Thursday, November 22, 2012

All Feminists are Feminists

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

Not All Feminists Are LikeThat.


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

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

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


All Feminism Is LikeThat.

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

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

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

Otherwise, we will go right on calling them feminists.


Monday, November 19, 2012

Let Us Now Hear Both Sides

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

As you will quickly discover, the channel owner is not one of us.  So, the comments are held back by a moderation queue. All the same, I left one of my own, as follows:
Oh absolutely, people with blatantly wrong ideas should not be permitted to spread their hate on campus, or anywhere else. There is simply no place for that kind of thing in a tolerant, pluralistic society. And that goes double for people who want to misrepresent women and violate their agency. Ditto for people who want to distort the meaning of "men's rights" and make a complete mockery of the issues under consideration.
I hope you gave that a careful reading. It is phrased very, very ambiguously, so that it might initially be taken to agree with the channel owner's politics. Yet, on further reflection you will see that it can as well be understood in a completely opposite way. In fact, my statement says virtually NOTHING. It is vacuous tripe. Still, I am pretty sure it will fly under the channel owner's radar.

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


The above channel owner has left the following comment near the top of the thread:
"Note: comments that vilify women and refer to women in sexist terms and degrade their rights, their bodies, and their dignity will not be posted or re-posted here. You can share your insecurity and hate somewhere else."
One thing that I notice about these people, is that they are avid to have their mental image of reality fulfilled, and they are forever peering and sniffing about in search of precisely such validation. What is more, they continually attempt to provoke the desired response out of anybody who is gullible enough to fall into their trap. The person I have quoted actually WANTS to hear the kind of statements which are listed. And the very worst thing you can do to this person is to not give her/him what she/he clearly craves. 


Saturday, November 17, 2012

Eruption of Violent Feminism At U-Toronto

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

What was Dr. Farrell planning to talk about? Well, it was part of an event called  “Men’s Issues Awareness at the University of Toronto (MIAUT)”. A summary of his proposed "hate speech" follows:
Throughout the industrialized world, boys are about a quarter century behind girls --dropping out of school, preoccupied with video games, committing suicide, and demonstrating a "failure to launch." Why and what can we do about it?
But the anti-male elements wanted no part of such doings, and weren't bashful about letting the world know! (I am not aware that any box-cutters were being used, however.)

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

NAFALT in a Nutshell

Not All Feminists Are Like That.

Only the significant ones are.


Monday, November 12, 2012

Feminism Once Again Revealed in its True Colors

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

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

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

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


Friday, November 09, 2012

Something Pungent for Your Consideration

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


Monday, November 05, 2012

It is Not Uncommon for Women to Lie About Rape

Consider the following:
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Police say a 20-year-old student could face punishment after admitting that she lied about being attacked while walking on the university of Florida campus in Gainesville.
No, it is not uncommon for women to lie about rape. It is a recurring social phenomenon, and it happens quite a bit although the exact percentages are hard to know. Of course, it is also difficult to know the exact percentages on actual rape, both because corroborative evidence is generally lacking, and because rape itself is so difficult to define in the culture of balloon semantics which feminism has created. Indeed, actual rape statistics are to be taken with a grain of salt for such reasons, and the worse the purported rape numbers in any given statement, the more salt should be added to the recipe. Feminists will do anything they can to inflate rape numbers in their effort to fan moral hysteria and anti-male loathing, just as they will tell lies (or "half-truths") in any other area, and for the same reason. They do this because. . . well. . . that is what feminists do. It's simply their nature. Adders gotta bite. Scorpions gotta sting. Feminists gotta lie!

Here is a link to the full news story:,0,4156136.story

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


Saturday, November 03, 2012

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

The following comment has appeared on the previous post:
Anonymous said...
You and Elam are both a couple of fucking disinfo agents. Why don't you just be honest and tell us all what fucking government agency's payroll you are on, you scumbag motherfucker?

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

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

Is there gas in the car???


Thursday, November 01, 2012

The Growth of the Movement and the Differentiation of Signals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right?

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

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

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

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

What is the primordial nature of woman?

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

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

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

That's agnosticism for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I Have a Confession to Make

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

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

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

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

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