Saturday, January 27, 2018

A Walk Down Memory Lane

The Counter-Feminist blog had a good run from 2006 to 2014. It is now a terminated project, but survives as a kind of museum piece, or nostalgia piece.

Most of the nearly  2000 posts have been reverted to draft mode. The canonical, lengthier ones have been saved elsewhere.

Recently, I looked through the ones which hadn't been saved elsewhere, and republished some of the better specimens. I think there are about fifty of these, all set out here for your perusal. Taken together, they represent a span of years. Bon appetit!

Monday, January 01, 2018

Information on Gender Mainstreaming

Originally posted 3-30-11

The following comes straight from the transatlantic part of the counter-feminist global pipeline -- virtually as I received it. The purpose of sharing this is to inform. That is how we do things now: we think globally and we share information. Ours is a global movement; we need to repeat that to ourselves until it becomes second nature. You will see that this material covers the topic of gender mainstreaming, which is a very important subject indeed, even if the term itself is not so well known outside of the European Union and areas overshadowed by the United Nations:
"World Women´s Conference

"Gender-mainstreaming. Have you ever heard that before
? It is not at all a marginal phenomenon. The concept of gender-mainstreaming is implemented in the recommendations of the UN, the guidelines of the EU and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.

"The German Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth maintains its own website with the domain "". But what does gender-mainstreaming mean? Hedwig von Beverfoerde wanted to explain that in her speech "Gender-mainstreaming – gender-political government ideology on velvet paws" at the Center for Education in Wilmershain, Berlin on February 25th.

"The Federal Ministry of Family Affairs states: "Gender mainstreaming means to consider the different situations of living and interests of women and men from the first and regularly, because there is no gender-neutral reality".

"Abolition of genders

"That sounds empty, rhetorical. In reality, the consequences of this concept are far reaching indeed. Why will become clear, when we examine the goal of gender-mainstreaming as defined by the UN: "gender equality" and accordingly "gender egalitarianism", not "equal rights under the law", but analogousness of genders. This analogousness would have to be an abolition of gender, for gender is a characteristic that defines a distinction. Or, as Mrs. von Beverfoerde puts it, “gender-mainstreaming wants to create a new form of human being, one who should choose his gender and sexual orientation by himself, i.e. haphazardly deciding, whether he or she wants to be a man or a woman, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or transsexual.

"Since, biologically speaking, an abolition of genders/sexes is impossible, an ideology that seeks to abolish genders must presume that all differences between genders/sexes aside from anatomical characteristics are purely social constructs that, under certain conditions, can be arbitrarily changed. This assumption goes back to Simone de Beauvoir inter alia, who in 1949 stated in her book “The Second Sex” that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman“. This opinion became increasingly popular in the 1960´s and 1970´s, and little by little, the term “gender” as in “social sex role” was established in opposition to “sex” as “biological sex role”. At this time, the supporters of the hypothesis of the purely social sex role tried to back up their claims scientifically. One of the first to try this was the New Zealand – born American psychologist and sexologist John Money. Money became famous due to a case, called in scientific literature the John/Joan case.

"The case of David Reimer

"In 1966, the identical twins Bruce and Brian Reimer (born 1965) were circumcised because of phimosis. The circumcision of Bruce went badly – his penis was irreparably damaged. Bruce Reimer´s parents then called on John Money. John Money had already had a certain reputation in the theory of purely socially learned gender. On his recommendation, 22 months old Bruce had “still remaining testicle removed and rudimentary labia formed out of his scrotum. Furthermore, the child was treated with female hormones. From that point on, Bruce was called Brenda.” The Reimers raised Bruce/Brenda as a girl. Money was especially enthusiastic about this case, because Bruce´s identical twin brother could be used as a comparison. Thus he hoped to prove his thesis that solely education in early childhood years is important for the development of sexual and gender-specific identity. John Money described Brenda as a “normal, happy girl” and called the experiment, for which he was internationally congratulated on, a huge success.

"The German publicist Alice Schwarzer used it in 1975 as evidence in her book “Der Kleine Unterschied” [“The Little Difference”] for her theses of equality feminism and called it a “paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”. She wrote that “the ability to bear children is the only remaining difference between man and woman. Everything else is artificially imposed” and she honored Money´s experiment as “one of the few exceptions that doesn´t manipulate, but does justice to the paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”.

"But the success of the experiment postulated by Money and enthusiastically picked up by Schwarzer never existed, and seldom has a scientist been more manipulative, fraudulent and motivated by ideology than John Money. Bruce/Brenda was not a normal, happy girl. From the very beginning, the altered boy rebelled against wearing girls´clothes and playing with girls´toys, and was described by family and friends and later by himself as a deeply unhappy child with grave social problems.

"At the age of 13, Brenda threatened to commit suicide, if she was taken to another therapeutic appointment with John Money, which he perceived as traumatic. Thereupon, the parents told their child about the failed circumcision and the consequences. Brenda immediately chose to live as a man, called himself David and underwent surgery and hormone treatment to make him physically a man as well. As an adult he married and became the stepfather of three children his wife brought into the marriage. Although John Money knew about the failure of his human experiment, he still made propaganda for it as a huge success. Only when David Reimer decided to go public with his story in 1997 did Money stop.

"David Reimer suffered from his dramatic childhood experiences his entire life. In 2004 he shot himself with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Even after David Reimer´s suicide, John Money and many of his supporters, among them Alice Schwarzer, declined to correct their earlier evaluations.

"John Money died 2006. In line with his concept of “sex reassignment” he has “reassigned” an unknown number of children with deformed genitalia. To this end he had installed a special clinic in his function as director of the psychological department at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, which was closed by his successor in 1979. Some of his former patients tried to overcome their experiences in self-help groups.

"Gender-mainstreaming is unscientific

"This is not the only case in which gender-mainstreaming and it´s precursor theories respectively have proven scientifically untenable. A study done in 2000 according to modern scientific standards – done at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, where John Money once was a member of the staff, of all places – could prove that male children with the chromosome combination XY develop a male gender identity even if they are born without a penis due to birth defects, and are later reassigned as “female”. Doctors treated them with hormones and surgically gave them vaginae. Knowledge gained in genetics in the past years have also shown: Many aspects of our behavior are inherent, not acquired. Theories postulating 100% social acquirement are disqualified.

"Gender-mainstreaming at universities

"But in defiance of all science, gender-mainstreaming has not vanished. The subject of “gender studies” can be studied at many German universities, colleges and academies. According to study regulations, the subject is specifically required for an ever growing number of courses. You can even get a degree in it at the University of Bielefeld. There is even a “Center for Gender Research” at some universities (although the “Center for Medical Gender Research”, founded in 2004 at the Charité in Berlin also counts as one. It concerns itself with meaningful research like why some illnesses affect men and women differently with different symptoms, etc).

"Judith Butler (

"Those students, who can no longer avoid “gender studies” can no longer avoid Judith Butler. Butler, who is a professor for rhetoric and comparative literature studies at the University of California and the European Graduate School, is counted among the most influential feminist theoreticians. Butler´s goal is the abolition of genders/sexes on an even more radical level than her predecessors: According to her, not only social gender is a construct, but also biological sex. When concerning oneself with Butler´s statements, one truly understands what “gender” implies; what Volker Zastrow realized and published in the FAZ [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]: “[...] that there is no biological sex. Dividing newborns into boys and girls is totally random, and one could just as well define them by other characteristics, like large ones and small ones. Hence even assuming there are sexes/genders is a forced determination of identity: the `heterosexual matrix´”.].


"The imperative consequence of Butler´s theories is therefore that the concept of two genders/sexes is something to be surpassed and abolished.

"The World Women´s Conference of 1995

"But how could such an absurd theory, belonging more to pseudo-science, as shown above, have become such an aspect of policy not only in Germany, but in all countries in the sphere of influence of the United Nations? The greatest corner stone was laid at the World Women´s Conference in Beijing in 1995. The UN-resolution “mainstreaming a gender perspective” was passed during this conference. One of the consequences of the conference was that the word “gender” replace “sex” in all official documents, since it implies the concept of two sexes/genders.

"The American journalist Dale O´Leary who attended the conference wrote in her book “The Gender Agenda” that she witnessed the following demands being proclaimed, not all of them making it into the final document however:

"1. The world has need of less people and more sexual pleasures. we demand the abolition of all differences between men and women and the abolition of full-time mothers.

"2. As more sexual pleasures might lead to more children, we demand free access to contraceptives and abortions, and the promotion of homosexual activity, because children cannot be conceived this way.

"3. The world has need of sex education for children and young adults that encourages sexual experimentation. It has need of the abolition of the rights of parents over their children.

"4. The world has need of a 50/50 man/woman quota regulation for all areas of work and society. Preferably all women at all times should work.

"5. Religions opposed to this agenda should be publicly scorned and ridiculed.

"The most important goal by far was to anchor the “gender perspective” into the thinking of mainstream politics.

"Gender-mainstreaming is undemocratic

[Note: "undemocratic" means the "little people" were not consulted.-- Fidelbogen]

"Not only does gender-mainstreaming lack scientific legitimation, it also lacks democratic legitimation. Gender-mainstreaming was first fixated at the European level in 1999 via the Treaty of Amsterdam. This treaty made gender-mainstreaming: “[...] a high-ranking political goal of the European Union integral part of European politics [...]”.

"The German Federal Government acknowledged the equality i.e. analogousness) of men and women (in opposition to the equality of men and women before the law, equality of opportunities, etc, which has been a part of German Basic Law since the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany) with the ruling of 06.23.1999 as a universal guiding principle of the government, and will implement it via gender-mainstreaming.

"These policies have been continued by changing governments since 1999, but neither parliament nor the people have had a chance to vote on gender-mainstreaming.

"Gender-mainstreaming is expensive

"At the same time many tax payers would probably like to a say in deciding, whether their money should be used to pay for all the countless gender institutions, gender appointees, and gender research. The attempt to firmly establish gender-mainstreaming at all levels of administration, work and education from kindergarden to univestity is expensive. A study on “gender equality in the Eifel National Park” cost € 27,000 alone. .


". . which ended with the recommendation to cut out pictures of deer during the mating season, because it would propagate stereotype gender roles. The cost for work on “gender equality in the forest”, commissioned by the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia´s Minister for the Environment Bärbel Höhn in 2004, was hundreds of thousands of Euros. The “Parents´ Guidebook for Children´s Sex Education”, designed for children ages 1 to 6 was payed for by taxes and commisioned by the Federal Center for Health Affairs. This brochure contained tips and pointers for handling children´s genitalia, which would have constituted sexual abuse in a court of law. They were revoked in 2007 after massive protests.

"The most promising way to stop the gender-ideology would be to prevent funding of their projects. Furthermore, Hedwig von Beverfoerde suggests a massive awareness campaign, since many citizens are not even aware of this concept; in this framework one should strongly appeal to elected politicians and perhaps take one´s own children out of sex education, if gender-mainstreaming is taught there, rather than common biological knowledge.







Thursday, April 23, 2015

The Manichean Ontology of Female Supremacism

Note: The following is an enlarged and improved version of an earlier post. I discovered this version (which I had forgotten about) elsewhere on my computer, and there is no question that it offers a more rounded treatment of the subject, namely: the sexist moral dualism which lies at the root of feminist behavior and feminist thinking. The earlier version of this article (titled "What Must Be") will be deleted from the blog.

have concluded elsewhere that men as a group own no special collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special collective favor to Republicans as a group. In view of the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would lend itself.

However, I know that plenty of feminists would take issue upon this point. And being feminists, they can do no less. If they concurred with this way of thinking, they would no longer be feminists. Why? Because the entire feminist enterprise is constructed around the overarching, underlying, and aetherically all-pervading premise that men are the problem. This is so because feminism is a hate-fueled, anti-male, female-supremacist movement, and such a movement couldn't possibly embrace the view that men and women are BOTH the problem. No, that wouldn't work - it would bust their gearbox all to hell!

If in fact men are the problem as feminism supposes, and consequently that women are not, then it would follow that men specifically are under some manner of obligation which upon analysis would translate as a debt owed to women. And such indeed summarizes the general wind that has wafted from the direction of feminism and spread widely into other quarters. That is why I say that the feminists would take issue with the idea that male and female are political parties: because it implies that men and women are equal cutthroat gangs competing equally to cut each other's throats. The feminists would favor a scenario in which one of those gangs would bare its collective throat voluntarily to the gang wielding the knife.

But what does it mean to say that "men are the problem"? What is this statement really talking about? Which "problem" does it refer to, exactly? I have implied that this idea lies at the root of a world-view. A paradigm. But how can we spot it in action? What signs or tracks does it leave?

Here is what to look for: any time a woman does something notably blameworthy, or any time something goes awry between a man and a woman, a feminist will nearly always search for a way to either get the woman off the hook, or reduce her share of blame to a barebones minimum. Female wrongdoing will always be extenuated in whatever way possible, if not denied altogether.

The bias is persistently male-negative. It is evasionary of any realization, or any frank admission, that women in the depth of their nature are just as rotten as men. You can almost hear the female-justification motor click into overdrive in the backs of feminist heads, any time the least shadow of womanly or girlish malfeasance confronts them. They are not a bit concerned to know what actually IS; rather, they fervently wish to know what, according to their template, must be. It is a deeply rooted emotional reflex which transfixes the core of their world like a pivot or an axle or a black-hole singularity.

In fact, let's give it a name. Let's call it the "must-be" maneuver. Yes! This little trick is the alpha and omega, the sum and substance, the form and content, the Rock of Gibraltar, the axiomatic a priori, the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for everything that feminism promotes or seeks to put about in the world. It must be that a man is to blame in every argument, it must be that he doesn't listen, it must be that he is insensitive to her needs, it must be that he is using male privilege, it must be that he has control issues, it must be that he has anger management issues, it must be that he is "condescending" her, it must be that he feels threatened by intelligent women, it must be that she was violent in self-defense or if not, it must be that she attacked him pre-emptively. On and on it goes.

And should it prove impractical to pin the blame on a particular man, it is always possible to fall back upon men or maleness in the abstract: it must be the patriarchy which oppressed her into lying, killing, cheating, stealing or stumbling! It must be male-dominated power structures which drove her to anorexia or smashed her head against a glass ceiling!

Inherent to the must be maneuver is the exclusion of examination. A commonsense, rough-and-ready calculus might suggest to the layman that male input is to blame in at most half of the suggested cases, and that prior to concluding what must be, we should interrogate the full range of what might be. However, such a proposal is anathema to the feminist paradigm, and if you presume to make it, it must be that something is amiss in your character, your education, or your political leanings.

I cannot overemphasize the formative foundational character of the must-be maneuver. I could even call it theological or cosmological: "In the beginning, Goddess created man and woman. And Goddess said, 'Let man be the problem - for verily it must be so.' And behold, it must be so."

In a compressed way, the must-be maneuever fits the model of Kant's hypothetical imperative: "If you wish feminism to be viable, then the principle that men are always at fault must be reiterated at every possible opportunity."

This idea that "men are the problem" is an eternal unsupported premise and, like the god of the infinite regress, ontologically prior to everything in every way. It is never a point of arrival but always a point of departure. Feminism did not give birth to this idea - the idea gave birth to feminism! Feminism grew from the idea and not the reverse. At no point did feminism ever not contain this idea, and at no point was feminism not contained by this idea. At no time did feminism ever go in quest of the idea and finally get to it by any chain of reasoning - the idea was always present at the outset! And had it not been present at the outset, feminism would never have set out. Feminism never studied the world in order to formulate the idea, but rather studied the idea in order to formulate the world, for it is by light of the idea itself that feminism seeks to know what the world "must be." Yes, men are the problem - and come hell or high water, the world according to feminism must be shown to reflect this!

Such is the platform on which feminist ideology asserts its political claim against men on behalf of women: that men, being the collective source of a unique and historically-rooted trespass against women, are under a collective moral obligation to make good.

When we scalp the duff down to the bedrock we uncover, in the end, Manichean dualism - a cosmology in which good and evil (or light and dark) are separate cosmic principles eternally at war with one another. Further, the principles are said to be perennial and uncreated: they did not come about due to interactions in the ecology of occurrence, but were present from the very foundation of the world. They are not different branches on the same tree, but different trees altogether- and they grow from different roots. As such, they can never coherently exist side by side because they share no genetic mutuality - they will forever bear the stamp of their separate beginnings, and they will harbor mutually irreconcilable systems of logic. Accordingly, their relationship is and must forever remain paradoxical and fraught with tension.

In the Manichean cosmology of feminism, male equals darkness or evil, and female equals goodness or light. There are NO zones of gray. There is no spectrum. There is no continuum. For feminism, man equals bad and woman equals good, and if at times woman appears to equal bad then it must be that appearance is not reality in that particular case, and so a contorted explanation must ride to the rescue and set things straight!

In feminism's paradigm, man equals bad and woman equals good. And in the feminist mind, this correlation can no more be established by any chain of demonstration than the dualism itself can be said to have evolved historically. For just as the Manichean duality was prior to all things in the order of creation, so likewise it must be prior to all things in the order of feminist logic. To demand that the truth of it be proven, would decentralize and desacralize it. This in turn would radically deconstruct the entire feminist enterprise.

This has consequences for the two-party model of gender politics. The feminists want to place women on a footing of moral superiority to men, which in turn implies deferentiality or servility on the part of men. Men, being at one with the principle of darkness, must in theory be taught to respect their betters - who are at one with the principle of light! This indeed postulates a kind of political struggle if you want to call it that, but it is a one-sided struggle: men must be forced to "surrender".

Stated in such terms, the "political struggle" sounds more like plain and simple warfare. But in fact political struggle is not quite the same as warfare. Although it is true that political parties are not deferential or servile toward each other, the situation differs from war in that the parties understand they are fair competitors on a field governed by rules of play which in theory do not include ultimate subjugation of one side by the other. That is to say, the Republicans at least in theory do not have as a goal making the Democrats grovel, or vice-versa.

(Von Clausewitz famously called war "an extension of politics by other means", and I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon this privately, since it would make too much of a tangent to the present discussion.)

Thus, no feminist who is truly a feminist could accept the two-party model of man-woman relations as a set way of life, for that would imply that good and evil are in a certain sense not subject to a moral comparison - which in turn defeats the purpose of the Manichean paradigm as an occult motor of the feminist enterprise. Why? Because if good is not "better" than evil, if light is not "better" than darkness, then there remains no validating metaphysic for female supremacism and man-hating as a whole. And I can assure you that feminism bereft of those things would be like unto a banana which is all peel!
Thus, it is essential to the collective sense-of-purpose of the women's movement that the movement be engaged in a Manichean struggle with an eternally culpable foe who must be vanquished. Granted, most feminists would - if you put the question point-blank - deny any personal belief in the Manichean paradigm as I have described it. But this becomes less of a contradiction when you realize that stated individual beliefs and unstated collective intentions can easily go their separate ways. As a famous philosopher once put it: "By their fruits ye shall know them". And the fruits of feminism do indeed bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity and undertaken with a view toward conquest. Any feminist who tries to talk you out of this critical insight is playing the game of cognitive fragmentation.


Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Counter-Feminist is No More

The entire content of this blog, clear back to October 2006, has been mothballed. The blog has been reborn at the following address:

Sometimes, it feels good to tear off a brand new sheet of paper. Know what I mean?

Please update links and bookmarks to reflect this change.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Radical Feminism is the Real Feminism

Radical Feminism is NOT the fringe of feminism.

Radical feminism is feminism's rotten core, and the source of feminism's life. Without it, feminism at large would amount to little, and scatter to the four winds.

That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However. . . it is a truth which plenty of people won't square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical feminism as outdated and popularly disregarded.

When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and gain control of the conversation so as to remove the feminist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.

Radical feminism - by which I mean chiefly the man-hating kind - is a standard which sets the measure for feminism as a whole. All brands of feminism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical feminism.

Radical feminism is 100 proof, and a radical feminist takes her feminism neat.

All other feminists take their feminism watered down - but it's all the same drink.

People love to tell you that the radfems are "just fringe extremists" - as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little group clustered in their own world near the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all feminism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward men and things male. That's all it is, and if you study feminism objectively you can reach no other conclusion.

Hence, there is no gap, no discontinuity between radical feminism and the rest of feminism. For every foul man-hater, there is a slightly less foul man-hater, and then one slightly less foul than that . . . and so on down the line. Thus, for example, Amanda Marcotte is indeed a foul man-hater, yet she is only half as foul as Mary Daly.

In one way, the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn't be so fixated on the extremists. After all, the rot extends clear through the feminist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home are not lacking. What we should point out every chance we get, is the pervasive anti-male bias - be this subtle or brazen.

Anti-male bias - whether in the form of hating men, or in looking the other way when evidence of man-hating crops up, or simply in the prevalence of double standards which favor women - may safely be described as the defining feature of feminism.

Anti-male bias - culminating in outright hatred of men - is the core principle which makes feminism feminism.  This principle, more than anything else, binds the feminist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time. 

The feminist project seeks to expand the power of women with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for men and maleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the feminist project is concerned, ethical regard for men and maleness has got to go - and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?

And since the world always contains X number of women who hate men. . .and even MEN who hate men, feminism's inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool.

In the end, if feminism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward men and maleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.

So once again, radical feminism - to wit, the man-hating kind - is the CORE of feminism.

And it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the "fun" feminists who make up the fluffy fringe on feminism's outskirts. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.

Those who say that radical feminism is marginal to feminism at large, are lying - either to you, or to themselves.

Fidelbogen .   . . out.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Feminist Declaration of War Against the Non-Feminist World

The following message was posted to TyphonBlue's YouTube channel:

"+Alison Tieman  Debate is a tool of the privileged upper classes, what rich white men have used to oppress and divide the meager and poor for centuries. Yet you would use this tool yourself, having been oppressed by it since antiquity? Truly, you are lost. Perhaps I was wrong, and death would be not a cruel and deserved fate for you, but a bitter mercy to end your pain.

But if it an argument you want, then an argument you shall have! Why do you support the MRM, when its very purpose is to re-enslave women? When it is full of sexist claptrap like the quote I left from Paul Elam, the movement's godfather? How it seeks to project itself onto feminism, how it silences them so their arguments cannot be heard? Or threatens them, track feminists down, and brutally beats them for their views? Or posts lists of their names, so sexist trolls can bombard them with rape threats. Can you answer these questions without some BS excuse like "not all MRAs are like that?"

Feminism was about equality, but the time for peaceful discourse draws to a close. If it is violence the MRM wants, then we will cut out equality by force, and write a new edict of fairness in your blood! Pick a side, Alison, but choose carefully. You don't want to be on the losing side of the war."

Yesterday, as you might recall, I publicized a feminist death threat against the Men's Rights Edmonton group, and even went on AVfM radio to talk about it. But little did I suspect that something even worse would rear its head so very quickly. It never rains but it pours!

A pattern of feminist panic is developing.  That is the ony way to describe it. The heat is on, and the heat inside their heads is getting unbearable - to the point where they must open a vent and let the steam out.

Fear and guilt is the most plausible explanation for for all of this. A dawning realization that the rest of the world is turning against them, together with a growing sense that they have been complicit in a collective crime, is driving them to a strategy of projective backlash.

Note that many sections in the quoted statement read like a description of feminism's own collective behavior toward the world. Feminist hatred of everything non-feminist is beyond description, so much that they are unable to articulate boiling emotions welling up within them. All the same, they MUST relieve the explosive pressure in their brains - they must find a discharge of one kind or another.

And so, conspicuously outspoken people such as TyphonBlue become their lightning rods. If you are a nice little non-feminist and keep your head down and your mouth shut, they will not go after you - or at least, not yet.

However, they WILL go after people like Alison Tieman, or people like the Men's Rights Edmonton Group.

They will also go after people like Warren Farrell, or people like Janice Fiamengo.

And let's not forget that many years ago, they went after Erin Pizzey.

If you are an outspoken non-feminist, they will attack you right away - openly and viciously. If you are a quiet non-feminist, they will pull the snare slowly and craftily, but in the end they've got plans for you too.

They don't plan to tolerate the existence of anybody or anything which is not feminist. In the end, "every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall confess. . ", and so on. 

This has been the feminist plan from the very beginning, and all feminists - especially the moderate ones! - are complicit.

I understand that this is all very wild and confusing, so let's make it simple. Feminism is a Big Lie, and every feminist is a participant in that lie, intentionally or not. Feminism seeks to control every aspect of human thought and feeling, everywhere, and it does so by expanding endlessly and projecting its Big Lie into every little corner it can find.

The problem is, that in so doing, the feminist Big Lie clashes with the reality of everything else in the universe - everything which is NOT the lie. Everything which is not feminism, in other words. So in the long run, the outcome can only be wreckage, and misery, and strife. That is what happens when you disregard reality for too long. 

For feminism, this presents no moral difficulty whatever. Indeed, the solution is easy - simply blame the non-feminist world for all the ugly consequences of endless feminist expansion. Feminism, you see, is never guilty of anything. It is always those nasty non-feminists (men and women both) who wreck and spoil things in order to "oppress women", as the saying goes.

Feminism does not hold itself morally accountable any more that it holds women in general morally accountable. Any time that feminism "hits" you, and you hit back, feminism screams that you are the aggressor! This has been their game from the beginning, and no, the feminist leopard cannot change its spots.

Feminism has waged a vicious war upon the rest of the world for many years, and consistently blamed the rest of the world for the predictable crisis this generates.

Well now, finally, the rest of the world is waking up, and mobilizing, and striking back in a more organized and calculated way. That is a trend which bids fair to continue. We live in interesting times, my non-feminist friends.

Incidentally, I like the part where the feminist writer call debate a tool of the oppressor. That thought occurs to me also, and that is why I have given upargument or debate as a method that will help us against our common oppressor, feminism. As the feminist Audre Lorde would say, "you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

Armageddon is approaching. I will see you on the beach, my non-feminist friends!


Alison Tieman's video about the feminist threat may be viewed HERE:

The Poison Manifesto may be viewed HERE:

Friday, March 21, 2014

One More Time: There is a War Against Men

Pernicious anti-male bias pervades the culture at large. Feminism sits squarely at the heart of this, and could not exist without it.

For the sake of brevity, we call this a "war against men."


Saturday, January 04, 2014

What is a Feminist?

A feminist is a person who finds it morally acceptable for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape, and believes the court should take the woman's word and rule against the man accordingly. 

That is the reality of feminism. Everything a feminist says in rebuttal of this is smoke and mirrors and doubletalk for the sake of concealment. 


Thursday, October 31, 2013

Something Very Basic that you should Remember

If you uphold the right of women to form a "women's rights movement", you have no moral high ground from which to attack the concept of a "men's rights movement". 

If you attack the concept of a "men's rights movement", you have no moral high ground from which to uphold the right of women to form a "women's right movement". 


Friday, April 05, 2013

No Fear! -- Early Report From Toronto

I have just spent about twenty minutes talking to John the Other -- who was in his Toronto hotel room processing some video for production. As you might know, John flew out to Toronto in order to attend the lecture by  Nathanson and Young, and to witness first hand just how astoundingly stupid left-wing college students can be when they gather in crowds under the bewitchment of a Fixed Idea.

That was JTO's prevailing impression of  the youthful protestors: "Something inside their brains was broken."  John also compared them to aliens -- meaning, the outer space kind. "They are not like normal people. They can't seem to process information coherently. They did a lot of chanting, and they appear to think that rhyming counts as intellect!"

As evidence of their stupidity, consider the accompanying photo. The young woman is holding a sign which reads:  "MRA's say women are dogs that need to be trained."  The problem is, this statement is sheer fabrication. "MRA's" do not say any such thing, and I am not sure if the young women is stupid, or simply lying on purpose. But I will go with the theory that she is an emotional reasoner who doesn't let small potatoes like linear thinking get in the way. So I believe that she is honestly too stupid to know that she is lying. Not that it matters, since it comes to the same thing any way you cut it -- she is spreading falsehood and distorting reality. Friends, these are college students, who are said to be the best and brightest, to be the cream of civilization. Well I weep for civilization.

All right. I know exactly what is going on here, so let me explain. The sign which the girl is holding indicates that she is an AVfM reader, for it references an April 3rd article by JTO, titled "Bad Doggie, Good Doggie." I invite  you to read that article:

Did you read the article? Very well, then you know that nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does John the Other ever say that women are dogs who need to be trained. He Does Not Say That. EVER. Read the article again, if you you need to double check this.

JTO is actually saying that the University of Toronto student protestors are dogs that need to be trained. And that is a group that includes BOTH men and women.

John the Other NEVER said what the stupid, lying girl in the picture is suggesting that he said. Much less did any abstract, nebulous "MRA's" say any such thing.

So, do you see what kind of people we are dealing with here? They act this way all the time.

But the concept that men and boys are entitled to human rights is alien to a lot of people, and goads them into the most twisted behaviors you can imagine. We are expecting this to escalate. These are interesting times.

Moving right along,  JTO told me that he mingled among the crowd in the pre-event protest we are discussing, and made no effort to hide his identity. At one point he stood shoulder-to-shoulder between two protestors who each held signs, one of which was a sign denouncing John the Other. That's right, he stood directly between them, and they did not even appear to know who he was!

The official main event was the speech by Nathanson and Young, and this started at 7 p.m. JTO says that he, along with about twenty other pro-male partisans from far and wide, entered the lecture hall with no problem. So did the general public. The lecture proceeded uneventfully, but JTO tells of a dramatic episode where some of the protestors got into a corridor. They pulled the heavy-weight staves out of their protest signs and pounded on the floor in unison, and chanted angrily, while John walked directly in front of them. According to him, the episode was like "Lord of the Flies", but he reports that he felt no fear whatsoever.

It seems that a lot of police were on hand, including plainclothes personnel circulating in the crowd, and a contingent who guarded Nathanson and Young like a Secret Service escort. I am told that the presence of plainclothes officers (who are Toronto city police) was unusual for such an event. They seemed to be anticipating more than ordinary trouble. Nevertheless, all of Our People got through the evening just fine, and are now, I presume, writing memoirs of it in their various hotel rooms. I am sorry not have been there myself.

Articles and videos will be coming out in the next few days, and I am looking forward to these as much as you are.


Wednesday, April 03, 2013

The lefto-fascist goons are at it again!
"In fact, attempts by the UTSU and its allies to unilaterally close down “men’s issues” events they find disagreeable, as well as their other hypocritical actions, are the primary source for creating an atmosphere on campus that is oppressive to dissent, hostile to differences of opinion and physically unsafe.

"This oppression and institutional discrimination by those in positions of power – paid for through funds levied from all students – was reinforced at the Townhall by attempts to vilify all those critical of the UTSU’s established position on gender issues. Organizers opened the public event by insisting that “Men’s Rights Activists” present identify themselves, following which the UTSU led a discussion focused on how to combat the University-sanctioned UTMIA by infiltrating their meetings, disrupting their events, vandalizing their posters, and committing harassment against their members.

"Baolinh Dang, an employee of the University of Toronto-based Ontario Public Interest Research Group stated “we need to take a militant approach to this… We also need to build a database on who these activists are, find out where they work, find out where they live.”


The Criminal Nature of Feminism

Feminism is without doubt a hate movement. If this were not so, it would quickly run out of steam and chug to a stop. At its rotten core of cores lies a seething bolus of criminal violence,  obfuscated only by the possession of a stolen moral hegemony and a franchise upon police power. Yes, when they are in power they can afford to maintain respectable appearances, but when the chips are down the mask will fall and they will revert to primordial gutter tactics. Be on guard!

For years, the feminist community has used the technique of reversal to project its inherent violence onto the world around it, but the world has grown wise and now demands accountability. As this trend accelerates, we may predict ever more desperate defensive measures, and those who advocate the human rights of men and boys, along with the right to cultural self-determination by traditional women, will find themselves on the receiving end of dangerous and erratic feminist actions.


Sunday, March 31, 2013

Adria Richards Set Us Straight

Here is Adria Richards, of  "Donglegate" fame, telling us what the bizarre feminist word "mansplaining" means. (Yes, I have encountered real-life feminists  who use that word in dead earnest!)

According to Adria, mansplaining is when a man tells a woman "something that she already knows." So when a woman tells a man something HE already knows, that would be what .... womansplaining? I would need to assume so, since I wouldn't know what else to call it. I mean, that would be logical and symmetrical, right?

Actually, until feminism came along and told the rest of us how to talk and think, we might have called such behavior "being a social putz", and left it there. But I reckon that would be too inclusive, right? Don't you just love it when a feminist tells us "something that we already know", but sucks half the truth out of it and leaves us all stupider than where we started? I think we are entitled to  invent our own bizarre words, so I will offer up a new one here: femsplaining.


Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Equality? I'll Give You Equality!

What's that, you are simply looking for "equality"?

Fair enough. If you are an asshole, I will treat you equally to any other asshole.

And in my considered opinion, most feminists are assholes who deserve every ounce of equality they can get.

Ah, yessss! Equality! Gotta love it!


Friday, March 22, 2013

Public Rhetoric Matters

I will speak of 'public rhetoric', and the need for it to be uncompromising. 

Public rhetoric means any spoken or written communication which the world at large is likely to overhear. That can include anything transmitted through the mass media, or anything posted on commonly accessible websites.

The politically pro-male community is both transmitting a body of ideas to potential recruits, and maintaining lines of communication amongst those already recruited. A great part of this transmission fits the description of public rhetoric, and since the world at large is apt to overhear such communication, it behooves us to have a care what we are saying.

Some would insist that our business is "apolitical", but that is only true if, by politics, you mean partisan politics or electoral politics as present history defines them. But if you define politics broadly, as of forces contending for power, then we are clearly in it up to our hatbands.

Very well: in politics, public rhetoric matters. That is a lesson fatal to ignore if you would make headway with anything political, and history provides countless examples of those who learned the hard way.

In the pro-male community, we find plenty of undisciplined spirits who think they can say whatever the hell they want, whenever they want, however they want. "Don't censor us!", they say. "Don't police our self-expression!"

Well I 've got a memo for them! We ALL police our self-expression, every day of our lives -- or at any rate, we do this if we mean to travel through life in one piece and get our way occasionally. And they must understand that politics is no different. If a group of people aims to get its political way, it must govern its political tongue no less than any of them alone would govern his individual tongue in the politics of everyday life.

Such is politics, and such is life.

I, individually, know how to govern my tongue according to the plan which I have formulated. What I say, or don't say, is always calculated with an endpoint in mind -- with an "eye on the prize". The effect is crafted with a purpose, known to me, many moves ahead -- I play chess, not checkers! I do as I do because I deem it for the best, and did I not so deem, I would do otherwise.

So I don't relish the political company of those who treat the weighty business of public rhetoric like they were belching out the window. I wish them joy in their self-expression, but I will stand apart from them because I don't want their self-expression to be taken for my own. If they don't know enough to police their public rhetoric for the sake of politics, I'll bear neither the burden of doing the job for them, nor the political cost of their failure to do it for themselves.

In politics, public rhetoric matters, and that's the facts, Jack!


Thursday, March 21, 2013

Seeding the Mind of the Masses

Here once again I offer practical lessons in the craft of the commentariat foot-soldier. As is well known, I consider myself a post-argumentalist. So my purpose in these comments was not to argue or debate, but to plant ideas and terminologies in preparation for reclaiming the language and taking control of the narrrative. In short, this is the battle for feminism's soul as seen from the trenches. As usual, click to enlarge any of the graphics below. By the way, m


Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Using Stealth to Create a Female Supremacist Cosmos

The following is from the feminist book Introducing Thealogy: Discourse on the Goddess By Melissa Raphael:
"Goddess religion and spirituality would not want to be positioned in such a way as to break its connection to other traditions. As I have indicated, some on the alternative fringes of Christian and Jewish communities seek to transform their own religion and spirituality by incorporating the Goddess into the (reclaimed) theology, ritual and liturgy of the tradition. SO although Goddess feminism has a distinctive spiritual/political stamp, emphasizing emancipatory politics and the sacrality of female embodiment, it can also be understood as something of a composite religion which draws upon those parts of other religions which are considered empowering to women or which already honour female divinities. As nearly all the world's religions have borrowed and incorporated, that does not disqualify Goddess feminism from the status of a religion in itself."
This is a smoking-gun example of what I talk about in the video above, namely, the feminist colonization of human communities. Remember that we are not ONLY talking about religion; we are talking about any human community of any kind. However, since religion is a huge swath of what constitutes human community, it serves as a prime example. Clearly, this arm of the feminist project aims to increase the power of women not only by making established religion unavailable as a non-feminist organizing venue, but also by making the highest power in the universe a female power.

Note especially how feminism, in the form of  Goddess "thealogy", fastens like a succubus upon "patriarchal" religion and sucks the male soul out of it. Interesting, isn't it. . . .?

Lengthy extracts from Introducing Thealogy can be found at Google Books, here: 

Anyhow, whatever community you are in (religious or otherwise), you will need to form counter-feminist committees to address feminist infiltration in a manner befitting your situation. 


Monday, March 18, 2013

Proof That Misandry is Real

When you position yourself as politically pro-male, the idiot public wants to know if you hate women.


If any further proof were needed that we live in an anti-male culture, that would certainly clinch it.

So, tell me again that misandry does not exist. . .


Thursday, March 14, 2013

You Say There is No Misandry? Fine! Then There is No Misogyny!

If  the feminists have the nerve to tell me that misandry does not exist, then I guess I have the nerve to tell them that MISOGYNY does not exist!

There! Do you see how counter-feminist thinking can simplify your life? The shoe fits them on the other foot, therefore, let them wear it.

Really, it can be just that easy. All you must do is shove their shit right back in their face. What can they do about it?


Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Feminism Must Not Expect "Fairness"

Feminist, when the societal shit storm of karmic payback gets underway, don't come whining to me that this is "not fair." I am warning you in advance that it will not be fair. So don't NAFALT me, sister! I don't care if you personally are "like that" or not. When I think about the misery which feminism has inflicted upon men and boys -- the majority of whom are certainly not "like" whatever feminism accused them of -- it puts me in a sour frame of mind. An uncharitable frame of mind. And have I ever pretended to be a pacifist or a saint? Have I ever pretended to be Jesus Christ, that I should turn the other cheek? Sister, go talk to Jesus Christ if you are looking for that attitude!

In a nutshell, if you call yourself a feminist, then we non-feminist men and women are holding you responsible for all of feminism. Oh, we won't necessarily act mean and angry when you meet us in the real world. Chances are, we will be our customary cool and charming selves. But behind our eyes, we will be watching you and measuring you.

All feminists ARE "like that", because if they were not, then they would not be feminists.  And if for some perverse reason they choose to call themselves feminists, then by default, they are like that. So we'll not waste any more time arguing about it.

Yes, I say that I hold you responsible for all of feminism. That is a power which I possess. But you do not possess the equivalent power over me. There is nothing -- no "movement", no "organization" --  that you can hold me responsible for, since I represent nobody but myself. And since you cannot prove that I have raped anybody, or underpaid anybody, or "objectified" anybody, then you had best shut the hell up about ME. For if I represent anything larger than myself, it is merely the entire non-feminist portion of reality that I stand for, and that is far too huge and nebulous a thing to be held "responsible" for anything at all.

Feminist, make it easy on yourself. Stand up publicly, and tell the world in no uncertain terms that you are NOT A FEMINIST!

Do that, and I will shake your hand and break bread with you.

One more thing. After you have renounced feminism, don't let us hear you talking about "patriarchy" and "male privilege" and "rape culture" and all of that. Okay? Otherwise, we will entertain doubts about your sincerity.

I think you get the idea. ;)


Feminism is the Sum of All It Creates and All That Creates It

Forget about what feminism is "officially" supposed to be. It will guide your understanding more accurately if you realize that feminism is the lump sum of all that generates it, plus all that it generates.

A variety of complex inputs flow together to make feminism. Following this, a variety of complex outputs flow back into the world and modify the culture along broadly predictable lines. These modified conditions then replace the original complex inputs which initiated the cycle and the cycle repeats itself, generating further changes to both feminism, and the world, with every round. The entirety of these inputs and outputs may be considered as a social organism -- an assembly of systems often seemingly unrelated, but united in the furtherance of a common purpose.

We call this pattern of social energy the Feministical Operations Complex, or for short, the femplex.

The unconventional word "feministical" signifies the quasi-feminist or feminist-supportive character of the operations in question. These operations aren't always feminism by strict definition, but their objective functionality in the political scheme of things makes them . . . feministical.

That is why we say that there is more to feminism than feminism. We mean that the mere word feminism does not adequately map either feminism's cultural supply chain, or the effect of feminist innovation within the social ecology at large. Hence, when most people say "feminism", they have in mind only a limited portion of the femplex.

Caveat: "The femplex" is a heuristic category, meant simply to facilitate conversation among specialists who need to discourse of things which outstrip the commonly received understanding. Femplex is not intended as a mirror equivalent of "the patriarchy", and if we sprinkle this term into our conversation as mindlessly as the feminists sprinkle patriarchy into theirs, we will sound just as loony as they do. Consider this a word to the wise.


The text version of this video, from early 2007, is here:


It's Time to Make Clear What Feminism Really Is

A mildly interesting article recently appeared, informing us how young women in droves are disowning "feminist" as a self-appellative. I tend to be cynical and jaded about such news myself, but maybe that's just

All right, here is the mildly interesting article I'm talking about:

I had the good fortune to be the early bird here, for when I arrived there were zero comments. So, mine is the first. I share the screen cap as follows. (Click to enlarge.):

I hope that a few of you will venture over yonder and weigh in.


Tuesday, March 12, 2013

There is No Escape: The "Other Guy" is YOU!

This video is so good I can't begin to express it.

But I will share one random takeaway point.

As we know, most airlines have the anti-male policy of not seating men next to unaccompanied children. British Airways is not the only one. In the past, I have doubted the efficacy of boycotting any particular carrier unless one were willing to give up air travel altogether. But after watching this video, I realize that we don't need to target ALL airlines. Instead, we can simply cull the herd, as a wolf pack would do when it targets just one selected caribou. We would need to drum up quite a few men (and women of conscience) willing to boycott British Airways (or whichever), until British Airways felt the pinch and was "hurtin' for certain." But concurrent to this, we would need to drum up a lot of publicity about WHAT we were doing, and WHY.  The glare of public attention would be focused on the campaign, and British Airways would feel the heat not only of reduced revenues, but of being made a public spectacle.

In the end, if all goes well, the bastards would capitulate. And then....the wolves would turn their attention to the next caribou, and the next. . .

You get the idea. This could ideally initiate a panic through the entire airline industry, and persuade others to change their policy before their turn came. Because, if they refused to go along and do the right thing, we would show no mercy. We would not quit. We would run them to the ground and run them clean out of business. Now that's what I call Fucking Their Shit Up, and I'll bet Gandhi himself would give it the thumbs up.

I say. It wouldn't take those airline people long to figure out that "the other man is me"!  Would it?

Now THAT would make shockwaves all right!! And in the long run it would send a message to ALL the world -- not just the airline world.


(Those are Canadian wolves...right?) ;)


A Thought for the Moment

Have you ever given your moral support to some splendid new social movement or culture trend which promised to get rid of the bad guys? And have you ever awakened to a cold shock when you realized, some years later, that the definition of "bad guys" had grown to include persons like yourself? Surely this is a crude and fundamental betrayal. And sad it is, that so many get sucked into it.


Sunday, March 10, 2013

Conversation With an Educated Female Moron

In the following screen captures, you will see a bit of conversation I had with a "liberal" Canadian woman who goes by the name of EmilyOne -- who evidently thinks it is fine to shit on economically dispossessed working men, and to rekindle the spirit of old-school class war. This dialogue illustrates the style of engagement that we ought to use with these people, and I share these samples for the edification of all disciples and proselytes who wish to learn from the master -- viz; ME! As usual, click to enlarge:

You know what, EmilyOne? Economically dispossessed working-class people, especially the male kind, have every right to hate your filthy, left-wing progressive bourgeois feminist guts -- just as a Jew would hate a Nazi! I could not, in good conscience, fault them for this. Somebody must force you to eat your own shit, so that you will know exactly what it tastes like. Not as good as you think.


Tuesday, March 05, 2013

The Feminist Myth of the Wage Gap

Feminism has planted all manner of myths in the mind of a gullible public.

The myth that 1 in 4 women get raped.

The myth that women don't lie about rape.

The myth that men commit 95% of all domestic violence.

The myth that so-called "deadbeat dads" exist in statistically appreciable numbers.

The myth that if a "male pill" were put on the market, most men would not use it. 

The myth that men are somehow "less verbal" than women.

The myth that men are "out of touch with their feelings." (Hint: Mastery of your emotions does not mean that you are out of touch with your feelings. It means that you are spiritually evolved!)

The myth that men feel threatened by intelligent women. (Personally, I wish there were more intelligent women in the world. Then there wouldn't be so many feminists!)

The myth that domestic violence is the main reason women arrive at hospital emergency rooms.

The myth that men in dramatic numbers batter their wives on Superbowl Sunday.

The myth that a mythical construct called "the patriarchy" oppresses women. 

The myth that traditional, non-feminist women are "internalizing their oppression."

The myth that schoolgirls are "shortchanged" by the educational system.

The myth that men somehow collectively force women to shave their pubic hair.

The myth that anorexia and bulimia exist in plague proportions.

The myth that all non-physical differences between men and women are an artifact of cultural training.

And let's not forget the ever-popular myth that refuses to die -- that women statistically earn less money in the job market due to paymasters willfully not paying them as much as they pay men of equal competence. Otherwise known as the wage gap myth.

Newsflash: The American Association of University Women (AAUW), one of the oldest feminist lobbying groups in existence ("empowering women since 1881") has effectively thrown in the towel on the wage gap controversy, admitting that the accursed gap does not really exist!

All right, then. I link you now to a video by a colleague with whom I have just spent an hour conversing on a variety of topics  --  among others the comparative weathers of Florida, California and Washington state, the political alignments of "traditional" women, and the death of Hugo Chavez:

You will find that this video covers a range of interesting sources on this critically important feminist talking point. It may serve as a general introduction if you are not quite up to speed in this area.


Monday, March 04, 2013

The Universal Disclaimer

I disavow any discreditable speech or action by any group or individual represented as representing me.

Memorize this and apply as needed. ;-)


Sunday, March 03, 2013

The Use of Provocateurs

A public lecture against the Women's Studies racket, will be held at the University of Toronto on Thursday, 18 March, 2013. The speaker will be Janice Fiamengo of the University of Ottawa.

The big question in everybody's mind is whether there will be a replay of the violent feminist action that occurred during Warren Farrell's visit. We are guessing that they will try to play it cool this time, or at least cooler. We figure they will have a protest, a show of force, a bit of vociferation -- but will not attempt to block the doors. They gave themselves such a black eye last time, by their behavior, that they are likely to have learned their lesson -- at least temporarily.

Naturally, our people will be there -- and there are more and more of  "our people" popping up these days. We are becoming surprisingly numerous. And so, video capture devices will be plentiful.  Our very own Daniel Perrins of Hamilton, Ontario, certainly intends to have one. He is well-prepared. And he plans to conduct interviews with with some interesting people. 

All right, there is a very real possibility that the feminists will plant an agent provocateur, or three, at the event. The said Daniel Perrins and myself hashed this over a bit.

We see two possibilities.First, that some little waif of a female college student will smack some alleged "MRA" across the face hoping to "provoke an incident" that will serve as spin fodder. Second, that some male feminist provocateur will pose as a pro-male activist, behave dreadfully, and likewise serve as spin fodder.

There could be other scenarios, but those two occur to us at the moment.  We operate now under the maxim of  "foretold is disinculpated", meaning that if an episode such as I've described should actually take place, we can say "look, that's exactly the kind of thing we were talking about! We put the world on notice that it might happen, and behold, it did happen. Therefore, we wash our  hands of it. THEY did it!"

Do you see what I'm driving at?

We are dealing with irrational people of dubious morality, people who think with their lizard hindbrains and feel that the end justifies the means. We ought to know what these people are capable of, and we ought to make what we know generally known, so that our knowledge will occupy a niche in the public understanding.  In this way, the world at large will see eye-to-eye with us at every turn of events -- knowing as we know, thinking as we think, and therefore believing us rather than believing our enemy.

In the end,  it's as simple as saying, "this is how these people operate." And when they indeed so operate, saying "we told you they would do that!" Yes, we are moving into the big time now, and we must expect the enemy to play hardball. And when they do, we should be ready to field anything they throw at us.


Feminist Projection for the Future, Clearly Stated in 1920

The following is an article by the socialist feminist Crystal Eastman.  It was published shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage) in 1920:

When I dig into history, I am reminded time and again of the old adage that there is "nothing new under the sun." This will become evident to you also, as you study the linked essay and note how many seeds of the present were planted in the soil of a century past. And those of greater discernment will note the seeds of present mischief in particular. Barring her somewhat quaint manner of expression, the author sounds little different from feminists we have known in more recent times. For even in those distant days, they harbored plans for radical societal transformation, and their programme hasn't changed much apart from a greater militancy, stridency, and arcanity.

Feminists such as Crystal Eastman were not, for the most part, associated with the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan (WKKK). That was largely the province of provincial ex-suffragettes, women of roughly the same social cohort as our current Traditional Women's Rights Activists (TWRAs).


Friday, March 01, 2013

What is "Whining"?

A commonly heard accusation 
v. whined, whin·ing, whines
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
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.


Wednesday, February 27, 2013

For the Record

I, Fidelbogen, believe that nobody deserves to get raped, no matter what they are wearing. 

And furthermore, I wish to wipe feminism off the face of the Earth. 

Questions? Comments? Concerns?

(Feminists, I know you want to say something here.  So step right up!)

And now, for an extra treat, read this news article, in the UK Daily Mail, about  the human rights of men:

You know, I can't help but wonder where that phrase "it's a human right" originated. Or more precisely, what inspired that choice of words in the present case at the present date. It's one of those things that makes you go "hmmm."


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Feminism is a Pattern of Dynamic Energy With No Internal Brakes

A significant exchange with the commentariat. (Click to enlarge.):

Also, a few takeaway points:
  1. Feminism is a system of energy that must remain in motion, or else it will cease to exist. 
  2. Feminism cannot establish a stable pattern of life, for that would equate to stasis and would cause feminism to stop existing.
  3. Feminism is not sustainable because it has no way of stopping itself. Eventually, it will so far damage the rest of the world as to undermine the basis for its own existence. This will lead to feminism's speedy retraction and collapse.
Bearing these points in mind, try to think of feminism as a pattern of micro- and macro- operations extending through all dimensions of reality. (We call this pattern the feministical operations complex, or femplex. The word "feministical" underscores the quasi-feminist character of these operations. Not everything about the femplex is purely feminist by name, but the femplex in its totality defines feminism as a social organism.)

Emotional disengagement is the ideal quality in the theatre of counter-feminist operations -- the counter-femplex, if you will. But faux emotional engagement is a discretionary tactic in this theatre of operations. (The operative term is, you understand, "theatre"!)

You may conceive the femplex as abstractly as you please. You could even visualize it as a pattern of shifting lights and colors on a wall, with your emotional engagement no greater than might be expected.

The holy grail to which we aspire, is the collectively individualist agreement known as target consensus. To know what we are aiming at, is to possess an operational map. Having such a map, we may commence distributed operations at various critical nodes. These operations, over the course of time, will effect the necessary external braking action.

Our work as a whole shall be framed within a feminism v. the world binary.


Sunday, February 24, 2013

Believe it or not, this Stuff is Really Happening

Click through the following, and you will fall into a fetid chasm of cultural mental illness. I have never issued a trigger warning before, but there's a first time for everything, eh?

Anyhow, this would be a good time to review some basics. Are you ready?

The huge majority of human beings belong clearly to either one of two SEXES: male, or female.

You can pretty easily ascertain which SEX you belong to by a.) removing you clothes, b.) standing in front of a mirror, and c.) comparing what you see to an appropriate set of pictures or diagrams.

By means of the examination which I have described, you will come to know that you belong to either the male sex or the female sex. Try to base your calculation upon objective physical evidence. If you are like 99.9% of the human race, you will easily form a correct judgment about this.

Remember that what you think, or how you "feel inside", counts for squat. Sex is not a state of mind.  If you have the type of body known as male, then you are male. And if you have the type of body known as female, then you are female. Your body was formed by nature, not "constructed" by "culture".

And for heaven's sake, stop using the feminist word "gender" when you really mean to say SEX. I'm serious. This might seem like "such a little thing". .  but trust me, it is not!


Thursday, February 21, 2013

Left and Right in a Way Which Makes Sense

The following video, featuring Walter Block of the Mises Institute, does a useful job of sorting out the accursed Left-Right Paradigm. It accomplishes this by showing that the paradigm only makes sense when you define precisely WHAT that axial continuum is purporting to measure. Economics? Governance? Religion? Foreign Policy? Socialism v. Fascism? Monarchism v. Bourgeois Democracy? Good v. Evil? If it is somehow vaguely intended to measure all these things in the same swoop, then you'll end with a tangled mess that makes no sense at all. Watch the video, and you will begin to understand why popular thinking on the question of Left v. Right, or "liberal" v. "conservative", is such a hopelessly muddled clusterfuck. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled for this video, so I'll need to send you directly to the channel:

This is quite relevant, as I'm sure you'll realize, to various tensions and debates that are now brewing within the pro-male community.



In Quest of the Third Path

SMASH the Left-Right model of political discourse!

Steal from both sides equally, with no loyalty to either one of them.

"Left" and "Right" are equally screwed up, and equally responsible for creating feminism.

That's EQUALITY for ya! ;)

Gotta love it!


Rad Fem Conference Scheduled for London in 2013

The Radical Feminists will be having a big meeting next Summer - on June 8 - 9, 2013, at the Irish Centre in Camden Square, London. Here is how they describe their plan:
"The aim of this conference is to re-build a radical feminist movement and support the re-emerging interest in radical feminism among women.We will:  
  • Raise awareness and increase understanding about radical feminism
  • Increase networks and connections between Radical feminists
  • Improve activist skills and knowledge among attendees
"We are committed to building a strong and vibrant women's liberation movement and a community of women of all ages and from diverse backgrounds. It is important that we meet as often as we can so that we can build solid relationships and plan for strategies to build a free and safe future for all of our sisters in the female class. We have hope that we can make positive changes for women through the development of a committed movement of women all over the world."  
Note their telling use of the phrase "the female class". These people would not likely style themselves as Marxists -- after all, Marx was just another patriarch, peddling a male ideology. Yet in common with nearly all feminists to the left of liberal, their mythology taps deeply into the Marxian intellectual substructure.

At any rate, we see that they are doing exactly what we non-feminists need to be doing. That is, raising awareness, increasing understanding, increasing networks and connections, improving activists skill and knowledge, and so on.  Well, the good news is that we ARE doing these things, quietly, behind the scenes, in unconventional ways. This activity is not visible to the casual web surfer who merely skims through blogs occasionally, but I can assure you that such activity is growing, and is international in its scope.


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The Basic Idea

(Click upon this graphic to see the expanded version.)


Recent Communication from Ireland

The following e-mail reached me yesterday morning.  Interpret this any way you wish, but it IS a sign of the times. And I am seeing more and more such signs nowadays:
"I accuse myself of formerly being a “collaborationist” with the enemy – feminism.
"Let me explain – I am female and I was born in 1961, in Ireland, not exactly the most liberal place on the planet. But, this gives me a unique insight into that sacred cow of feminism, patriarchy and the “oppression” of women by men.
"It also gives me an up close and personal experience of that other sacred cow of feminism “the personal is the political”
"So, after 51 years of life, which nicely coincides with the rise of feminism, what conclusions have I reached?
"First, I am sick to death of feminism, sick to the back teeth of every aspect, every facet, every shape-shifting ploy that feminism has used to embed itself not only into the very fabric of society, but into the places where it has no right, no business being – the machinery of society – the legal and political structures of society.
"I have watched and observed feminism (we used to call them women’s libbers) from the shrill ridiculous rantings and ravings of a few lunatic over-privileged middle class white women into a pernicious evil doctrine of hate, abuse and bigotry.
"At a time when I should have embraced feminism, should have, if I was smart, jumped on the gravy train of feminism, during my teenage years (circa 1973 – 1979) I didn’t – could I have put into words what I was feeling? At the time, no.  Could I have explained the unease, the suspicion, the sense of being hoodwinked I felt? Again, at the time, no. The only thing I could do was to never once identify myself AS feminist – which I did – as I entered my twenties, I managed to clarify my opposition to the ideology that is feminism by recognising that feminism had nothing to do with human rights.
The other thing that I observed was the sly dawning realisation in the minds of my fellow “sisters” of the benefits, unfair advantages and opportunities feminism gave women at the expense of men. In effect – the mantra of the sisterhood was to “get back at men”  - ALL men, for some nameless unstated, unexamined, “crimes against women” all women.
"As for patriarchy? Never saw it – never experienced it – let me explain – as well as a father and lots of uncles, I have six brothers, my brothers were all pretty gregarious, so they had lots of male friends, half my class in school were male, most of my friends had brothers and fathers, I have a lot of male cousins etc etc. As, I grew older and began to work I encountered even more of the male sex. So, I have had quite an extensive array of males to observe over my lifetime so far – as a counterpoint – I have also had an extensive array of females to observe.
"What have I personally observed, experienced and concluded in relation to patriarchy? To be blunt – it’s complete and utter bullshit. But, I will go even further, any discrimination, any negative treatment, any unfair practices directed at me have ALWAYS been from women. ALWAYS. By far the worst has been from women who identify themselves as feminists, in fact as I’ve grown older it has gotten worse, to the extent that now that I have returned to college to study law I find myself in a position where I am being discriminated against systematically, persistently and visibly by feminists and feminist ideology, for one reason only – I have publically declared – I AM NOT A FEMINIST.
"So, back to the start – why do I accuse myself of being a collaborationist? Simple – I should have spoken up before – I should have fought against the rise of the feminist ideology, the feminist propaganda machine.
"Until I found myself back in college I naively assumed that feminism had become irrelevant, past it’s sell by date, become yet another idiotic doctrine that had failed.
"How wrong I was – how naive – I should have paid more attention – and now?
"In all my life, I have never experienced more vile, blatant, vicious and evil examples of abusive, bigoted people, such vile unrelenting discriminatory practices, as I have encountered in the hallowed halls of academia, every last one of them a feminist.
"I have never encountered such a deluge of misinformation, propaganda, downright lies and twisted evil doctrines concentrated in one place.
"While I am personally experiencing the effects of this abusive and discriminatory ideology, I cannot compare my experience to the abuse heaped upon the heads of my fellow students – my fellow male students. It is appalling.
"But, before you reach for the tissues on my behalf – hold up – don’t forget what I am studying – Law.
"In my own small way I have managed to get one of these “Gender Studies” courses cancelled.
"This bears explanation – how did I find myself in the firing line of the feminists? As well as law I chose to study politics – not realising that politics had changed from when I was younger – now apparently – politics means ONLY from a “feminist perspective”?
"Excuse me? Was my reaction – I’m not a feminist, feminism is an ideology which I DON’T subscribe to, believe, support or sanction.
"Answer – tough – it’s the ONLY perspective allowed.
"Hmmm, I thought, sounds like discrimination, sounds like a dictatorship, sounds like bullshit. So, as a law student, I did what any self-respecting person who believes in “equality” would do – I invoked the Equal Status Act J.
"But, apart from the pleasure of having the offending course cancelled, or rather being quietly slipped OFF the programme – I made my views known – I began to speak out.
"I realise that speaking out is one thing – doing something is quite another, so, I am preparing to launch a campaign – Students Against Feminist Indoctrination S.A.F.I – catchy isn’t it?
"I’m playing catch-up here at the moment, on so many levels, but, as my father taught me, and taught me well – “knowledge is power” – as my mother taught me – “don’t argue with fools, after a while no-one will be able to tell the difference”, an extension of that in my experience is show everyone else that they are fools by knowing more than they do.
"I’m writing to you to say thank you – over the last few months I’ve finally been educating myself, informing myself, preparing – your site has been an inspiration, and if I might say an invaluable resource, in fact there are a list of sites and blogs that I wish to commend and credit for their excellence in unmasking the evil doctrine of feminism, for providing a resource for sharpening the tools needed to combat this pernicious doctrine and for being an inspirational beacon of light in the darkness that feminism has cast over our society.
"In no particular order:

"There are many more which I’ve visited over the last six months which have been a revelation and a source of information too numerous to mention – but the fact that they are there is heartening.

"Finally, as I encountered my first blast of full on feminism and began to experience its insidious effects the thing which angered me personally the most was this:
"Being warned – over and over again I was warned “not to rock the boat” “keep your head down and just go along with them” “the feminists control this campus, they’ll make you suffer” “just agree with everything they say and get the hell out of here as fast as you can”
"No, No, No, No, No! Never will I allow any person to TELL me what I should think, what I should believe – NEVER.
"But the thing which really illustrated for me the sheer breadth and depth of the evil that is feminism is this:
"During one of the most hate-filled vile propagandist “lectures” I have ever heard, apart from the shock at what was being dripped like poison into the ears of the class was the sense that the few men who were in attendance were sinking further and further into their seats. The reality of the effect this poison had on them was made very clear to me after this “lecture” one of my classmates a lovely man in his 60’s – let’s call him Mike was almost in tears, shocked and ashamed at what he perceived was the abuse his gender had heaped upon the heads of ALL women, ALL throughout history (sorry, herstory – blah)  everywhere.
"This is a man who has worked all his life, to support his family who he loves dearly, who had voluntarily worked in his community for the betterment of ALL in his community, this is a man who literally shouts, honour, integrity, honesty, and he was pulverised, ground into the dirt, shamed and almost reduced to tears by the lies, the viciousness, the calumny spewing from the mouth of the fattest feminist I’ve ever seen who accuses anyone who doesn’t agree with her of being an alcoholic (me – and I don’t drink)
"This was the tipping point for me – to use a crude phrase that we are particularly fond of here in the emerald isle, in relation to feminists “I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire” but for this man, this lovely, kind, honourable man, I would defend, support, stand beside, and be honoured to be his friend.
"So, in the battle to overthrow feminism – COUNT ME IN.

"Kind Regards