feminist people won't cut you any slack; they will not have the patience to hear your mewling lectures about "what feminism really means". Nor should they be required to do so. They can see perfectly well what feminism is, so kindly don't insult their intelligence. YOU are the one who doesn't know what feminism is, and THEY are the ones who will set you straight. Boy, will they ever set you straight!

So do yourself a favor, and do us all a favor.

STOP CALLING YOURSELF A FEMINIST.

What is "Social Marketing"?

2012-01-04T23:03:00.000-08:00

Another piece of the puzzle; another buzz word you'll hear buzzing around from time to time -- especially if you are delving into the same sociopolitical darksides that I am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_marketing

I would recommend studying that Wikipedia article slowly and thoughtfully, and making the information a part of your conceptual knowledge base.

More EvidenceThat Feminism is a Social Cancer

2011-12-28T10:28:00.000-08:00

Here we are treated to the famous anti-porn feminist Gail Dines on a talk show. And if you don't savvy what's wrong with this blabbering diarrhea-mouth, who fills the air with lies and won't shut up for even one second, then you are either willfully obtuse or rectal-cranially conjuncted. Do I really need to explain what is EVIL about this? If you cannot instantly comprehend the poignancy of the crisis here, then you are frankly beyond hope and I haven't got the patience to deal with you. So please go away. Now.

Gail Dines is not what's generally called a "radical" feminist. She is not a person of the so-called fringe. She is a mainstream activist, and people like her are painfully common. They yak it up on talk shows, they write glossy books that get reviewed by glossy critics, and they have a large following of uncritical sponges who sop up every word they say. Nobody -- especially not men -- will publicly stand up to these people and administer the verbal bitch-slapping they so desperately need. Pretty much the only ones who will tackle that unpopular job, are the "creepy" men who populate obscure websites. These men call attention to creepy things that a lot of people don't want to think about, and that is what makes them "creepy".

As feminism goes, Gail Dines is standard fare -- although I grant you she is worse than many. In olden days of rough village justice her kind would have gotten the scold's bridle, or the the ducking stool, or the stocks. And quite right. Half the women in the village would have been throwing rotten garbage at her too, back in those days. But nowadays . . . women in critical numbers are eerily silent. And I won't try to explain that, especially considering that men are equally silent.

Medieval chastisements are a bit over the top in our politer day, but in troublesome olden times, that is how toxic men and women were handled -- and I reckon folks back then understood the urgencies of their rough situation better than we can hope to do. Still, alas, Eris the goddess of discord is with us always!Of course, politer methods are preferable in the present age.

I realize that Gail Dines is ostensibly "not as bad" as the radfems who hide in private forums and talk about male genocide. No, Gail does not talk about male genocide (although it is an open question whether she entertains the thought), but that only makes her somewhat less poisonous. Two drops of cyanide in a glass of water as opposed to three, let us say. Aye, her demonic hatred of men is painted in blazing colors for all to behold.

I should add, that in my opinion Sharon Osbourne -- who thought it was "quite fabulous" when a man got his penis cut off -- is somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines. And I would say the same of the female audience on Sharon's TV show, the ones who tittered uproariously about the incident. Overall, they are somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines, and I don't doubt they would be totally creeped out if they knew about those male-genocidalist radfems in the private forum. And I'm sure it is a great relief to know that they would feel this way, even while they were tittering uproariously about the man who got his whacker whacked off.

And I am certain that Sharon and most of her female audience would assure us that those feminists in the private radfem forum are only "fringe radicals", that not all feminists are like that, and that certainly not all women are like that.

Here is a thought experiment for you. How if all hatred of men -- or all social proclivity to be silent about the existence of it -- were all at once to vanish from the world? Do you seriously believe that this thing we call "feminism" would continue to exist for even five minutes?

A concluding thought. Although it is deadly clear to me that all feminists are indeed "like that", I still refuse believe that all women are like that -- although a painfully large number are! Call me a fool, call me a Simple Simon, but I still think the majority of women are fundamentally decent, honest people. And I really think they need to find their voice. I really do.

I want to hear them roar.

It is urgently important for this to happen. The future depends on it.

------------------------------------------------

Here is something worth watching. Check out the rest of this guy's vids if you have time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=NbS8GvA3N0A&NR=1

New Video -- Notes Toward an Efficient Political Worldview - Part 1

2011-12-27T18:54:00.000-08:00

All right, below is something right handy. It is a YouTube video featuring the feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, who declares that you have only two choices: You are either a feminist, or you are a bigot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddgkEg2XSA

This Gloria Allred video is a prime example of the talking point trick which I talk about in my own present video. It also illustrates what feminist subjectivism is, and will help you to understand why the task of defining feminism must be taken away forcefully from feminism itself and given to the rest of the universe. Namely, to us non-feminist men and women -- clear out to the furthest reaches of intergalactic space!

Yes. Feminism is what WE say it is. Feminism is not the world.

I mean, if Gloria Allred wants to call me a "bigot", then I am fully within my rights to call Gloria Allred an "asshole" -- and there is nothing Gloria Allred can do about this, because I speak the truth.

Seriously, when will the feminists get over themselves, and get it through their pointy heads that other people don't observe feminism from the same flattering angle they do. Yes, I understand that self-knowledge can be painful sometimes, however, it is de rigueur for spiritual growth..

A Christmas Present from the Radical Feminists

2011-12-25T20:40:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you, but when people speak of "radical feminist fringe groups", it irritates the tar out of me. For this silly notion, that radfems are mere outliers hovering on the outskirts of the "real feminism", is arguably the most dangerous illusion feminism has ever foisted upon the collective mind of the Great Middle Mass.

Let me once again hammer home this axiomatic truth for the benefit of all you fence-sitters, fair-minded centrists, and other thickwitted thickos:

Radical Feminism is not the fringe!

Any more than the fuel tank in your car is marginal to the operation of the engine.

These feminists are "extremists" only in the sense that they are "extremely" vile and disturbing creatures, who give you "extremely" unpleasant feelings when you listen to what they are saying.

But they are not politically extreme. By this I mean, they are not located at the political extremity of feminism. So, if you say they are extremists, you are not thinking clearly because you are muddling two very different concepts which you need to store separately in your mind.

How about a little illustration? Would you agree that the Kuiper Belt object Pluto lies at the extremity of the solar system? Well for sure, it is extremely far from the sun. So in that way at least, it is quite "extreme", wouldn't you say so?

But wait! The sun is also extremely far from Pluto, isn't it? And furthermore, it is extremely hot while Pluto is extremely cold! It is also extremely large while Pluto is extremely small. So it sounds to me like the sun and Pluto are both very "extreme" in their different ways, wouldn't you say so? They are both at a great extremity relative to each other, wouldn't you say so?

So I think we can best make sense of this if we say that Pluto lies at an extreme distance from the center of the solar gravity field, or at least by comparison with the Earth and all the other planets. There! Isn't it wonderful how things fall into place when you set your terms and agree upon a frame of reference?

All right, back to talking about feminism. The radical feminists are like the sun, see? They are violently hot, dense, massive. They gravitate tremendously. And they scatter a charged energy field in all directions -- a moral corona -- which saturates everything in its path.

All of feminism revolves around RADICAL feminism, and absorbs its light and its radiant particle wind. Without the existence of radical (that is, man-hating) feminism, the rest of feminism would fly apart and scatter to the cosmos just as the planets would do if the sun mysteriously stopped existing.

And now. . . take a hard look at the venn diagram at the top of this article. That image was crafted by a radical feminist who blogs under the name of Noanodyne -- translation: "no painkiller". Noanodyne is diagrammatically explaining how she maps feminism in her own mind, and she gives it a structural, dynamic, operational breakdown remarkably similar to what we've been describing for years!

I don't know about you, but I think this is like finding a gold coin on the sidewalk. This radical feminist is seconding (intentionally or not) what we ourselves have always known about radical feminism -- and feminism generally.

This radical feminist would wholeheartedly concur with all of us that her brand of feminism is in absolutely no way the "fringe" of the feminist operation.

Noanodyne has latched on to the same primal intuition that we have. She personally sees "radical separatist feminism" as the driving core of the entire feminist enterprise --or at any rate, the part that matters. And you know what? I agree. I think she is right. I believe that this radical feminist is telling us the radical objective truth about the world -- the OBJECTIVE truth, mind you! And you must admit that feminists are not famous for telling the objective truth about much of anything, so this is truly phenomenal, don't you think so?

I lifted the image from Noanodyne's blog, and you can view the original post HERE:

http://noanodyne.com/2011/11/feminisms/

A final point of interest is that our dear friend Vliet Tiptree (aka Pamela O'Shaughnessy) has left an approving comment over yonder.

My only critique of the diagram would be, that it could use an additional circle, at the outermost, labelled "pop-feminist foot soldiers". This circle would be given a pretty large radius, since you might consider it feminism's Kuiper belt.

Oh, and I suppose you could add another circle after THAT, and label it "feminist-influenced women."

Well, I hope that one or two of you out yonder appreciate the significance of this as much as I do. But do enjoy what is left of your Christmas day. I thought this would add cheer. . of sorts.

America's Next Bill Clinton

2011-12-22T11:14:00.000-08:00

Here is a young man who could use a bit of useful engagement. Go to the following recent blog post and you will see what I mean:

http://profeministmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/on-feminism-pro-feminist-men-and-group-think/

Lucy Nicholas AKA Luckynkl Outed by Pro-Male Blog

2011-12-21T20:17:00.000-08:00

I remember Luckynkl. She made a cameo appearance at the Stand-Your-Ground forums, years ago, before I started the blog. She has long held a nasty reputation as a very nasty feminist indeed. Yes, feminists are nasty things.

Thanks to the Agent Orange files, and the research which they inspired, we now know that Luckynkl is in fact Lucy Nicholas, a professor of sociology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. And it seems that she also works at the University of Portsmouth, on the south coast of England.

No surprises here. I have long known that higher academia is crawling with these people. I have read far more of their academic papers and articles than anybody should decently be required to do, and it has left me thoroughly jaded about all this. But to all of you not-jaded ones, way out yonder in the world, this may be fresh and electrifying stuff.

The blog Trigger Alert! (International Library of Antimisandry) has an article all about Lucy "Luckynkl" Nicholas, and it offers a juicy summation of the meat of the matter:

http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/2011/12/term-feminazi-no-longer-seems-like.html

Spread the Word on Craigslist

2011-12-21T19:48:00.000-08:00

I would suggest posting the news about the Agent Orange files in your local Craigslist. If you wish, copy and paste the following:

The rotten core of radical feminism has been revealed in a stunning release of secret information. These radical man-hating feminists thought they could talk about male genocide without the world knowing of it. They were wrong. Now the whole world knows what feminism really is, and the game will never be the same again.

Go here for an informative news article:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/agent-orange-files-released/

Or go here to download the Agent Orange files immediately. 160 megabytes:

http://agentorangefiles.com/

Helping the Agent Orange Files Go Viral

2011-12-21T14:16:00.000-08:00

I have gathered, for your convenience, some contact information that will help in spreading the word about the Radgate Wikileaks. First, here are the top one-hundred newspapers in the USA, by circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation

Before discovering the resource linked above, I had gotten specific addresses, firstly for the New York Times. . .
executive-editor@nytimes.com
nytnews@nytimes.com
publisher@nytimes.com

. . . and secondly for the Washington Post:
postnow@washpost.com

All right, here is a list of hundreds of newspapers in Australia:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/australi.htm

And some Newspapers in New Zealand:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/nz.htm

Newspapers in Canada:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/canada.html

Newspapers in the U.K.:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/uk.html

Newspapers in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_language

I guess it doesn't hurt to let politicians hear about this. That way, they can't pretend they don't know. First how to get ahold of government critters in the USA:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

And now, MPs in the UK:
http://www.parliament.uk/

MPs in Canada:
http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html

MPs in Australia:
http://australia.gov.au/directories/contact-parliament

MPs in New Zealand:
www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/GetInvolved/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm

MPs in India:
http://www.indiademocracy.org/index.php/electedofficials/stateList/type/MP

Now, here are some well-known journalistic entities that I looked up -- and I was not over-particular about political orientation, in case anybody is wondering. What counted was, that I thought these individuals were potential megaphones. Yes...publicity is good!

Matt Drudge:
http://drudgereport.com/
(Use the contact form at lower right, where it says "send news tips...".)

Phyllis Schlafly:
eagle@eagleforum.org

Michelle Malkin:
writemalkin@gmail.com
(Note: Michelle says, "if you have a news tip, put TIP in the subject line".)

Rush Limbaugh:
ElRushbo@EIBnet.com

Glenn Beck:
me@glennbeck.com
Glenn Beck himself.

stu@glennbeck.com
Exec producer and head writer for Glenn Beck.

All right, remember that publicity is good, and also that redundancy is the meat of the matter. So if these entities get plenty of mail on the same subject, it will boost the odds of them taking it seriously.

The Agent Orange Files Have Been Released

2011-12-21T12:38:00.001-08:00

When you see what feminism really is, you cannot unsee.

http://agentorangefiles.com/

So far, the major feminist voices are playing possum about this.

And the fence-sitting soft MRAs are being namby-pamby and "restrained" about it, and voicing "concerns" about it, and pouring tepid water on it.

Screw them!

Download those files (160 megs), and study the material, and share it with others, and if so inclined, take action within your own domain. The necessary information and evidence is all in there, so use it to jumpstart yourself.

Write to journalists and media outlets, informing them of this. Somebody might pick up the ball and run with it.

Make this go viral.

Timely Message

2011-12-20T17:27:00.001-08:00

A YouTube video I posted a while ago, but in light of recent developments, it is pertinent. Yes, the long slog ahead will consist of hammering old messages again and again, as much as crafting new ones.

Shining a Torch Beam on Feminism's Diseased Underbelly

2011-12-14T13:00:00.000-08:00

The non-feminist revolution has eyes and ears everywhere -- especially in enemy territory -- and there is no telling what we will turn up next! In keeping with this, one of our people has recently done stellar work in opening the rotten core of the female supremacist hate movement to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. Our man behind the scene goes by the name Agent Orange. He has seen much indeed, behind the scene, and his summary of the scenery gets to the point: "When you see what feminism really is, you cannot unsee."

As you might recall, AVfM recently ran some articles exposing a radical feminist writer, Vliet Tiptree, and a very disturbing post which she published on a radical feminist blog called Radfem Hub. In her blog post, Vliet Tiptree muses elliptically upon the worthlessness and ultimate disposability of the male sex, and seems to insinuate that male genocide, or at least a radical eugenic engineering program, might be in the cards.

Various pro-male partisans then conducted a search of the public record, and found out that "Vliet Tiptree" was in fact Pamela O'Shaughnessy, a prominent California lawyer and bestselling novelist who has been published by Simon & Schuster and reviewed by the New York Times. Yes -- a person living a double life; a public figure with a valuable reputation to lose!

Pamela O., being a lawyer by profession, knows very well how to choose her words. And in her article she lays out her theme in such circumspect language that we cannot pin her down conclusively as recommending male genocide. Still, it seems clear that she wants to plant this idea, in the minds of her readers, as something worth thinking about. In the comment thread that follows the article, readers are quick to oblige, and their manner of expression is less guarded.

All of this is old news, but it sets the stage for our present story. Briefly then, the enterprising Agent Orange has accessed a members-only discussion forum attached to the Radfem Hub website. (Yes, this is a war, and in war, espionnage happens. Deal!) The name of the forum is "Women's Lives Matter/Women's Life Matters", and it is populated by the most extreme radical lesbian separatists you can imagine. We shall abbreviate the cumbersome title as WLM. Agent Orange, in his investigation, has read the forum encyclopedically from end to end, made notation of significant matters, and downloaded the entire content for the perusal of other pro-male partisans -- including myself.

Agent Orange has made available, so far, 245 megabytes of computer files from the WLM forum. And in the near future, this material will be posted on the internet so that anybody on earth can download it, study it, and discover at first hand what kind of people radical feminists are. Pamela O. enters into this, as you may have surmised, and in due course I will address that. But first things first.

The soon-to-be-revealed material is what you get when you boil down feminism to its dark, unadulterated essence. It is the hard, sticky, foul-smelling residue at the bottom of the pan. Contrary to what so many feminists will tell you, it is indeed "really" feminism -- as real as feminism gets, as real as you will ever find anywhere. And whoever informs you otherwise, is redirecting your attention away from "the little womyn behind the curtain."

All right. What we have here is a group of women who hate men so violently that they must talk in secret amongst themselves -- they cannot let the outside world hear. Even other feminists, who perhaps hate men only one half or one quarter as much as these ones do, cannot be admitted to the inner sanctum.

Huddled in a self-referential intellectual masturbation circle, out of the sight of non-feminist men and women, their sickness is plainly apparent. They go through life looking for validation, seeing only what they need to see, ignoring all evidence or dismissing all theories that might guide their understanding toward a different conclusion. In sum, they are blocking, filtering, maneuvering and cherry-picking, or in a word, rationalizing. And why? Because they do not wish to learn the truth about themselves.

Theirs is the frustration of spoiled children who cannot always get their way. The world -- or as these radfems would say, the patriarchy -- somehow always outmaneuvers and defeats the poor brats. And why wouldn't it? The world is so much bigger than they are. In the end, that word "patriarchy" seems little else than a placeholder for "anything of a plausibly male origin which frustrates me".

In classic feminist form, they cannot separate the personal from the political. Men have hurt them?? My goodness, haven't they figured out yet that people hurt each other all the time in this hurtful world? They must learn to deal with this -- it's called GROWING UP. Yes, it is true that men have hurt women. It is also true that women have hurt men. Oh, and men have hurt other men, and women have hurt other women. So the traffic runs in four different channels. As I say, people hurt each other all the time -- they do this every which-way from Friday. So if the radfems are hell bent upon revenge, why don't they just hunt down all the men who have hurt them -- one at a time! -- and hurt them right back? That seems like the way to do it, if you want my opinion. But I should be very, very careful of what I say here, or they will be hunting for me too! Poor dears.

These feminists make no bones about stating that "men are the problem". They are not bashful upon that subject; they lay it on the line just as pretty as you please:

Mangetout says:
" Males are the problem. They refuse to see
that they are the problem."

Maggie H. says:
"Womyn, having to put up with men's shit, place the onus onto themselves to
stop a bad situation from happening, while it is men who need a thorough
discipline forced upon them."

White Tiger says:
"..men have the same designation, in my view, of annoying rodents."

Journey Mistress says:
". .men are assholes. That last part bears repeating; men are assholes."

rjeenah says:
". . men are self-centered assholes who expect you to cater to their every whim . ."

Dawnsister says:
"I'll take any revolution I can get. Any revolution that removes most of the males will do just fine."

I could go on and on with these samples, but you get the idea. And no, putting them back in their context will not improve them. They are every bit as bad as they sound, and the people who wrote them are ten times worse. For it is a mark of narcissism when you cannot admit that you are wrong at least some of the time. And it is a mark of female narcissism in particular, when you cannot admit that women are wrong at least some of the time. And the people cited above are guilty on both counts. How quickly the personal becomes the political, yes?

My own observation has been, that the stereotypically destructive qualities which certain folklore ascribes to women in general, cluster more thickly around feminist women. For indeed there is a stratum of women which has always given the female population a bad name, and these people have been called different things at different times. In recent times, they've gotten politically organized, and yes, "feminism" is the name they have given to their gig.

The hatred of men and all things male, so patently displayed in the WLM forum, is also seen among mainstream feminists when they converse or otherwise express themselves. However, you will not often find it so concentrated; normally, the misandry will appear in subtle flashes and fleeting innuendos. It will be heavily watered down, as a pervading moral undertow, seeping through the culture like tainted outflow from a sewage treatment plant. Almost never is it so crudely vitriolic and sustained as what we are now revealing to the world. Here, we learn what feminists say to each other when they think the world isn't listening.

We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only "fringe radicals" or "extremists", and that we mustn't judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn't we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the milder feminists really amount to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by grooviness and mellowness -- by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?

Well? Do you reckon the earnest feminists with their philanthropic "gynergy" got this big thing rolling fifty years ago, and have been the central driving force ever since? And do you suppose that a few disaffected souls gravitated after the fact to this upbeat, positive social movement, and decided to lurk around the fringe just to confuse us about the truly wholesome nature of it all?

Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don't make history. And which is more, I've got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: "Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem."

The complexly braided radfem "story" about men, patriarchy, and all the rest, is the core of the entire feminist narrative. As such, it is the core of the entire feminist enterprise. And these radicals represent the frontier toward which feminism as a whole, by the law of its nature, is forever trending. True, these ones are ahead of the curve -- and yet they point the way. The future of liberal feminism is always radical, and if it is not, then it has no future at all.

Speaking of the future, the WLM feminists are forthcoming about how they'd like to address the man problem, and have floated a number of lively proposals:

Daughter of the Stars says:
"Actually, they [men] should be put on a leash, put in a cage, or put to sleep, just like they do to any animal which causes them any problem."
yba wife says:
"...we have a [similar idiot] group here in the UK Fathers for Justice . . . who love nothing better that telling womon they 'have too much power' and they have had enough . . . . even swift bullets are too good for this wankering lot."

Maggie H. says:
"Men can all fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned."

WhiteTiger says:
"I think it's a great idea to produce sperm in a la-BOR-a-tory. That way, men will be completely redundant."
MGO says:
"That is how wewill win. Not birthing males. Convincing vast numbers of females not to birth males. We have the absolute power over reproduction (and teh menz know it). So that is our weapon."
Bonobobabe says:
"Actually, now that I think about it, a better source of animal glue (and leather, for that matter) would be from the bodies of men who have committed any crime against a woman. They should be put to death, skinned, and then their carcasses can be boiled for glue."

Bonobobabe continues:
"Although, I think we would be overrun and probably wouldn't have
the resources to deal with all the bodies."

Luckynkl says:
"A 12" cast iron skillet to the back of the head speaks far louder than words and allows him to take your point with crystal clarity. Men don't
want women taking up their valuable time, so clarity is appreciated."

Mangetout says:
"....kill off all the alpha-males, all the aggressive males, and retrain the
remaining more compliant males."

Bonobobabe says:
Ah, Lorena Bobbitt. That takes me back. I remember the reactions were distinctly split by sex. ...and even if the women expressed sympathy for Mr. Bobbitt. . . when they were in mixed company, as soon as no men were around, the women admitted they thought it was cool what she did.

Radfem "attitude" is a spiritual aquifer that feminist-leaning women can dip into whenever the mood strikes them. We too have lowered a bucket into this deep, dark well -- and behold the sample we have hauled up. We do this because we wish to show what is hidden from the world's gaze. Certain women haul this spirit up because they wish to fortify themselves.

And that goes double for the radical feminists. Whoever carries this radfem ideology as a mental backdrop can go almost anywhere and arbitrarily stir up trouble. They will be equipped with a bag of tricks and a way of working, and can work their game independently of right or wrong, of true or false. For almost any human scenario has a grain of ambiguity somewhere about it, and a skilled manipulator can make this grow and turn it to unethical advantage. In the end, feminism is all about stirring up trouble in this way and blaming it on others, especially if those others are male.

Let me be very, very clear. I do not doubt that many of these radfem women have endured genuinely bad, even traumatic experience at the hands of one man or another, and that these male actors were indeed the malefactors. But I believe that such experience, in many cases, warped their keels so that these women could no longer navigate correctly, and that subsequent experience suffered from this warpage, which in turn compounded it. The warpage is what concerns me -- I don't want it to spread to the rest of the world. But the radfem project, seemingly, is to make that very thing happen.

Radical feminism -- and especially the brand we see here -- is a kind of think-tank or test laboratory for ideas that will be gradually drip-fed into the general culture. Almost everything you hear such womyn talking about eventually percolates into the collective mind, melds with the zeitgeist, and makes itself familiar. However, you will sense only the broad flavor of it, as it ripples around the buzz-o-sphere. It will have no evident point-source; it will seem to precipitate from everywhere like a fog and you will not be able to nail it down. Another way of expressing this would be to say, that pieces of a conceptual jigsaw puzzle had been strewn randomly into the world, each transmitting its particular message and resonating uncannily with the others. In time, people would naturally fit the pieces together and draw the ordained conclusion, likely believing that they had thought of it themselves, and unaware that their understanding had been primed and seeded. And in this way, the world at large crystallizes more and more along a feminist pattern.

Consider a mainstream feminist such as Jessica Valenti. I doubt if she would fit in with the WLM crew and its "way-out" ideas. Jessica markets herself mainly to teenaged girls and hip, twenty-something yupsters, and she once admitted having no interest in "herstory" and suchlike concepts. And yet, Jessica Valenti harbors a seething core of hateful anti-male bigotry which her glossy, pop-feminist personna only barely holds in check -- and not always. She sees nothing wrong about informing the world, on no particular authority, that Gerald Loughner's murderous rampage was a problem stemming from masculinity. Yes, you heard that right: Gerald Loughner was "expressing masculinity". But wait, it gets worse. On another occasion, Jessica Valenti strongly implied that men accused of rape should forfeit the presumption of innocence and bear the burden of proof when they go on trial. In other words, Jessica does not believe in equal protection of the law for men. As far as Jessica Valenti is concerned, all men are second-class citizens and innocent men can jolly well get their lives destroyed and suck it up. Jessica figures that's okay. That's the kind of history she wants to be making.

So who the hell is Jessica Valenti anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Jessica Valenti not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Jessica Valenti . . but only a bit. So Jessica Valenti, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Next consider Amanda Marcotte, another mainstream feminist who is Jessica Valenti's spiritual twin sister. I constantly get those two mixed up; I can hardly tell them apart. Amanda shares Jessica's hatred of men as reflected in her stance toward false rape allegation. She has made it clear that she doesn't think women lie about rape, and she will brook no disagreement on this subject. Consider the following:

Think about what Amanda Marcotte is saying here. She is saying that if you are a man who cares about the lives of innocent men and cares about living in a just and free world, then you are motivated by a desire to commit rape. Yes, that is truly what Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying. I took Amanda severely to task for this, here. Some time afterward, as I was informed, Amanda's commment (which I had preserved in the screen capture) disappeared from the comment thread in question. Too late Amanda, it will haunt you forever!

In a separate incident, Amanda Marcotte made it clear that, in her opinion, people who defend falsely rape-accused men are "rape-loving scum." Those are Amanda Marcotte's very words. If you think there is something horribly wrong about accusing innocent men of rape, then according to Amanda Marcotte you are "rape-loving scum." I wish I was making this up.

So who the hell is Amanda Marcotte anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Amanda Marcotte not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Amanda Marcotte . . but only a bit. So Amanda Marcotte, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are both popular feminist morons, and they haven't got the name of being radfems at all. In fact, they are considered cute, sassy, classy, photogenic and perfectly respectable. Heaven help us all, but people like Jessica and Amanda can walk around and talk their vulgar trash in broad daylight, and get handsomely paid for it. Dear God, what the hell is this world coming to, anyway?

The radfems at WLM are simply impatient. The full-blown future they wish for isn't happening fast enough for them, and they are champing at the bit. Yet they ought to be dancing a victory jig in their private forum, since the world as a whole is drifting steadily along a path which ought to delight them. The progress of anti-male legislation has been dramatic. Men are being undermined on many fronts. Man-hating is a persistent underlying theme which surfaces everywhere, in more forms than I can begin to describe. Why, the cult of Valerie Solanas is certainly a hardy perennial, with Valerie's fan club going strong nearly a quarter-century after her death. Yes, the Solanas cult is a powerful organ in the worldwide feminist body -- let none tell you otherwise! Still, most of the misandry is subtle, understated, and not always recognized as such either by the people who spread it, or the people who hear it.

All right, I will speak once more of Pamela O'Shaughnessy, or Vliet Tiptree as she calls herself when she wants to be incognito. I said I would come back to this, didn't I?

Pamela O. is a true feminist in that she occupies her mind very deeply on the thought that "men are the problem". This maxim is central to feminism in every way, so much that whoever would allow that men are only HALF the problem cannot possibly be a feminist at all. Mainstream feminists will play word games, and talk around it or past it, but if you "torture-test" their worldview, you will find it consistent with no other precept but that men or maleness are to blame for nearly all of what's wrong with the world. Well isn't it great when the assholes identify themselves forthrightly? I am talking about the WLM crowd here, and although they think they are conversing in secret, they at least admit their true opinion to themselves and to each other -- which is more than some people do.

So we know that Pamela O., in her Radfem Hub article, has tiptoed lead-footedly around the subject of male genocide. Certainly, to reduce male numbers or genetically engineer the evil out of men, would strike the root of the Man Problem very radically indeed, yes?. Pamela O. was keen to talk about this, and sought an audience, and for that reason broached the subject on the affiliated WLM forum where she was certain of a receptive public.

On 2 April, 2011, Pamela O., under the username "Karma", nailed her thesis to the door:

"First, the ground of the Problem (that is, male oppression and coercion of women) is male aggression. And second, male aggression is not limited to human beings. It is biologically-based and not particularly subject to eradication by social engineering. . . . .That seems to lead inescapably to an answer to the Problem: male oppression must be clearly defined and understood to be pathological (one writer calls its manifestations in humans an "encapsulated psychosis"). It needs to be recognized as a deviation from the norm (the aggression levels of females) that may be correctly called a mental illness. Call it the "Y Syndrome", maybe. Then, it must be cured, and we are very close to having the cure: a genetic modification that will cure the deficiencies of the Y Syndrome which lead to over-expression of male hormones (putting it very simplistically ATM). Which leads to the primary objection: there's no way to administer such a cure. Such a cure will never be voluntary, just as treating other severely mentally ill people cannot always be voluntary. People who are dangerous to themselves and others have little insight into their condition and may have to be restrained and treated without their consent in many cases. It is impossible for male humans to have the needed insight. My thought in response to that objection is: due to the historic circumstances, the cure will have to be administered".

Sure enough, other forum members took the bait with gusto -- Pamela knew her public, all right! So. . the talk went on for a while, Pamela pondered this and that, and six months later -- on 4 Oct, 2011 -- she published her now infamous guest post on Radfem Hub. And you know the rest of the story.

Now, I would not have you think there is anything new about the ideology Pamela O. has laid out. This is classic radfem fare which we've known in various shapes for many years -- although it is indeed, if you will, the most radical of radicalisms! But still, stuff like this is not generally known, and to find such a great sample all bunched up in one place is a mighty windfall. In fact, it is a golden opportunity for those (such as the present writer) who want to make the world see what feminism really amounts to at its rotten core.

There is furthermore, the disquieting hint that these radical wimmin are not merely TALKING about these things. That is, they are not just speculating in their armchairs. The passionate seriousness of their tone is not to be mistaken: Pamela O. herself hints at global groups and networks, and our own investigations (spearheaded by Agent Orange) have uncovered an intriguing web of connections -- an international rabbit hole that goes deeper and deeper, with passageways reaching into sites of power and influence that would surprise you.

The release of the Agent Orange files in the near future will throw a shaft of sunlight into places little known, and permit people to form their conclusions.

But I will speak no more of this, since I know that my colleagues will have much to share in the days ahead. It remains to ask, whether I think the implied scenarios ever would or could become real? My answer is, no, probably not. It is seriously to be doubted that radfem male-genocidalists will ever get the future they dream of, or anything close to it. So my present motivation is twofold: firstly, to have a care about the havoc these people might wreak in merely trying to get their way, and secondly, to awaken the general public to the presence of such people on the same planet with themselves, and to make that same public ponder the implications of such a thing.

What is perverse and dangerous about these people -- and really, all feminists -- is that they consider themselves literally more infallible than the patriarchal Pope of Rome himself! What monstrously swollen egos they have! Men are mentally ill, cannot grasp objective reality, and must therefore be engaged by methods of deceit -- such is their conclusion. They know for a lead-pipe fact, at least in their own minds, that they are dead right and the rest of the world is dead wrong.

That is disturbing to think about, but if you think carefully, it is a tremendous gift which greatly simplifies our lives. In a nutshell, it means that they will never engage us in good faith, and by not doing so, they release us from any obligation to engage THEM in good faith. That's a head-spinner, don't you think so? Chew on the implications of this; grind it small in your mind. It means that this entire business is naught but realpolitik, a pure game of power and very little else. That is how they play it, and that is how we too are entitled to play it.

But for some of us, this is old news. We've known it for years.

Interesting Reading

2011-11-29T20:58:00.000-08:00

Enough to keep you busy for quite a while. I thank the correspondent who sent me the link:

http://www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/utopia.html

Another Great Blog that You Must Look Into

2011-11-24T19:35:00.000-08:00

Fight For Gender Equality is the title of a blog in far-away, exotic India. It is operated by a woman named Uma Challa. I have leafed through Uma's blog (which goes clear back to 2006), and I have found nothing to not like about her politics.

Here is a sample from the blog:

"The inseparability of the male and female entities in the Universe was recognized by Indians as early as the Vedic times. This beautiful sentiment is manifested through the representation of Goddess Parvathi (Uma) and Lord Siva (Maheswara), known as “the parents of the Universe”, as UmaMaheswara or Ardhanareeswara(half-man, half-woman). This representation indicates that while both the female and male forms have their own individual identities and strengths, they are still interdependent. They complement each other and, it is only by combining their individual strengths that they are able to create and nurture life in the Universe. This divine couple is considered by Indians as an example to be emulated by all human beings.
"Import of Western thought on individualism over the last few centuries has led to the erosion of many wonderful Indian values, including the one of male-female unity. Equating individualism with independence has caused many cracks in the much-envied Indian family structure. Radical feminist ideas, which are based on anti-male, anti-family ideologies, have resulted in a gender war. Consequently, divorce rates, numbers of fatherless children, violence against men and numbers of men committing suicides are all on the rise. The time has come to remind ourselves of our pride-worthy Indian values and to restore stability in the society by promoting harmony between men and women."

Uma Challa appears to be under no illusions concerning "radical feminists", the war against men, and the current state of things between men and women in general. You will enjoy the opportunity to inform yourself about what is happening on the Indian subcontinent, which is depressingly similar to what is happening everywhere in the world. No. . we are not paranoid -- this shit is REAL! In India, as you have already heard, men are being treated like dogs. But go and check things out for yourself:

https://uchalla.wordpress.com/

More SCUMbaggeries!

2011-11-23T18:08:00.000-08:00

Here is some footage from a very cultish-appearing Swedish stage production based on the work of Valerie Solanas. This is not necessarily connected to the video production recently discussed elsewhere. The item was uploaded in September, 2008.

Some might inform you that this is all very hip, cool, trendy, edgy, artsy, avant-garde and all of that. But to me, it just seems like a loud, steaming pile of obnoxious dreck and random mind-fuckery, a jolting one-way journey into a garbage-strewn cul-de-sac. The connection to Valerie Solanas is not much apparent except toward the end, where we see the girl with the pistol. I like the heavy-handed allusion to mushroom-tripping, and I reckon if you were high on 'shrooms it might make this stuff more interesting, or at least tolerable. Well. . . actually, I would just prefer to get good old-fashioned drunk!

The video description in the YouTube lowbar is as follows:

fragments of a concert,excerpts of Valerie Solanas SCUM manifest,EMT,electronic music theater:Oliver Augst & Marcel Daemgen & guests: Camilla Milena Fehér & Sylvi Kretzschmar, 2008, Sweden; thanx to Riddarhyttan

'Tis More Blessed to Spittle than to Lickspittle!

2011-11-22T21:25:00.000-08:00

Enjoy the foregoing YouTube, produced by Ben -- a student at the University of Mississippi and a commenter at AVFM. This video is also posted at AVFM, where I left the following comment in response:

Oh how I wish I could be there myself, to walk around the campus and tweak the noses (figuratively) of various people. There is an art to this, mind you.
Let’s see now. . .
If somebody handed me a white ribbon and asked me to take the pledge, I would rattle off a quick list of other things that I might pledge not to do, and would demand to know why they didn’t want me to take THOSE pledges.
E.G. I pledge not to commit arson. . . . I pledge not to drive while drunk . . I pledge not to rob convenience stores. . . I pledge not to be a pickpocket who snatches watches. . . I pledge not to be a peeping Tom who . . eh . . . watches…. um….yes…. Okay! I pledge not to be a crooked stockbroker . . . I pledge not to superglue car door locks. . . I pledge not to kick fluffy kittens . . . I pledge not to eat food at the supermarket without paying for it . . . I pledge not to shoot heroin. . . I pledge…..I pledge. . . I pledge. . .!
I would make clear how grossly offensive it would be, to ask a random stranger to take any such “pledges” as these — especially when you had no reason to assume that he would ever even commit any of the listed actions.
And then I would demand to know why in hell the pledge they were presently asking me to take should be considered in any light other than what I had just described.
Finally, I would grab that ribbon, thoroughly chew it up, and suavely offer it back to them laden with saliva -- "I don't care for the flavor; you keep it!" I would nonchalantly toss it on the ground if they didn’t take it, and then I would walk away.
The possible variations of ad lib and nuance would be nearly infinite, but the key to this scenario would be timing, delivery, and aplomb.
If you had a partner doing a video capture, that would be sheer perfection, and a gift to the movement that would keep on giving.
Hey, you could EVEN post this little essay on a blog, and circulate the URL around campus.

Just Like People We Know....

2011-11-20T15:05:00.000-08:00

http://youtu.be/UymN5scMpZM

This will make you laugh, and think, and say "hmmm...!"

Intermezzo

2011-11-19T00:04:00.000-08:00

Listening to this, I find it impossible not to smile.

Tell Me Again About "Misogyny"

2011-11-17T20:20:00.001-08:00

New Video -- A Counter-Feminist Theory of the State

2011-11-17T16:46:00.001-08:00

A transcript of this talk can be found here:

http://www.4shared.com/document/FlctSAFM/_2__CFtheoryOfState.html?

Great New Blog: Traitors of Men

2011-11-16T22:25:00.001-08:00

Forweg, who has been an occasional commenter here in the past, and shows up on my YouTube channel sometimes, has started a great new blog that you need to go and discover. At present, he has two entries. The blog seems to be dedicated to reaming and barbecuing male feminist collaborationists, and Forweg has done a nifty number on a duo of notables: David Futrelle, and Hugo Schwyzer.

Here is a comment that I left on the post about Schwyzer:

I like what you are doing here. A lot. And I think you need to do lots and lots of this. Like, metric tons worth. What you are doing here could hit feminism like salt hitting a garden slug.

I'm serious. Keep up the good work! :)

After you've taken a look at this new blog, I hope you will do whatever you can to promote it, and drive all sorts of traffic to it, and make it known to one and all.

Oh, silly me, I almost forgot. Here is the link:

http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com

If She Says You Raped Her -- YOU RAPED HER!

2011-11-16T14:58:00.001-08:00

Please read the following article at A Voice For Men:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/brown-university-declares-due-process-dead/

This is simply one more reason why no social contract binding upon men exists any longer. It is a long list already, and it keeps on growing.

It is not simply the old “patriarchal” compact specifically between men and women which has gone south — although that is certainly part of it. No, I am talking about the entire social covenant which binds our civilization together at ANY level whatsoever.

The legitimacy of the state itself is forfeit, and under THAT scenario, there can be no social contract other than the ad hoc ones individuals may conclude amongst themselves privately.

The present state order has NO moral legitimacy, and the only force that can legitimately regulate my behavior is a moral law within myself. The state has only the power to coerce, through violence.

Political obligation is dead. Welcome to the Hobbesian state of nature. It’s a comin!

http://www.4shared.com/document/FlctSAFM/_2__CFtheoryOfState.html?

Claiming the Liberty of the Sector -- Fidelbogen Is Not An "MRA"

2011-11-16T01:16:00.000-08:00

I am not an "MRA." I am active on behalf of the human rights of males, in various ways.

But I am not an "MRA".

I am an agitator against feminism, and in favor of a Male Renaissance.

But I am not an "MRA".

That is not a word which I apply to myself as a label. I formerly did, but I no longer do.

I am on good terms with many people who do apply the word MRA to themselves as a label. But I do not apply that word to myself as a label.

That word has picked up more baggage than I can honestly claim to be carrying. I mean that it has picked up other people's baggage. And it would place an unwanted burden on me personally, to carry a shitload of baggage which I do not own -- or which is worse, to have other people assume that I am carrying such baggage. So if you want to call me something, call me:

A counter-feminist....

A non-feminist. . .

An activated non-feminist. . .

A non-feminist partisan. . .

A partisan of the non-feminist sector. .

A pro-male agitator. . .

A pro-male partisan. . .

A Male Renaissance Agitator. . .

Or other names that might occur to me later.

And if certain ones insist on calling me an 'MRA', it is in contravention to my own stated wishes.

Finally, I invite others to crystallize around the suggested list of terms above, in order to create a distinct brand that will gradually come to be differentiated from the 'MRA' brand. We ought to create many, MANY such distinct brands if we wish to claim the liberty of the non-feminist sector. Or for short: the Liberty of the Sector.

That liberty will only exist for us if we proactively reach out and build it. And if certain ones refuse to acknowledge this liberty, we shall judge them accordingly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. By the way, MRAs too are welcome to claim the Liberty of the Sector.

Some day, I hope to organize "Non-Feminist Be-ins" at such venues as college campuses. It might be nothing more than a crowd of silent people at some popular location, standing stock still like the guards at Buckingham Palace and wearing identical t-shirts that say, "I am not a feminist". And maybe holding up signs, too.

Can't Say it Enough: Rhetorical Discipline

2011-11-15T13:45:00.000-08:00

I am re-posting this now because the message needs to be heard just as urgently as it ever did.

The text version is also recommended. You will find it here:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2011/08/completed-field-manual-of-rhetorical.html

Try reading along while the video is playing; that embeds it in the brain more effectively.

Swedish Feminism At Work

2011-11-14T05:44:00.000-08:00

Of course, it's only a joke. Only theatrics. Calm down. Really, I do think it's quite fabulous! Quite a fable.

Okay. Right. Now, here is the SCUM Manifesto, by Valerie Solanas:

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/scum.html

But on a serious note, we must choose. When confronted by such upwellings of the collective psyche as I have linked in this post, we need to make a choice. A normative decision, let's call it. A very clear and stark either/or:

EITHER: 1.) Such things are inherent to "feminism". . .

OR: 2.) Such things are inherent to female nature as a whole.

Either theorization will have political consequences. I hope that we all, men and women alike, have the good sense to pick the first option and make it the consistent foundation of our rhetoric.

Your Emotions Are Not 'Special'

2011-11-10T12:20:00.000-08:00

And neither are you.

=============================

While we're on the subject of feelings, go and learn how the SCUM Manifesto is being adapted to the stage, as teaching material in the schools:

Scum Manifesto - as a school performance

I am grateful to Ulf Andersson, of Sweden, for sending me this link.

New Video -- A Moral Dilemma Examined

2011-11-08T23:40:00.000-08:00

I'd like to share an e-mail that I got recently. It is from a woman who would describe herself as traditionalist conservative. Specifically, she is Catholic. In her message, my correspondent addressed certain ethical concerns that she felt in connection with counter-feminist activism. She sought my input, and I answered to the best of my ability. But here is the e-mail, edited only slightly for stylistic and discretionary reasons:

Hello Fidelbogen!

Quite some time ago I talked about handing out leaflets printed with website addresses. I finally got these printed, and meant to give some out today to the guys who do our lawn. But I couldn't because I found I had a moral dilemma, and I bring this to your attention hoping you might be able to shed some light.

Here's the problem. Ignorance is bliss for some men, especially younger men, because this culture is all they know. They function within this culture, some of them experience the shitty end of the stick down the road, others will go their whole lives with a vague sense of disgruntlement, but they will have their family. Even taking into account the high divorce rates, is it justifiable to be the means by which a family could be broken apart? Granted that whatever information I provide would only sooner draw the problems to the surface -- assuming there are any -- giving such information, rather than letting them find it on their own, I might play a part in breaking apart another family. That's my problem.

Let's suppose that a guy goes to those websites and he wants to see some changes in his life - he realizes that it's not okay to be taking crap, stuff he "blew off" before. He also knows that the divorce courts are biased towards women, that if they get a divorce there is a high chance that he will hardly ever see his children. So, yes, now he knows how wrong things are, but he is powerless to do anything about it, Essentially he would be happier not knowing, happier with the old status quo.

On the internet. I am a small-time evangelist against feminism; giving these slips of paper out would be considerably more pro-active in the sense that these men, to my knowledge, are not searching for answers, because they don't have the questions yet. If I take such an active part in raising the questions, is it possible that a family that would have made it together, at least through the youth of their children, would be broken apart? I know I wouldn't be the immediate cause of this, but I wouldn't be so remote either. And taking into account that as a patriarchalist I consider family, not the individual, to be the most important element in society, it is abhorrent to me. But is this information owed to them?

Anyway, this email is probably too long, but I hope somewhere in there you get the drift of my problem as I see it. Theorizing that you had a family, and children that you would die for in a heartbeat, given the choice of knowledge which might separate you from your children, and ignorance (and you might still eventually be separated from your children - I would think it's just a matter of immediacy), which would you choose? I tend to think that most men would prefer the ignorance, delaying what might be the inevitable.

Such was the e-mail that I recieved. I responded with the following message -- again, slightly modified from the rough original:

Hello. Here is my quick and immediate answer, from the top of the dome.

It all comes down to averages.

Either road you follow, something bad COULD happen. The question is, which choice would likely cause the least damage overall.

Let's say that you hand the leaflet to some guy, and he absorbs the information, and gets 'politically awakened', and then decides to do something adversely 'preemptive' as you have
suggested.

You COULD argue that you're a second-hand agent in making
that happen.

All right, now let's say you DON'T give the leaflet to some other guy. And so, lacking that life-saving information, his wife nine-elevens him and his life is ruined. He might even commit suicide. Who knows?

Here too, you COULD argue that you're a second-hand
agent. The question is, which option would implicate you the least?

For all it would matter, couldn't you just toss a coin?

And if you simply gave up on the whole business, wouldn't it still work the same on average as if you had done either thing exclusively, or decided by a coin toss?

So, I would say the question becomes: "Averages considered, why should i NOT hand out leaflets?"

Maybe it is all a matter of Fate, and Faith. Have faith that fate (or "providence" if you prefer) will work according to its necessary, appointed program.

If feminism, and all that belongs or pertains to it, is simply ignored and left alone, what will happen? It will keep growing; I feel mighty sure of that.

Very well, make that factor your baseline. Your "constant". Your "given". If you simply ignore feminism and all that belongs or pertains to it, it will KEEP GROWING.

So it looks like the dutiful, responsible thing is to intervene in some way -- and that forebearing do so could not improve the state of matters. For, how else to hinder or reverse the growth of feminist innovation in all of its subtle and pernicious forms, if not by intervening?

And handing out leaflets is certainly an intervention, as opposed to NOT handing them out. If anything will thwart feminist innovation, informing people of the situation (EVEN at the risk of being an 'adverse agent' occasionally) is more likely to do so.

So I would say trust ( or have faith) in your agency on behalf of providence ( or. . .fate). But not BLIND faith, mind you, because here you will be acting according to REASON (as I have outlined it in the present case).

Doing NOTHING AT ALL to blockade the growth of feminism will surely issue in all the adverse consequences, and more, that you fear might arise in the course of your leafleting.

But more significantly, these consequences will increase, and in the fullness of time bulk large and assume erratic, uncontrolled, unpredictable forms. Or if you will, formlessness. Chaos. Entropy.

And form, I would say, is better than formlessness. Better than chaos. Better than entropy.

Your proposed action is: to spread information.

And what is information, if not that which gives form and counteracts chaos or entropy???

So finally, if you want my opinion, I would say: hand out those leaflets every chance you get, for your chance of being a providential, divinely guided agent would enjoy better odds that way. . than any other way.

You see, by sharing such information, you are shining light on the objective situation. You are dispelling mental darkness.

And I think it is far better to walk in the light than to stumble in mental darkness, damaging both yourself and everything you bump into along the way. It will generate the least damage overall, if non-feminist men and women have a clear light upon the objective historical condition of the world.

New Video -- Helping Men by Hurting Feminism

2011-11-04T01:11:00.000-07:00

Female Criminality

2011-11-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

The dark side of female nature is routinely swept under the carpet, or excused, or "prettied up" in a variety of ways. Such rationalizing behavior (sometimes loosely described as "chivalry") has deep roots in the culture at large, and has existed since long before the radical 1960s when the current feminist regime got started. However, feminism is as much a product of pre-existing culture as anything else is -- it did not enter the world through a side-door from nowhere. And so feminism depends on "chivalry" in order to stay in business. The feminist principle that women can do no wrong grows directly out of the chivalrous "patriarchal" order, and feminism itself continues to draw sustenance from the psychic deep structure it shares with that order. Feminism does not aim so much to "end" so-called patriarchy as to transform it into something controlled, firstly, by feminist men and women, and secondly, by second-tier lackeys drawn from the ranks of social conservatives -- the white knights as we call them. The demographic sector that will come under fire most of all will be men who, by whatever combination of methods, minimize the control that women exert over their lives.

By writing the above paragraph, I have implicated myself as a "misogynist" in the court of feminist law. Awww shucks, so be it! It is impossible to take the concept of "misogyny" seriously any more, and the people who throw that word around are a bunch of ying-yangs.

At any rate, you will find the present YouTube video from RockingMrE to be worth your while, since anything which punctures sugar-and-spice delusions about women is mighty ammunition against the feminist regime.

You should also take a voyage over to YouTube itself, where RockingMrE has kindly provided links to a number of PDF files and other material that you won't want to miss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxQo-Pu1Gw&feature=related

Hardcore Politics

2011-11-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

Seekers of deeper knowledge will find the present video worth repeated listening. This will instruct you not merely about the politics of left v. right during the 20th century, but about the archetypal patterns of occurrence which form the basis for all of human history.

It Is Always Good to Review Basic Things

2011-11-01T11:58:00.000-07:00

Feminism will never yield to mere persuasion. So we need to grab the steering wheel; it is just that simple. And this begins with a personal decision, with a fundamental shift of your inner moral posture. From there, the energy spreads into the world and joins with the energy of others who have made a similar decision.

Radical Feminism in the 21st Century

2011-10-31T16:10:00.001-07:00

Look'ee here, Roy-Bob, we got us a live one!

Radical feminism is going strong. You will find it in cliques, covens, coteries and university departments everywhere, always biding its time, waiting for a shift in the zeitgeist, for a moment when preparation meets opportunity. Take a whiff of the following, for example:

"As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together. . . . .
. . . . We have given up the polite, diplomatic, politic, earnest, logical, legalistic approach in favor of Realpolitik. We accept revolutionary attitudes and emotions; rage and despair, unflinchingness, uncompromisingness as motivational and curative. We see that compassion, empathy, a willingness to work with men, is seized upon and perverted by the System as it has always been, a weakness when dealing with the amoral. We don’t make the mistake of wasting our energies trying to persuade men to do anything. We are not naïve or idealistic, and we work to avoid falling into denial. There is no romanticization possible of the System. As painful as it is, we choose to act without illusions, especially the illusion that the System can be fundamentally changed from within.

. . . . .We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.

This is only a very thin slice of the wonders that await you HERE:

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

Well I would surely appreciate not being told to "do anything" by such people. But to belabor the obvious, this signals a shift in tactics that will feature less talking from our enemies, and more stabbing us in the back. Yes, that is what we ought to brace ourselves for as the 21st century unfolds.

Anyhow, since you are here, go watch this old favorite again and let the dots connect themselves:

Ontologies, Old Codgers, and Feminism

2011-10-30T17:57:00.000-07:00

I share herewith a brief sample of some recent correspondence. First, the following which I received. Yes, the person addresses me as "Mr." Fidelbogen! ;)

From: __________
Sent: 09/17/11 05:05 PM
To: Fidelbogen
Subject: Ontology

Dear Mr. Fidelbogen,

I am dumbing up as I get older, and I am now at the point of total intellectual dissipation, hinging on the question of what can I really know.

On the contrary, you present yourself as someone who knows things. My question to you is, what do you really know, and how do you know it? If that is too broad a question for someone of your acumen to find worth tackling, perhaps you could share one (1) thing you know for sure, and how you know it. Let us say that A=A style logical truths do not count.

And, if that is still too vague or open-ended a question, consider this: Does feminism exist? In what sense is feminism "real"? Aren't we just playing with words? Why shouldn't I listen to the reductionist materialists who say that all is merely a flux of elementary waves and particles?

I sent the following reply:

fidelbogen@earthling.net
Subject: Re: Ontology
To:____________

Interesting points you raise.

A few years ago, there was this affable old codger who lived in my building, and sometimes I would pass him in the lobby.

The old codger's standard greeting (to me and others) was a hearty, "so, what do ya know for sure?"

My reply to him (on one occasion I remember) was, "well, the only thing I know for sure is that I think, therefore I am."

That stopped the codger for a minute, and the half-sly, half-bemused grin along with the twinkle in his eye was priceless.

All right, how do "I" know that "I" am? Because, very clearly something is going on. There is no getting around the fact that "something is going on". And furthermore, something is AWARE of this. Maybe both of these 'somethings' are illusory, and maybe they are 'real', but either way something is going on, or else nothing would be sitting here, or even seeming to sit here, asking such questions, or even seeming to ask them. Seeming as surely as being must have a source, must it not? So "I" have as good a warrant to believe that "I" am thinking about the apparent "fact" that "I am", as to believe the contrary.

Therefore "I" choose to believe that "I" am. "Something" is aware that "something is going on", and aye, "I" seems as good a name for this "eye" of awareness as anything else which "I" can think of, or even think that I am thinking of. So there. QED.

Bottom line: all knowing requires both a "knower" and a "known". Or if you prefer, a subject and an object.

Now, on to the big question: does feminism exist?

I think it makes sense to say that it does -- but in a derivative way. The objective world, as a "known", is necessary for me to exist as a "knower". But feminism is only a derivative, a "coming into being" of the flux of possibility which is that objective world. It is unnecessary to my existence as a "knower", because other phenomena (such as old codgers) can just as well be "known" to me.

Therefore, feminism has a lower order of existence than the primordial objective world of which it is an offshoot.

Hope this sheds light.

~Fidelbogen~

Barbarosssaaa Takes PUA Shit Apart

2011-10-29T20:33:00.000-07:00

We must ALL begin to take PUA shit apart.

This Is NOT Nicole Fabian-Weber

2011-10-27T21:58:00.000-07:00

This is, currently at least, the sole video on the YouTube channel of Girlwriteswhat. If you spend much time around Men's Rights Reddit, you'll know her as one of the regulars thereabouts. She contributes material of thoughtfulness and substance, and she also has a blog:

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com

I thought you would appreciate this, to cleanse your mind of the psychic stench of Nicole Fabian-Weber in the previous entry:

counterfem.blogspot.com/2011/10/nicole-fabian-weber-anti-male-bigot-who.html

Nicole Fabian-Weber: Anti-Male Bigot Who Endorses Anti-Male Violence

2011-10-26T22:19:00.000-07:00

Nicole Fabian-Weber. Add that name to our growing list of women who feel that cutting off a penis is a cool thing to do.

Nicole Fabian-Weber has not personally cut off a penis, mind you, but allows how she wouldn't entirely disapprove such an action in theory. And if Nicole Fabian-Weber learns of a woman who has indeed cut off a penis, she is likely pretty sure, sight unseen, that the awful monster of a man "must have" done something to deserve this.

Nicole Fabian-Weber looks like any old gal you might see walking around the supermarket any old day of the week, doesn't she? If you chatted with her for a little bit, I'm sure she would seem pleasant and harmless enough, wouldn't she?

Go now to Nicole Fabian-Weber's blog space and listen to her gloat over a real-life story of a husband in the Far East who had his penis cut off by his wife -- who then threw the severed organ in the river where it wouldn't be recovered:

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/127533/wife_cuts_off_husbands_penis?next=1

And you will also want to take a jog over to A Voice For Men, where you will learn how Nicole Fabian-Weber was placed on the Register.Com bigot list, for so openly relishing the idea of penises being cut off:

www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/nicole-fabian-weber-placed-on-offenders-registry/

Paul Elam will assure you that the feminist criminal Nicole Fabian-Weber shall remain on this "sexual offender" registry for life.

Woman Commits Complicated Murder-Framing Hoax

2011-10-26T11:53:00.000-07:00

This is worth reading:

"FORT DODGE, Iowa -- A woman who told police she shot her 20-year-old neighbor to death while trying to protect her family from intruders went on trial for murder Tuesday, in a case that authorities say boils down to the woman's attempt to frame her first husband for a crime.Tracey Richter fatally shot Dustin Wehde on Dec. 13, 2001, at the home where she lived with her second husband and three children in Early, a town of about 500 people 100 miles northwest of Des Moines.Prosecutors say Richter, who was initially hailed as a hero who acted in self-defense, killed Wehde and planted a notebook in his car suggesting he was a hit man hired by an ex-husband she had feuded with for years."

Read the whole story: http://www.ketv.com/news/29580422/detail.html#ixzz1buoywOW5

If women can perform such intricate shenanigans in connection with a crime like murder, just think what they might venture with a charge of "rape", "domestic violence", "sexual harassment", and so on -- all of which have the criminal justice system working in women's favor, and making it easier for them.

Another Woman of Conscience (WOC)

2011-10-22T17:57:00.000-07:00

Rape: Physical, Political or Otherwise

2011-10-21T23:10:00.000-07:00

The following was written by a woman who speaks from experience:

"All of this, every last self deluding bit, serves one pernicious rule in the politics of rape. Women are the victims, even when rape is imagined. And men are the perpetrators, even when they are raped for real.
No one deserves to be raped, no one, especially a child of nine years old. But women that use this term to describe something in which most of them willingly took part, drunk or otherwise, should maybe have it really happen to them. At least they would be finally telling the truth from actual experience."

Now read the rest of it, here:

www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/speaking-ill-of-the-dead/

Encore: Sic Semper Tyrannis

2011-10-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] on les pendra!
Si on n’ les pend pas
On les rompra
Si on n’ les rompt pas
On les brûlera.
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] on les pendra!
L’égalité partout régnera.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira,
Et leur infernale clique
Au diable s’envolera.
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] à la lanterne!
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les [ ___ ] on les pendra!
Et quand on les aura tous pendus
On leur fichera la pelle au cul

What you see above are the lyrics to a song of the French Revolution, called Ça Ira. Translation: "it will be fine, it will go well." Yes, this will be of interest to all you history buffs! ;)

This song was sung in different versions, and the verses above are the rude, unrefined sansculotte edition. I have modified this just slightly, to make it more "one-size-fits-all". For example, I left out the topical bit about Marie Antoinette (l'autrichienne). After all, that part is suggestive of violence against women, right? And we can't be featuring that, can we?

For the bracketed blanks [ ___ ], supply a noun that seems fitting. I could recommend the vulgar French word "connards" (trans. "assholes"), but I leave this to your wisdom and discretion. Hint: a word of three or four syllables would scan better.

What's that, you don't understand French? Ça n'importe.Vous l'apprendrez rapidement!

To experience the melodic dimension, check the following YouTube -- which uses somewhat different lyrics than I have given:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-srLjMRjoVI&NR=1

It's a catchy tune that you'll soon know by heart, and you'll find it enjoyably hummable at odd moments in your day.

Just for kicks, here is another version, sung by the French popular singer Edith Piaf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzu01gO3pi4&feature=related

New Video -- Women Could Not Vote and That Was Not 'Oppression'

2011-10-19T21:16:00.000-07:00

The Chickens Coming Home to Roost

2011-10-19T15:24:00.000-07:00

While I'm on a roll with the subject of rape, I will send you to the following which was recently posted to the False Rape Society:

'Chickens have come home to roost': Some taxi drivers think twice about picking up young women because of false sex claims.

I hope that you will comprehend the writing on the wall, in this and many other places. We live in interesting times.

The Rape Hysteria Holocaust

2011-10-19T02:24:00.000-07:00

Here is a duo of embedded audio presentations, both on the subject of RAPE. They echo each other, they chime with each other, they reinforce each other, they talk about the same thing from different angles. First, we have the most recent episode of A Voice for Men Radio, called Rape Hysteria:

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

Next, my YouTube video about rape, posted a couple of months ago, called The Judicial Holocaust of the Innocent:

I hope that you paid attention to the part in the radio show where John the Other predicts the growing rage, and eventual violence, against women in India. Everything I darkly foretold in my video is now in gradual process of becoming real -- this holocaust is no joke, and it will spread to engulf more and more of society, in India and everywhere else on earth where the cancer of feminism propagates itself.

People need to wake up to the reality of feminism, and turn the tide against it. I hope that what you hear will inspire and galvanize you. Feminism deserves no respect whatsoever, and feminists, wherever they are, should be suspiciously eyeballed and rudely questioned, and pressured to apologize. Finally, they should have the good sense to renounce feminism altogether.

Women Couldn't Vote.That Was "Oppression"?

2011-10-18T00:19:00.000-07:00

It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were "oppressed" because they didn't have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.

I am aware that some people might think it was a bad thing that women couldn't vote. And I am aware that other people might think it was a good thing.

Well as you might expect, I am a third way thinker upon this subject. I would submit that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.

Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world -- a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?

So was it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? And WHY was it inherently horrible? Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was "all that"? Seriously. . . who are we new-fangled ones to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life, with its very different demands and pressures that we can no longer entirely fathom?

And needless to say, we all know that most men could not vote during most of those same years in which women could not vote, and that there was only a trivial time lag between full manhood suffrage and full womanhood suffrage.

Something else that nobody to my knowledge has pointed out, is that electoral politics as we nowadays know it is a VERY recent historical innovation. It virtually did not exist before the French Revolution, and came into focus gradually beginning in the early 1800s. So it is utterly vacuous to say that women were deprived of the vote for "centuries", in case anybody wanted to say such a thing. In fact, the time window in which women couldn't vote was historically very brief, and for most of that same stretch most men were similarly deprived. Yes, the more you whittle this down, the more trivial it looks.

As above, was it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn't always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?

Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn't it?

Once again, I believe that women's historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but a morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little at the present day. And I even think I am being generous, for to be intellectually honest I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times. However, I am willing to settle for "morally indifferent", and call it quits.

Look, it's simple. Once upon a time, women didn't have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such a lack. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That's all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, "oppressed." Only within the feminist narrative were they "oppressed" -- but there are other narratives.

Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women's "right" to vote simply did not exist in the first place -- or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that "rights" are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself -- they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom within the frame of a social contract. Through the entirety of human history, people have been inventing new "rights", in train with new appetites, where none existed previously. And I expect they will continue to do so.

Of course, the idea of repealing women's voting right NOWADAYS, is silly and not to be recommended. It would be a counterproductive measure, to say the very least.

But in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory agitprop on the theme of "women couldn't vote". Women can vote now. Okay? So the feminists need to get over it, and move on, and quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.

It really is.

New Video -- Advocacy is a One Way Street

2011-10-13T13:12:00.001-07:00

Feminism is a political plundering force on behalf of women. Is there any reason for men to support it? I think not. Supporting feminism is like holding a bake sale to benefit the IRS. No, cookies are for your friends.

-------------------------------------

Here is somebody getting the word out, on the Vancouver Craigslist:

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/rnr/2648177931.html

I thank this person~ :)

Something Odd and Droll

2011-10-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

I recently stumbled upon this:

"An East Bethel teenager is accused of squeezing through a neighbor's doggy door to help feed a pornography addiction.
"The neighbor allegedly caught the 18-year-old on surveillance footage . . .Darin Paul Pake, 44, told investigators the footage showed Amanda Rose Owens - his children's former baby sitter - sliding into his house through his doggy door at 7:50 a.m. Monday. . .
"When interviewed by investigators, Owens allegedly confessed to the crime . . .She said she stole things she thought she could pawn to help support her pornography addiction. . . The teenager said she recently had bought 20 to 30 pornographic DVDs and needed to pay them off, the complaint said."

You can read the entire (brief) news story here: http://bit.ly/oXEskf

New Video -- Remaining Free of Moral Dissonance

2011-10-06T02:11:00.001-07:00

New Video -- Men Can Stop Rape? Whatever!

2011-10-04T02:29:00.000-07:00

Men Can Stop Rape? How?

2011-10-02T22:48:00.000-07:00

Our wise and wonderful friends, the feminists, have a wise and wonderful saying that you have undoubtedly heard. Yes. In their wonderfully wise way, our feminist friends have made known to us that "men can stop rape." Now, you might wonder if that maxim contains any wisdom at all, or then again, you might wonder if I am only being a wise guy. So watch closely. I am going to insert this wondrous wisdom into the bench-vise of intellectual violence, cranking the jaws tighter and tighter until the specimen cracks open and parts fly out upon the floor. That way, we can scrutinize them! You would remark nothing phallic in the manner of force applied to the task.

Very well, keeping hardlogic on track in the spirit of rhetorical discipline, what does it mean to say that "men can stop rape"? On the face of it, very little. And yet quite a lot. But here, let me break it down by stages, sparing no pains either to myself or to my audience. Everything in this examination turns upon two major points, or rather questions: who or what is "men", and what does it mean to say that men can "stop" rape? I will address these points in order.

To address the first major point, the subject noun "men" is the plural of "man" -- meaning an adult male human. So if we say that "men can stop rape", we must understand that more than one adult male human is involved in the projected action. This plurality of male participation may be classified under a dual heading: men severally, and men jointly.

To speak of men stopping rape severally: almost any man is theoretically able to stop rape, either by personally ceasing a rape action once started, or by intervening to terminate such an action. And any number of men, at separate times and places, will have the like capacity. So even if these men act alone and unknown to each other, they are endowed with the same potential -- to either personally cease a rape action, or intervene to terminate one. Therefore it is permitted to class these men as a set or ensemble, from whence we may fairly conclude that men severally can indeed "stop rape".

And to speak of men stopping rape jointly: if two or more adult human males happen upon a rape action in progress, it is possible for them to intervene and terminate this by acting in concert. Since they are more than one in number, it is here permitted to say that "men have stopped rape" rather than "a man has stopped rape." In the unusual case of gang rape only one man at a time is raping. Hence it is theoretically possible that his gangmates will have a change of heart and intervene jointly at any given moment to stop him. So again it is permitted to say that "men have stopped rape."

To sum up, I have noted that "men" is the plural of man. I have further noted that "men" can have two distinctly different senses, so that the possibility of a solitary male stopping rape is not excluded. And I think that exhausts the possible meanings of "men" in the statement "men can stop rape".

But a final nuance bears consideration. It is possible not only for men jointly or severally to stop a rape action in progress, but for them to intervene in a scenario in order to forestall a merely contemplated rape action. That is to say, the parties would intervene in the scenario before the would-be rapist had effected penetration. In such case it would not be correct to say that they had stopped rape, but only that they had prevented it.

The matter thus far given, is laid out with monotonous clarity and thoroughness. It merely states something that most people could work out for themselves if they would so inhumanly tax their own mental endurance. All in all, it does not meaningfully advance the project of human understanding. It is trite. And it has no utility. Yet the subject of the talk is important. So I have treated it, accordingly, as a matter of import.

I will now address the second major point, referred to in the beginning. The verb "to stop" must be disambiguated even as the noun "men". I paved the way to this task, in the first part of the talk, when I sketched rape scenarios. But now I must take it a step further. The proposed or imagined project of "stopping" rape may be understood under a dual heading: concretely stopping it, and abstractly stopping it.

We have already made clear what it means to concretely stop rape. It means to either personally desist in a rape action, or to compel somebody else to so desist. We have also underscored the distinction between stopping rape and preventing rape. The talk can now move forward in the light of these understandings.

So, to abstractly stop rape does not mean to stop a precise episode of rape, but to make rape vanish as an earthly phenomenon. Thus, to declare that "men can stop rape" might also mean that men can terminate the very existence of rape. But if you think for a minute, you will see that "stopping" rape in this globally existential way can only mean to prevent rape -- any rape -- from ever getting started in the first place. That is what it would take.

So it is easy to see that if "men" are to make rape entirely stop existing on earth, they must operate preventatively. Very well, how might they go about this? Briefly, in one or both of the two ways which follow.

The first way, already touched upon, is that men would physically intervene to prevent rape from happening. Now, if this is to be effective toward ending the very existence of rape, one would need to mobilize enormous numbers of men for the task, and to organize these men for both patrolling and intelligence-gathering purposes. Effectively, one would need to create an anti-rape police state. I am sure that most feminists, male and female alike, would find nothing to not like about such a scenario. The female feminists would find ample opportunity to make life miserable for men in general, while the collaborationists (and their white knight helpers) could make life miserable for particular classes of fellow men whom they wish to bully.

The second way, would be for men to never attempt rape under any condition. This would count as prevention by self-restraint, and it would occur through moral persuasion, simple fear, or a combination of these. Either way, the operative force would be mental pressure to not rape. To make such a thing happen, one would need to launch a preventative teaching campaign, a preventative terror campaign, or both. Theoretically, if men en masse were sufficiently lectured, or terrorized, they just might never commit any rapes -- and so rape would cease to exist as a phenomenon.

And so we could say that "men" had "stopped rape" -- meaning that they had stopped rape in the abstract by preventing rape in the concrete occurrence. But please note that men could effect this only as a joint project. They could not do it severally. For although it is possible for a solitary male to intervene in a concrete rape episode, and stop it, it is not possible for a solitary male by any personal action short of magic, to abolish rape in the abstract. He, as an individual, has no such capacity. That would be a manifest absurdity. So if you confront some individual man with the imperative that "men" should stop rape in the abstract, that man would be quite within his rights to say, "don't look at me. I am not 'men'!"

Now, concerning anti-rape moral persuasion efforts: these are already underway, since anti-rape preaching and pedagogy -- targeting the young especially -- have been a great industry for many years. This can certainly be ramped up a lot more.

As for the terror campaign: that was earlier sketched, in part, when we spoke of an anti-rape police apparatus. Another way to foment terror, is to lubricate the criminal justice machinery with more innocent blood by making it easier to obtain rape convictions. Feminists similar to Catherine MacKinnon are working hard, mostly behind the scenes where they can't be seen, to make this dream come true by securing the necessary innovations in the legal system. The beauty of this strategy is, that even though it would punish a lot more actual rapists by locking up everybody who got hauled into court in the first place, it would be effective as terror EVEN if none but the innocent were destroyed. Eventually, men would shun the company of women altogether for the sake of their own survival, so that in theory no women would get raped. Of course, this does not take male-on-male prison rape into account, but since the feminists don't care about that, I'm sure they'll be happy with the solution. As for the collaborationists and white knights, they won't care because they think that false rape conviction only happens to MRAs, proletarians, losers, and assorted goofballs.

Very well. I think I have squeezed everything that you could ever hope to squeeze from the feminist wisdom that "men can stop rape" -- unless somebody can think of anything I missed. It is difficult to understand why they keep saying this, since what they are saying is either insignificant or morally grotesque. Personally, I think it is just a way to rape your mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs708GxGGuQ

New Video -- All Feminists Are Like That

2011-10-02T19:04:00.000-07:00

S.A.V.E. calls for outrage after Biden appearance

2011-09-28T22:40:00.000-07:00

The following was posted on AV4M by Robert O'Hara. Give it a read, and consider getting in touch with Joseph Biden in order to express your stern displeasure. (I am not quite sure what "letter" is being referred to here):

WASHINGTON (AVfM) Yesterday, September 28^th, Vice President Joseph Biden appeared on “The View” a popular daytime television show to talk about violence perpetrated against young women aged between 18 and 30. Biden, champion of the Violence Against Women Act which passed in 1994 which is currently past due for renewal, predictably spoke of all types of intimate partner violence as a gender specific crime with men being the sole perpetrators and women being the sole victims. He even invoked the memory of his father who he quoted as saying “you should never ever raise your hand to a woman in anger” and then went on to tell viewers that violence against women and victim blaming was a norm in our society.

Woopie Goldburg, moderator on the show and a popular entertainer known for her role in the 1985 film “The Color Purple” in which she portrayed a victim of domestic violence, interjected abruptly during Biden’s diatribe stating: “And will you just also remind people, remind the women that the way to get a man’s attention is not to hit him? Do not hit him. (applause) Because this is something violent in itself, is something we need to teach kids is not to perpetrate on each other. No?”

Despite a smattering of applause, Neither Biden or any of the other moderators on the show showed any appreciable reaction to her comments.

The letter cited a number of credible sources including studies performed by the CDC and the American Journal of Public Health that cite violence perpetrated by teenage females as a rapidly growing problem.

Excerpt from the letter:

“• According to the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, 10% of teenage boys were victimized by dating violence in the past year, compared to only 9% of teenage girls experiencing dating violence (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf – Table 12)
• According to a national survey of young adults ages 18-25, in cases of one-way violence, females were the aggressors in 71% of the cases, and males the initiators 29% of the time. (Whitaker DJ et al. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007)”

This letter, like Woopie Goldburg’s comments on the show, was ignored by Vice President Biden.

S.A.V.E. also called upon concerned citizens on Monday to contact the White House to express their concerns. After Biden’s appearance emails were sent out to those on S.A.V.E.’s email list urging people to express outrage at the misrepresentation of the true nature of intimate partner violence and an email link to the White House was provided.

Sources:

http://www.saveservices.org/2011/09/save-sends-letter-to-vp-biden-regarding-his-upcoming-appearance-on-the-view/

http://abc.go.com/watch/the-view/SH559080/VD55145134/the-view-927

New Video -- The Criminal Nature of Feminism

2011-09-28T19:52:00.000-07:00

Speaking of truly criminal matters affiliated with feminism, please make note of the following, which is also an opportunity for activism:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/vladek-filler-action-alert-press-release/

Now, somebody may be asking, "what's Mary Kellett got to do with feminism"? Well that's easy: the present criminal justice culture, obsessed with obtaining rape convictions, would not exist but for the criminal legacy of feminist anti-rape hysteria in the past, which secured the necessary innovations in the system and fostered the necessary growth of institutional misandry. This made it possible for criminals under color of law -- such as Mary Kellett, Mike Nifong, Jody Vaughan et al -- to find a place for themselves where nobody would challenge their criminal behavior. Innocent men's lives were destroyed, and feminism is largely to blame for this. Feminists in the past got this rolling, and feminists today keep it rolling when they mock it, trivialize it, ignore it, deny it, block efforts to change it, and duck responsibility for their historical role in creating it.

The feminists will once again betray their criminal nature, in a glaring way, when their guilt is exposed and their power structure begins to crumble. That day has not arrived quite yet, but when it does the mask will drop and the snarling face with fangs will finally show itself.

Exhibitionism

2011-09-27T15:39:00.000-07:00

PWC.

Dr. T - What Every Man Should Know Before He Gets Married 09/26 by AVoiceforMen | Blog Talk Radio

2011-09-26T22:35:00.000-07:00

Dr. T - What Every Man Should Know Before He Gets Married 09/26 by AVoiceforMen | Blog Talk Radio

Go and listen to this.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A FEMINIST, YOU GUILTY DOG!

Pay attention to the English guy who describes the behavior of abusive wives. It is a microcosm for the behavior of feminism toward men en masse.

Two Videos Well Worth Watching

2011-09-22T18:29:00.000-07:00

I share with you now a couple of YouTube videos well worth watching. Here is the first:

Incidentally, I left the following comment after watching this vid on its native YouTube channel:

Excellent. You are no friend of feminism. But at the same time I clearly see that you are not a fat, bitter, conservative old man.

I think it is important for the world to understand what a non-feminist looks like -- and that can be damned near anything!

All right, here is the next video I want to share:

This video, like the first, evidences a demographic variety among those who oppose feminism. It also gives you a window into what is happening out yonder in the big wide world -- doesn't it?

I hope these videos have repaid your viewing time.

Video Remake -- Feminism Will Never Yield to Mere Persuasion

2011-09-22T01:43:00.000-07:00

You will find the audio quality much improved here, with some novel effects.

Amanda Marcotte Ducks My Question

2011-09-20T14:00:00.000-07:00

Do you remember that piece which Amanda Marcotte posted on the Good Men Project a few months ago? The one which stated in its title that we need "more feminism"? Needless to say, it was everything you might expect from Amanda. But I posted a comment there which pointedly addressed Amanda herself, in person. I was hoping for a clear, direct response, but that never happened. (Not that I am actually surprised.)

However, my effort was not wasted, for it was all part of the greater plan. Whether Amanda Marcotte responded, or didn't respond, was less important than the fact that I raised the points I raised, at the time I raised them, in plain sight of a considerable readership. And so I take the opportunity now to raise those points again. Yes, in sight of a considerable readership. The points are important -- critically important, in a structural way -- and I have been hammering at them for a long time. And the fact that Amanda Marcotte failed to respond may still be considered spin-worthy. So with no further ado, here is what I wrote -- and pardon me for not providing a link to the GMP, but I can't be arsed with looking it up:

Fidelbogen says:
March 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm

@Amanda Marcotte:

I have a serious question for you.

What makes you think that you know what feminism is?

I consider myself a non-feminist .

(Forget the term “MRA”.)

So, when I call myself a non-feminist, it clearly means that I reject feminism. Otherwise, I would call myself a feminist, yes?

And if I reject feminism, it must be that I have some idea what feminism IS, yes? Otherwise, how could I reject it?

Clearly, I reject feminism because I know what feminism is, and knowing this, I say “no thanks.”

And I must have a good reason for this, yes? And since you don’t know what my reason is, you cannot tell me I am wrong. . . can you?

So are you, as a feminist, telling me, as a non-feminist, that I need “more feminism” even when I make clear that I don’t want ANY feminism?

Would you STILL insist that I need “more feminism”?

Please respond no or yes.

If you respond no, thank you for making clear that you think feminism is optional.

If you respond yes, explain to me on what ground you (a feminist) feel you are entitled to dictate terms to me (a non-feminist)?

How would you justify taking such a stance?

Please get back to me Amanda. I very seriously want to hear what you’ve got to say about this.

Don’t blow it off. It is important.

WORD

2011-09-20T01:54:00.000-07:00

For me, it is a given that anybody who uses the word "misogyny" with a straight face more than three times in one year, is either a crook or a jackass.

Musical Interlude

2011-09-16T23:25:00.000-07:00

I haven't done one of these for a while. . .

What It All Boils Down To

2011-09-15T19:35:00.000-07:00

"Do you, as a feminist, recognise the right to existence of people who are not feminists?"

I have shamelessly stolen this from Snark, who recently posted it on his blog. Occasionally I will do somebody the honor of stealing from them. This is one of those occasions; yes, it is that good. Such economy, such concision:

http://mens-rights.blogspot.com/2011/09/put-them-on-spot.html#comments

Really now, we wouldn't go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.

It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.

Recently Posted

2011-09-15T03:42:00.000-07:00

It is quite a spectacle to watch feminists palavering with each other, in a huddle, in their own world. They don’t seem to realize just how small their world is, how big the outer world is, and how tedious and bizarre they sound to the rest of us. They are strong, snarky and cocky only among their own kind in their mutual admiration cavern, but turn them loose in a more culturally diverse environment which doesn’t reciprocate their reactions (or their jargons), and they are nothing but callow weaklings. If only they could see themselves as others see them. The trouble with most feminists, I conclude, is that they don’t know shit about feminism. Point being, that they have no privileged authority to self-define — the rest of the world can see perfectly well what feminism is, and draw its own conclusions.

So it is time to drag feminism out of its clubhouse, to ask it a lot of rude questions, and hold it accountable to the rest of the world.

And what do I mean by "the rest of the world"? I mean everybody and everything in the universe which is not feminist.

Feminism is not the world.

There is no more important lesson we need to be learning, than THAT.

New Video -- A Foundational Analysis of the Femplex

2011-09-14T21:14:00.001-07:00

Fascinating New Blog -- "Unknown Misandry"

2011-09-12T19:59:00.000-07:00

I received the following e-mail today:

TO: fidelbogen@earthling.net

Includes info you will find useful – blog: The Unknown History of MISANDRY

Posts of particular interest:

Chivalry Justice quotes: unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/chivalry-justice-quotes-from-judges.html

Early MRAs: unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/08/early-mens-rights-activists.html

I would encourage you to go and have good long read over that-a-ways! And I hope you will bookmark, and tell others about it.

A Foundational Schematic Analysis of the Femplex

2011-09-09T00:27:00.000-07:00

We know that there is more to feminism than feminism, and that the feminist enterprise is connected under-the-table to many things which don't ostensibly pertain to feminism at all . This web of relations adds up to an extended cultural supply chain -- called the femplex -- and without it feminism would amount to very little. Accordingly, feminism is resident within society as a whole. That is why we say that feminism has fuzzy borders: because it is unclear where feminism ends and the rest of the world begins. We believe, however, that this may be remedied, and that feminism may be isolated and turned into a commonly understood target of operations.

The project of isolating feminism and turning it into a commonly understood target, is called clarificatory discourse. The projected outcome of clarificatory discourse is called target consensus. We of the non-feminist world propose to bring such things about, and we do not mean to seek feminist approval. If our conclusions violate official feminist self-presentation, that is not our concern. So in the end, feminism is what we say it is -- and we will make it stick.

For the present discussion, I divide feminism along a vertical axis. From top to bottom, feminism reveals an upper stratum we shall call the narrative superstructure, and a lower stratum we shall call the psychic sub-structure -- or if you prefer, the deep structure.

The narrative superstructure (or just superstructure) is the level of worldly agreements or conventional discourses about the nature of reality -- the realm of politic fictions, if you will. Please note that the superstructure often appears irrational, or two-faced, or inconsistent. It doesn't always "hang together".

The psychic sub-structure (let's say deep structure) is the foundation which the superstructure rests upon, including both the timeless bedrock of human nature, and the bedrock of longstanding cultural fixtures not easily eradicated. When the superstructural narrative doesn't seem to make sense it is because part of the story is missing. To get the complete story, you must dig into the deep structure and patch the superstructural narrative into what you find there.

This is nowhere better illustrated than by the nearly worthless left-right paradigm of political discourse. The majority of self-declared feminists are keen to inform you that feminism dwells strictly on the political "left". However, a great many non-feminist partisans have concluded that feminism is evenly distributed from one end of the so-called political spectrum to the other. These partisans, from their perch of superior insight, have pierced the smog of semantic hanky-panky. They have latched onto something very basic and profound: that the word "feminism" is merely that, a word. Nothing but a word. And so these partisans have learned to brush aside mere words and to see, clearly and directly, the objective underlying state of the world itself.

The left-right paradigm is a thing of the superstructure, as is the word feminism -- mind you, just the word. I mean that these things merely float upon the surface, and like the superstructure in general, they tell an incomplete story. So you must plug the gaps with material from the deep structure. In this case, we must reason from the premise that not only is gynocentrism the chief hallmark of feminism, but that the entire social world arranges itself in the service of women and revolves around their needs. Deep-structurally considered, it is clear that gynocentrism stretches across the political spectrum from "left", to "right".

To begin: both men and women can be gynocentric, and that is politically significant.

To speak of gynocentric men: social-conservative white knights and left-wing profeminist collaborationists both descend from the "woman-firsters" who long pre-date feminism as we presently know it. The more things change the more they stay the same, and such men are a perennial fixture of the social landscape. Such men have one very important thing in common. Both groups are willing to throw other men under the bus in the interest of protecting and serving women -- although their justifications for this are elaborate, circumspect, and varied. The bedrock stratum of gynocentrism unites them on a horizontal axis; deep-structurally, they are as one.

But in superstructural terms, they differ quite a bit. The "left" gynocentrists have signed on to a programme which includes the destruction of marriage and family, the deconstruction of male identity, and various shadings of Marxism or crypto-Marxism. Also, these gynocentrists are willing to embrace "feminist" as a self-appellative, that is, they have chosen to collaborate with feminism intellectually. For this reason, we prefer to call such men "collaborationists" rather than "white knights" -- although in a certain sense all gynocentric men are white knights.

However, the "right" gynocentrists are more fittingly called "white knights" because that term reeks of chivalry and traditionalism. These fellows are gallant bucks avid to defend the ladies for old-school reasons, even at the expense of men. As such, they are easily gulled into serving forces that originate politically to the leftward. They certainly don't want to break up marriages and families, and they are keen to denounce feminism as they understand it. The trouble is, they don't understand it. Their understanding is trite and muddled. And so they are serving feminism every bit as much as their gynocentric brothers on the "left". They are fools.

To speak of gynocentric women: socially conservative females are often misandric to some degree, just like their man-hating sisters on the "left". However, they refuse to co-sign with any left-wing agenda. They don't wish to be in the same corner with hairy-legged radical lesbians, pagans, atheists, commies and the like. Also, and most importantly, they will have no truck with the left-wing attack on marriage and family, because marriage and family are the foundation of their power base. They don't want to overthrow "patriarchal" institutions, they want to be a controlling force within those institutions!

Such women will hypocritically harvest the rewards of feminist innovation if it suits their purpose, savoring the fruit while hating the tree -- and possibly hating men as well. Occasionally, they will even declare themselves "feminist" by name -- with no profound grasp of what the hell they are talking about. Their shallowness of understanding, however, in no way disqualifies them as feminist, since nobody has a patent on that word. A case in point would be Sara Palin. Left-wing feminists hate her, and one cannot dispute that she is a bimbo, a bird-brain, an empty-headed twit -- all of which qualify her as quintessentially feminist in my opinion. She is also, in her way, a "strong, powerful woman." So if Sara calls herself a feminist, who am I to say otherwise? But the point of note is that Sara Palin has zero grasp of the issues, and if she gains a high seat of power then mark my words, she will bolster the Republican version of gynocentrism. I have no compelling reason to predict otherwise. So it is a case of "pick your poison."

In the end, socially conservative gynocentrists and left-wing feminists, both male and female, differ from each other only in a superstructural way -- by virtue of an ideological decision or want of such decision. If one were pressed to name the principal ingredient of feminism, lacking which it would be pointless to speak of feminism whatsoever, that ingredient would need to be gynocentrism. And gynocentrism, as we have pointed out, runs wall-to-wall. Many have noted that "feminism equals female supremacism", and while that is undoubtedly the case, it is quite arguable as well that female supremacism breaks apart into elements. And female supremacism is nothing if not gynocentric.

Those who argue that feminism is entirely a thing of the "left" are arguing nothing better than semantics. They are saying that the word feminism may be stuck to only certain sectors of observable reality, on the strength of criteria which they, themselves, have proposed. But they are merely thinking superstructurally and ignoring the complete story. For I would maintain that we can never properly understand feminism as an object in the world -- and in particular the political world -- if we ignore those binding factors which, by their proximity, support the existence of feminism as a whole.

I put it to you: what would become of feminism (left-wing or otherwise) were it not for the presence of gynocentrism on the political "right"? And I will answer. If the roots of feminism extended no further than the narrow soil of the "left", then feminism would never draw the necessary strength to germinate at all, let alone grow to its present mighty proportions. So deep-structural gynocentrism, across the entire culture, is absolutely necessary and crucial to the efflorescence of superstructural feminism on the political "left". And how if this were not given? Well if nothing else, a monolithic non-feminist power-lock would form everywhere outside the "left". This would bottle up feminism so effectively that it would never advance two steps in any direction, and so it would wither and die.

On the other hand, feminism as we presently know it would never have emerged from deep-structural gynocentrism alone and unaided. We mustn't discount the power of the superstructure -- that power is mighty indeed. For it was imperative that the force of world-historic evolution, in the realm of particular, concrete ideas, be joined to the formless primordial power of the psychic sub-structure. It was only in this way that things could have happened the way they happened, and yielded the state of matters which now confronts us. To properly understand the femplex and its operations, we must examine both the vertical dimension of superstructure and sub-structure, and the horizontal dimension of culture and politics.

The present treatise does not pretend to deal exhaustively with the matter it proposes, but only to illuminate the pathway for further investigation. My purpose here has been to advance the project of holistic understanding, in the service of clarificatory discourse, with the goal of target consensus always in view. In conclusion, I would submit that those who represent feminism as an exclusively left-wing phenomenon, are harboring a sequestered motive to block the growth of holistic understanding. They wish to confine the narrative to a purely superstructural dimension in which they themselves control the frame.

Anti-Misandry Website in Sweden

2011-09-04T17:32:00.000-07:00

I thank Ulf Andersson for telling me about this new blog, called Misandri Patrol:

"MISANDRI in Sweden!"
"I had hoped that this blog would never be needed in a so equal society like Sweden. Unfortunately, the reality of Swedish men completely different. Let's hope for swift and significant changes for all Swedish men!"

Check it out, courtesy of Google translator:

PLEASE CLINK HERE

New Video -- What They Don't Want You To Know

2011-09-02T23:51:00.001-07:00

By the by. . . I just came into a free copy of Maureen Dowd's book Are Men Necessary? A quick sample:

"Whether or not American feminism will be defeated by American conservatism, it is incontrovertibly true that American feminism was trumped by American narcissism."

Well. It is incontrovertibly true that American narcissism is part and parcel of American feminism, and that if narcissism trumped feminism, then feminism clearly trumped itself. Which doesn't quite make sense, does it? Or then again, it makes a perfect alien kind of sense.

It is also incontrovertibly true that American conservatism is joined at the hip to American feminism, and that no form of desperate surgery can separate these Siamese twins without fatal consequences to feminism -- although "conservatism" would survive just fine and dandy.

At any rate, add Maureen Dowd's name to the long list of annoying people who are due for a good, stiff slog at political re-education camp. . . eh? ;)

A Much Better Version of an Earlier Video

2011-09-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

Yes. The new version is hugely better. And to judge by the traffic I've gotten at YouTube -- 654 hits so far -- this particular vid (The Colonization of Male Space) hits the zeitgeist right where it counts. So, it really needed to shed the crappy skin of the original, and resurrect in the SHQ (super high quality audio) version that I have just posted.

I will delete the original in a few days.

New Video -- The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

2011-08-29T23:05:00.000-07:00

The Practice of Rhetorical Discipline

2011-08-27T20:15:00.000-07:00

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. And since persuasion is a matter of prime importance, rhetoric must on no account be neglected, but rather subjected to the requirements of a discipline. We are engaged in a contest for hearts and minds, a serious business which oughtn't be left to the hazards of a random crapshoot. The way we go about saying, or not saying, what we choose to say, or not say, will either float us or sink us.

In the present talk I purposely exclude the topic of fallacious argument. That topic has been worked over by so many writers already that I feel I can be of greater service if I limit myself to fields not so thoroughly plowed.

Very well. The sum of rhetorical discipline may be condensed into a single short phrase: minimize grappling points. What follows will be a gloss upon this precept.

A grappling point is anything in the form or content of your communication that gives your enemy an edge, an angle, or an opening. You might say that a grappling point gives your enemy a handhold so he can swing you around, or a foothold so he can climb over you. This sets you in a position of weakness or passivity, and negates you as an obstacle, so that your enemy advances in a tactical or strategic way.

The opponents of feminism are famous for speaking their minds "not wisely but too well". In this way they offer grappling points to their enemy and make their own work needlessly difficult. Their ineptitude may be arrayed under a four-fold heading.

Firstly, that they will say indiscreet things which are bound to excite the wrong kind of controversy at the wrong moment. In this, they fail to establish politics by being politic.

Secondly, that they will use an unseemly or undignified tone. In this, they fail to establish tonal mastery.

Thirdly, that they will neglect to uphold a consistent narrative of non-feminist sovereignty that would cast the opposition in the role of an aggressor power. In this, they fail to establish the necessary political frame.

Fourthly, that they lack political focus, meaning that they neglect structural unity of message. They speak heterogenously on a ragbag of topics with little thought to the strategic implications of what they choose to talk about, and why, and when. In this, they fail to establish message discipline. Consequently, they waste time and energy and bog down the movement.

Under all of these headings, the failure in question may be understood as a failure to minimize grappling points. I will now enlarge upon each case in turn.

In the first case, the impolitic non-feminist behaves as a "loose cannon-mouth" and makes impeachable utterances. An impeachable utterance may be defined as any saying which at least arguably transgresses the norms of morality or decency. I say arguably, because evaluative criteria and subtext will differ from one social group to the next. Different groups argue things differently, and to different conclusions.

And so, a statement that would give a feminist a conniption might produce nary a ripple amongst the great middle mass of non-feminist men and women. Any utterance which is arguably impeachable is at least arguably a grappling point, but if the "argument" is unpersuasive to most people, then it will gain no political traction outside the feminist cultural space. And so it makes a weak grappling point: the worst the feminists can do is dangle you in front of other feminists and cluck about what a horrid specimen you are -- but nobody else will give a rip! This bottles up the feminists within their communal psychology and isolates them from the rest of the world. Such an effect, for our purpose, is desirable.

But if you say something universally impeachable, something that would disturb nearly anybody, it makes a strong grappling point: the feminists can use it for political traction in the larger world. It does not bottle them up in their group psychology; it empowers them to "reach out and touch someone" other than themselves. Such an effect, for our purpose, is undesirable.

So don't be a loose cannon-mouth. You should frame your communication in a way that offers no universal grappling points -- alternately stated, a non-objectionable surface. We call this the common gaze standard because it plays to the psychic consensus of the great middle mass.

One point remains to be considered. You might ask: "How if I discipline my rhetoric to where even the feminists can find nothing impeachable about it? Is it worth my trouble to attempt this?" And I would reply: possibly. It depends how hard you want to work, so it is for you to weigh the advantage or disadvantage in a given case.

To highlight just the advantage, note that mastery in this field could be a method of psychological warfare. A universally non-objectionable surface would leave the luckless feminist with almost nothing to use against you even in her own mind. That would cut off retreat into communal psychology; each feminist would stand alone as a solitary individual, if you will, before the judgment seat. For many of them, any desperate escape would be preferable to such a desperate hell, and in many cases criminal behavior, driven by rationalization, seems a likely outcome. But until the feminists are ready to "come clean", I would spare them no empathy. Empathy is for your friends.

I turn now to the second case, which addresses the commonly-seen failure to establish tonal mastery. An unseemly or undignified tone does not, in itself, entail either fallacious argument or impeachable utterance of any kind -- although it might occur in tandem with these. But I call it a grappling point because, in the ad hominem rough-and-tumble of real-world polemic, contestants will frankly use it against you in that way. And which is more, they will do so to pragmatic effect -- a point which bears consideration.

A further consideration is, that the way you say things often weighs a lot more than what you say. A discourse of considerable audacity may, if couched in a dry, nonchalant diction, pass altogether unremarked by the great middle mass -- and even by quite a few feminists. What many people find objectionable in a given speaker or writer might be nothing more than, for example, that he sounds angry and disagreeable -- and it's a turn-off! So, by the right combination of knowing what the target audience will bear hearing, and intoning this suitably, you can make great headway and speak your mind more boldly and candidly than you might think.

There is, of course, an art of sounding angry. It can be done. However, you need to maintain "artistic control" and to apply the right effect knowingly, bending or breaking the rules in a calculated way with the proper sense of timing. Such is tonal mastery. But you are wiser to follow the rules until confident of breaking them masterfully.

Amanda Marcotte Says You Want to Rape Her

Whining is another unseemly and undignified tone. Indeed, it is arguably the worst of the lot, and ought to be eschewed. Whining may best be described as complaint for its own sake, accompanied by a keening vocal affect with a descending pitch. And although vocal affect is not present in writing, it is possible to achieve a written whine -- perceived as such by others -- if you do little else than complain endlessly.

In order that you will not seem to be whining -- in either speech or writing -- you should forbear to make emotionally-fraught inventories of self-evident things. Thus, you ought simply to recite the bare facts in their bare factuality, and let that bare factuality paint the required picture by virtue of its intrinsic poignancy. This is akin to the advice given to writers, to "show but don't tell." Facts are weighty witnesses that will testify with overwhelming precision if you let them. A bare factual narrative packs the needful cargo on its own account, and needn't be lumbered with pathos.

I should add, that feminists love to accuse their enemies of whining. I mean, they are keen to use that indictment for a grappling point in order to make mileage by mockery. But when you stop whining, they should start worrying, for it hints that you have gone to the next level of insurgency in your thoughts, and are incubating serious plans.

The subject of women often crops up in conjunction with both anger and whining, and when it does, the talk morphs into what some might loosely call "misogyny". This is not strictly a matter of tone, but rather topic. Still, it is important to note the connection between women as a focus of discussion, and the emotion that goes in step with this. I say it is important, because the ramifications are politically consequential and relate to our study of grappling points.

I turn now to the third case, that of neglecting to frame the political narrative in terms of non-feminist sovereignty. Such neglect has rhetorical consequences, for it sets you eternally on the defensive with any feminist you meet and continually reinforces the feminist construct. You might call it a grappling point a priori.

The feminist war, at its heart, is a war of sovereignties. A certain cultural paradigm (feminism) has gone into a colonizing modality, intending to nullify the sovereignty of any other paradigm that gets in its way. And make no mistake, they ALL get in feminism's way.

And so the greatest non-feminist weapon we have, is our knowledge of non-feminist sovereignty -- no, the certainty of it! In good truth, we are the bulk of the universe. And the laws and principles of that realm work to our advantage more so than otherwise. Yes, the natural order has got our back, and we should so fully internalize this conviction that it will inform every act, every mood, and every gesture that we make. For the feminist colonization of our lives has been a massive aggression built on nothing better than sheer presumption. We ought to know this by now, and we ought to act like we know it.

We should take a page from Marx, and ruthlessly challenge everything about them and their world. And in the spirit of the Frankfurt playbook, we should develop our own edition of "critical theory", and put it to work right away. Remember that "the theory is to criticize" -- and true to that spirit, everything they presume to say or presume to know, is fair game. When they say "patriarchy", or "misogyny", or "sexism", or "wage gap", or "glass ceiling", we bounce back instantly with "WHAT patriarchy? WHAT misogyny? WHAT sexism? WHAT wage gap? WHAT glass ceiling?" Yes, undermine them. Deconstruct their categories and presuppositions non-stop. Be skeptical. Be agnostical. Demand explanations. Never let up for one instant -- never let them clear the runway! Feminism is not the world, which means among other things that feminism is not the intellectual world. Accordingly, they shall export none of their intellectual merchandise into our world without paying a good stiff tariff -- and if we don't want it in our world, we ship it back in toto.

And if we are scanning the horizon of political events, either current or historic, we shall impose the frame of non-feminist sovereignty upon discoverable feminist actions, and so classify all such actions as to their degree of aggression against us.

To summarize: we must frame our political thinking (hence our talking) in terms of feminist aggression against the rest of the world, and in terms of thwarting such aggression. This, by virtue of reiteration and practice, will grow into a disciplined rhetorical instinct.

I turn now to the fourth case, that in which political focus -- or structural unity of message -- is neglected. Proper attention to this point may be understood as a discipline, and for that reason we call it message discipline. This term is established lingo among people who talk about electoral politics, but we make it part of rhetorical discipline because it falls within the gamut of operations that will minimize grappling points. Message discipline, you might say, puts rhetorical discipline on a collective basis.

The rhetorical consequence of neglecting message discipline is that grappling points will multiply in an uncontrolled manner. So it is important to keep a strong hand on the message that we transmit to the general population. Politically speaking, our "message" takes the form of issues and talking points, and in practice this has been an unorganized babble. Many people are talking about many things, and what we palaver about most overall, enters the common awareness, for better or worse, as a composite average of what we ARE.

Now, if there is a "true" or "central" message that we ought to be transmitting, then I reckon it should be one that is politically efficient in terms of a goal. And what is our goal? It is to damage feminism as much as possible by spreading information efficient to that purpose. Such, in bottom-line terms, is how we parse our doings: all of it boils down to some form of information trafficking. But we must always have a care about efficiency, because some information works more efficiently than other information in the work of damaging feminism. So remember that our message is part of our public image, and that public image is nothing if not trafficked information. Therefore we must ask if our public image, as related to our message, is efficient to the purpose of damaging feminism.

In addition to compromising our public image, neglected message discipline pulls us into all manner of conversations which are better avoided. For any time you voice an opinion, there is a chance you'll be requested to defend it. And in politics, the more opinions you voice the more battles you must fight. Yes, the more you bite off, the more you must chew -- one sees that is logical! Therefore we need not, and should not, take a stand on every issue under the sun. This generates grappling points because it permits the other side to hoist and haul us around by putting us on the defensive. So the watchword is "pick your battles". Any other policy creates a war on more than one front -- the larger counterpart of being flanked on a battlefield.

In the end, message discipline means optimally efficient information trafficking in the service of a political goal. So if we compromise our public image by association with flakey or shady things, that is not optimally efficient. If we load the table with issues not relevant to damaging feminism, that is not optimally efficient. If we load the table with issues only weakly relevant to damaging feminism, that is not optimally efficient. If we let people of a certain political leaning siphon us into talking about "loaded" topics that needn't be addressed at all -- for example, race or LGBT issues -- that is not optimally efficient. On it goes. All of these are areas where message discipline might get compromised, and as such, they generate grappling points. So rhetorical discipline commands our diligence in these areas.

There are exceptions. For example, were I to opine that the song of the mountain thrush has a more ethereal quality than the song of the lowland thrush, it would not compromise message discipline. That is because birdwatching is apolitical and mysterious. Also, it could add a whimsical note to an otherwise boring dissertation. So feel free to add those kinds of touches.

Very well. The four parts of rhetorical discipline, which I have introduced here, can be itemized briefly in the following nomenclature. I would suggest memorizing these for quick conversational reference:

1. Discreet Utterance
2. Tonal Mastery
3. Narrative Frame
4. Message Discipline

The remaining question, it seems to me, is the timeless one of how to herd cats. For it is impossible to run a control wire to every loose cannon-mouth in the sector. People will say what they will say even if it is politically ill-advised, and there is little we can do about this in the short run. So the best plan is to form a central column of rhetorically disciplined preachers who may gradually propagate their coherently schooled sensibility.These preachers may school others by example and in time generate a master signal and a focal point around which the chaotic clouds of impeachable or otherwise inefficient utterance will swirl.

A Lively Thought Upon a Slippery Subject

2011-08-27T18:08:00.001-07:00

Feminism is like an eel in a bucket of dirty mop water. The trick is to overturn that bucket on the ground, and either spear the eel or let it writhe in the sunlight until it expires.

Not A Swirling Vortex

2011-08-21T18:27:00.000-07:00

But who am I fooling? I am not a swirling vortex of energy right now. My motivation is close to zero, and the following picture captures my present state almost to perfection. Yes, even the light and the atmospheric haze are part of it:

I have concluded that my best plan is to take a hiatus like I did in late 2008.

Furthermore, my focus is shifting away from blogging and toward You-Tubing. At first, my YouTube channel was a side project. But now it is taking on a life of its own (281 subscribers currently), and the blog is becoming. . . well, a backwater. (See the picture above).

So. . I will not be blogging much for a while. However, I will put energy into YouTube sermons, and every time I post one, I will publish the text version here.

But mostly, I will be reading, studying and thinking a lot.

Commenting will remain open, and I will check the e-mail as always.

I'm plumb tuckered, and I'm outta here. For a while, anyways.

Later.

~Fidelbogen~

Kellet Steps in It

2011-08-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

The following article is reposted from A Voice For Men. The importance of it will not be lost on my readers:

As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.
A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.

But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.

Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.

Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.

This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:

“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.

The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.

“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.

Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.

Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.

Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.

The time for action is now.

On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.
I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.

I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.

Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, [Fidelbogen note: For those who are unfamiliar, FTSU means Fuck Their Shit Up.] and I mean NOW.

Contact Maine’s State Attorney General

Contact Governor Paul LePage

Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano

Sector System - Remake

2011-08-18T22:24:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick link to the script, for your reading convenience:

http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2011/08/sector-system-briefly-explained.html

I Have Been a Lazy Bastard

2011-08-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

Instead of doing Counter-Feminist work, I have been indulging in idle mind candy which is totally off-topic. So... i just thought I would share, in case anybody else out yonder finds this stuff interesting:

BTW, all of you self-educators will want to check out the treasure trove of university lectures which are posted on YouTube -- hundreds of 'em! Maybe thousands. This one is from Yale.

The way I see it, we menfolk are being eased out of higher education because somebody sure as hell wants the intellectual class to be female-dominated! Seems patently obvious to ME, at any rate. (Hey, just 'cuz you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. . . right?)

So, you will definitely want to be a self-educator.

The Sector System Briefly Explained

2011-08-16T01:32:00.000-07:00

The feminists have a weird idea that they are the world. They must be disabused of this notion -- slowly, pitilessly, painstakingly. For there is another world, a world beyond feminism which has a sovereign life of its own. But the feminists cannot acknowledge this. And that is what we mean when we say that feminism thinks it is the world.

So again, there is a world beyond feminism -- and we are that world.

The project of feminism, as we all know, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit and no clearly stated plan to cease operations at any discernible time. In pursuit of this project, feminism has for many years conducted a war against men and maleness, on all fronts large and small. Men as a class have been targeted for hostile actions meant both to deprive them of the tangible and intangible goods of life, and to redistribute those goods to women.

And so it devolves in practice that the effect of feminism is to generate the ascendency of women, and to make the ruling power in most areas of life, both large and small, a female power. This project has taken great strides, and further progress is clearly projected. For that reason we conclude that feminism is a female supremacist project, and for all purposes indistinguishable from female supremacism.

Understand, that we do not say feminism is similar to female supremacism, or contains an element of female supremacism, or has a female supremacist aspect. No, we say that feminism and female supremacism are one and the same object; that the terms may be freely interchanged on whatever occasion you please. And frankly, if you could expel all of the female supremacism from feminism, then "feminism" would become a paltry, vanilla sort of thing that would melt back into the terrain of liberal humanism and cease to be salient.

Our decision, to make feminism and female supremacism interchangeable terms, is a LINGUISTIC FIAT. We, by our good sovereign pleasure, have ordained it so. A word by itself has no inherent meaning; rather, meaning is assigned to it, or mapped to it. And we have made our linguistic choice well knowing that we ride roughshod over the linguistic choices which others have made. Still, nothing prevents those others from speaking in their customary way within their own speech communities.

We understand that not every self-identified feminist identifies subjectively as a female supremacist. Nevertheless, we recognize feminism in toto to be a female supremacist project on an organic level -- and that every human participant in the feminist project is a contributor to this; a supporter of this; an enabler of this. Thus, we may name any self-identified feminist (of either sex) as an objective or de facto female supremacist.

The project of feminism, again, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit. The effect of this will be to drive a wedge between men and women by generating a disequilibrium of power between them. So it is accurate to say that the purpose of feminism (read: female supremacism) is to make men and women "unequal".

Now, the project of counter-feminism is, to isolate feminism in order to make it available as a target of social and political operations. And the first stage in this project is the rough cut. To isolate feminism, is to recognize it as recognizable, and we make it at least roughly so when we recognize that feminism is one thing, while the rest of the world is something else. At any rate, we have taken the critical first step in so doing, and further steps may follow by way of refinement. The rough cut establishes the sector system, meaning the division of the world into a feminist sector, and a non-feminist sector. This foundational binary composes the bedrock for an entire way of working and thinking. Little wonder then, that we call it the bedrock binary.

So, the non-feminist sector is a sovereign zone of existence, inhabited by a range of entities, communities, and forces. What all of these have in common is that they do not partake of feminism. The sector is not merely "not feminist" in a statistical-demographic way, but in a primordial way; it represents everything in the universe which lies beyond the explanatory competence of feminist theory -- in sum, all the forces and principles of that realm. Viewed in this context, feminism is very small and non-feminism is very large. Indeed, feminism is like a transient pattern of ripples upon a timeless river.

Female supremacism is nothing if not a war against men. However, in waging war against men, one bites off a far bigger chunk of the universe than just maleness. I mean, that politically organized anti-male aggression has a collateral effect upon the world at large because it generates fallout; because it transmits ripples from one end to the other of the social ecology. This is consequential for men and women both. And a lot of women will not want those consequences, because you might say that feminism hurts women too. Such women will know very well how to maximize their advantage when the time comes.

So it works out that the feminist war against men generates consequences for more than just men. This means that feminist anti-male aggression is, in the long run, aggression against the non-feminist world as a whole -- meaning anybody or anything which might, directly or indirectly, pose an obstacle to feminist plans.

Feminism then, is pernicious to the rest of the world. So again, our master strategy is to ISOLATE FEMINISM. And having once done this, to commence operations that will dismember its effective power on earth. Our establishment of the sector system sets the process in motion. For it is an elemental power gesture of surpassing importance, to affirm that feminism is a definite thing, and that WE are a sovereign thing apart from it and in no way subservient to it. This, at least, begins to isolate feminism.

And the question "what is a non-feminist?" will naturally arise. This will trigger the question "what is a feminist?". In other words, it will establish the necessary frame. For we know that not every self-declared non-feminist would give the same answer. No -- not every non-feminist would agree on what feminism is!

Or at any rate, not yet.

But as non-feminists, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminists. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. So we can agree that the word itself is contaminated, and that we ought to place a social stigma upon it. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution.

Under the feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will obtain. Call this situation F. Under the non-feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will likewise obtain. Call this situation N. As non-feminist partisans, we claim that situation N is preferable to situation F, because it will generate less human misery in the long term. Our view is not utopian; we aspire not to a perfect world, but to a less imperfect one.

Having concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our operations.

Target consensus, accordingly, reminds us that feminism equals female supremacism. Counter-feminist analysis concludes this, and we assert that no other analysis will generate effective political traction. You may agree, or not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. And if you are serious in opposing feminism you cannot avoid asking how feminism relates to female supremacism. How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their precise chemistry of co-existence? Are those two things at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other? Are they part- and- parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how precisely does female supremacism factor into your political calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?

I have met certain people who avow that they are not feminist, yet voice no objection to feminism as such. In fact, some of their friends are feminists -- wouldn't you know it? These gentry are practicing, as it seems to me, a misguided liberality or open-mindedness -- as if they are merely Quakers and the feminists are merely Amish, and naught of greater import hangs in the balance. I cannot, by any trial of intellectual pressure, make them agree that feminism and female supremacism are the same thing. And when I enquire to know what they think feminism is, they respond with platitudes.

Yes. There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro and anti. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés and marked by the shallowness of their political understanding, and their understanding is often saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They fail to comprehend that their middle ground is only a transitory condition, that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be forced off their fence and compelled to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.

So target consensus is the goal of shared understanding to which we, as non-feminist partisans, direct our efforts. And the process of reaching this goal is called clarificatory discourse. In practice, clarificatory discourse amounts to intellectual crystallization through broadening circles of discussion. This generates social mass, or if you will, "gravity" -- which, in the end, establishes non-feminism as a factor in the equations of power.

Target consensus makes female supremacism the point of conjunction for all non-feminist understandings of what feminism is. This permits us to differ at least somewhat, and to benefit from the creative flexibility such difference affords, while sharing a foundational understanding upon points where misunderstanding would compromise our work.

So once again, our master strategy is to isolate feminism. And in order to do that, we must clarify the basis of a distinction between feminist and non-feminist -- both in order to know what feminism is, and to know what we ourselves are by knowing what we are not. Having reached that point, we are finally in a position to go forward with any project of a political nature that might occur to us.

Feminism thrives on fuzzy categories. It is a fuzzy category itself, and embraces many fuzzy categories, and fuzzy ideas, within itself. To put that another way, feminism has fuzzy borders because it merges so gradually with the non-feminist world that it is not clear where feminism ends and non-feminism begins. This state of things has arrived by a series of steps, and shall be reversed by a series of steps. So our first order of business is to make the fuzziness into something solid, or as we say, to collapse feminism's fuzzy borders. That is what it means, in practice, to isolate feminism. By creating a clear border, you create a clear target that you can operate upon.

We have already spoken of the rough cut, which establishes feminism and non-feminism as the bedrock binary from which our subsequent understanding grows.

Next, we reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of the feminist worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminists, we understand that you cannot begin within feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to feminism as a necessary first step; you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint, and proceed from there. As the feminist Audre Lorde famously remarked, "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools." As non-feminists, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we do not reach our conclusion by any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage our issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.

You don't need to read every feminist book ever written, and refute it line by line. You have NO legal, moral or intellectual duty to do any such thing. They'll just write more books anyway, and then what will you do? The point is to stop arguing with them on their own terms. Instead, locate their intellectual weak spots and drill, drill, drill! Pick your battles wisely; many are not worth fighting. And don't fight your way out of quicksand in which you are not standing! Stand clear, and force them to come out and engage you on ground which you have chosen. We don't owe them any answers, but they owe us plenty.

We "study" feminism only as one might study a machine or a complex system, with the intention of wrecking it. The classic advice to "know your enemy" means knowing him the better to wreck him.

You might think that the best way to learn what feminism is, is to ask a feminist, right? WRONG. That is one of the worst ways imaginable, and if you follow that road you will be led hopelessly astray. In fact, feminism is a system of obfuscatory rhetoric, intended to camouflage the advancement of female supremacism. There is a perennial tension between what we are told that feminism is, and what we can SEE that it is. So we map the term "feminism" to a certain objective pattern of things that we see in the world. That is our path of knowledge. And we are aware that it overwrites much of the feminist narrative.

Clearly, feminism for them is a journey, and most of their talk is about the smaller points of scenery and navigation upon that journey. And by inviting us to partake in their talk, or expecting us to do so, they imply that we have consented to take the same journey ourselves. They have hauled us aboard their train, and permitted us to wander freely up and down the train as it hustles us along. And so, for example, if we agree to explore the merits of one brand of feminism against another, we are only exploring different locations aboard that train, possibly in search of the first-class car so we can travel more comfortably to a place we never wanted to go to. So, if we truly don't want to go where the train is taking us, we have two choices: either jump off, or seize control of the locomotive.

Yes, whenever a new philosophy or belief system gains ascendency in a society, it will fragment into a variety of sub-systems which are more-or-less at odds with each other. Accordingly, those who originally opposed the new system as a whole are obliged, willy-nilly, to "pick the lesser of two evils" by taking sides in the conversation that follows -- and this validates the conversation as a whole. So, regardless which side prevails, the broader frame of the new system cements itself. Very well: for nearly half a century, the feminist strategy has been to draw the rest of the world into a feminist conversation. We must now undertake slowly and patiently to reverse that, and undo that. We must sabotage the entire conversation, and do this radically. We must inaugurate a counter-narrative that will confront the feminist narrative along a broad front -- in its entirety! -- and systematically dissolve that narrative like an acid.

Non-feminism is not a ideology or a movement, but merely the rest of the world -- the part that wants to live unmolested by feminism. It is no duty of yours, as a non-feminist, to justify your lack of feminism. It is the duty of any feminist, however, to LEAVE YOU ALONE, and to leave the rest of the world alone. Failure by any feminist or feminist group to do so, will be considered an act of aggression -- as likewise, the entire history of feminism, especially since the 1960s, has been a cumulative and sustained war of aggression.

Non-feminism has existed for the entire history of the human race. Feminism is very, very recent -- even if the elements of it were always present in undeveloped form. Most recent of all, however, is the largely male political coterie known as the "MRAs" or Male Renaissance Agitators. They are a colorful lot, these MRA people, and they certainly harbor their share of foibles. Some of them are transcendental geniuses while others, it pains me to admit, are flat-out idiots. In fact, they represent the full gamut of humanity in all of its lights and shadows -- they are nothing if not human! In that respect, they mirror the world. But unlike the feminists, they do not pretend to "be" the world. Nor do they even pretend to "be" the non-feminist world, for indeed they are not. In fact, they are just one among a variety of working parts in a developing global organism called the non-feminist revolution. And yes, they play a pivotal, catalytic role.

But the MRA cohort of the non-feminist revolution has been hyped to a degree that is both unwarranted and politically counter-productive. The trouble with the word "MRA" is that it's ad hoc terminology; it is not based on a coherent set of ideas; it has no true epistemic pedigree, and no consistent political message built into it. And so it obscures more than it illuminates. Furthermore, the Feminist-versus-MRA script is an inefficient dichotomy or polarity which falsifies the objective state of things. Feminist-versus-non-feminist makes a far more stable platform. You can build on it.

And there is no "MRA movement". It exists only in the feminist imagination: they invented it as a trick to ghettoize anybody who speaks out loudly against feminism. For the rest of us, "MRA movement", (or even "men's movement") is merely a figure of speech, a shorthand for talking about something too large and complex for words. After all, we can hardly escape the necessity of talking. Let it be so, and let the other side chase shadows.

We understand "non-feminist" to mean "against female supremacism", and we set the burden upon any self-declared feminist to show that he or she is not a female supremacist. At the same time, we make clear to them that they can shrug off that burden by simply discarding "feminist" as a self-appellative. Yes, we make it easy for them. We do not ask them to give up their personal beliefs about anything whatever. We request only that they stop sticking the word "feminist" to themselves. And if they will not agree to this, then we mentally classify them as doubtful or suspect people -- "persons of interest", if you will.

We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of a sovereign power with respect to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a position. A number of behaviors, on the part of any feminist or feminist group, will be considered acts of discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.

Under the feminist regime, the non-feminist sector has been nothing. Henceforth, the sector must assume its rightful place in the sun and become something.

This concludes the present treatise upon the sector system.

Something to Chew Upon, Indeed!

2011-08-13T17:18:00.000-07:00

I was having a reading session over at Angry Harry's today, and I came upon a bit that is quite to my taste, and very much reflects the nitty-gritty truth of how the world really works. We would do well to commit these thoughts to memory, and ponder them daily. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear:

"And I doubt that there is a single seasoned successful activist, politician, media person or lawyer who is not aware of the fact that the 'truth' is almost irrelevant when it comes to gaining and/or maintaining power and/or popularity.

"Whoever, or whatever group, has control over the flow of information decides what the truth will be for most of those people who are on the receiving end of it."

Does that mean you can only defeat your enemy by telling heaps of lies? Not necessarily. What it does mean, is that in addition to supplying correct information, you must understand that when you bless a villain he will curse you. So you cannot be a virtuous Simple Simon. You must know how to take the gloves off.

And. . . it seems to me that there is an ART of "taking the gloves off".

An art that should be studied as carefully as you would study any other critically important thing.

Feminist Guilt

2011-08-12T17:47:00.000-07:00

Blogwise, I have been unproductive lately. . . haven't I been?

So...here is a useful little goody for you that I know you know how to put to a good use. It is free to a good home.

New Video - There is More to Feminism Than Feminism

2011-08-11T13:00:00.001-07:00

New Video - Gynocentrism Theory

2011-08-10T02:24:00.000-07:00

The Counter-Feminist Channel, on YouTube, is turning into something like a bully pulpit. I see its potential for reaching progressively larger numbers. And I am finding my center of attention more and more directed toward it, rather than toward the blog. This is a turning point, maybe?

New Video - Counter-Feminism is Predictive

2011-08-09T02:16:00.001-07:00

A New Blog You'll Want to Look Into

2011-08-08T12:21:00.000-07:00

And I quote:

"...So where did that "9 million" figure come from, & why? Why is that estimate so far out? It's no coincidence that both that number & also the term "holocaust" have come to be used: when we hear that word & think of millions dead we think specifically of the Jewish holocaust of the second world war, in which somewhere in the region of 6 million died.

"What should trouble everyone," write Nathanson & Young, about the aforementioned Burning Times documentary,"is the fact that this film tries to upstage the Jewish tragedy for political purposes, to exploit the suffering of Jews in order to score political points for the suffering of women. Burning claims not merely that women have suffered just as Jews have suffered, but that women have suffered more than Jews and even that female suffering is the paradigm of all suffering."

"The very real horrors of the witch-trials have been inflated & exploited by feminism for political ends, to score higher victim points, to claim greater victim status, which in feminism thinking tends to mean you have won the argument: Who Suffers Loudest Wins."

Now, go here to read the rest:

triggeralert.blogspot.com/2011/07/live-from-witch-trials.html

New Video - What Is This Thing Called 'Patriarchy'?

2011-08-07T23:37:00.001-07:00