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



Thursday, February 14, 2013

Feminism Poisons the Social Ecology

There is a male social ecology. Likewise, there is a female social ecology. But prior to both there is a social ecology plain and simple, a big round one that embraces men and women equally and flows back and forth between them. Face it: men and women live on the same planet, their physiologies are overwhelmingly the same, they drink the same water and breathe the same air, they are indispensable to each other as a species, and their well-being is mutually interwoven in a multitude of ways that we needn't ever hope to unravel .

And yes, feminists love to trumpet the idea that women are the "ecological" sex, the ones who incarnate the virtues of relatedness, interdependence, intuition, holistic feeling and the like. I'll omit "women" from the discussion here, but I cannot miss the monumental irony that there is nothing ecological about feminism, which in its holistic praxis has been female-solipsistic right through, to say nothing of supremacist. For all of its green rhetoric, the women's movement has persistently acted oblivious to the sexually interdependent nature of human well-being.

For you see, women's well-being is not some 4X monster truck which you can drive anywhere you please, flattening the fences and flowerbeds and running over men's well-being as if no such thing existed. No, you cannot wreck half of a social ecology without repercussions upon the other half. Forgive me for belaboring the obvious, but you cannot poison just half of a well. The poison will spread quickly to the other half, and when it does, you cannot blame that half for the consequences.  If you threw the poison in the well, then YOU are the one to blame.


Hate is the Root of Feminism

Takeaway bits from GirlWritesWhat's latest video:
"If the tenets of feminist theory that feminists defend most adamantly, with sociopathic and criminal behavior no less, are the very tenets that collectively portray men as inhuman monsters, and women collectively as their victims, the parts that naturally lead society to hate men for the horrible things that they and only they are prone to do, then yes, I'd say feminism is hate. Because it's the aspects of the theory that lead people to hate men, that feminists seem most interested in protecting.

"And you might think that those aspects are radical, and I suppose you're right -- radical means "pertaining to the root." It does not describe fringe beliefs, it describes core, fundamental ones, basic ones, ones that are foundational to any ideology. The equivalent of "was Christ the Son of God, and did He die for our sins?" It's the radical feminists who are doing it right. The moderates and coffee-shop feminists, are nothing more than posers or pick-and-choosers. . . .
"And it doesn't matter if some feminists are acting or believing out of ignorance. The ideology and those who concoct, perpetuate and control it, are not. Individual feminists might not be motivated primarily by a hatred of men, but feminism is, absolutely, hate. It enourages hate, gives people moral permission to hate, condones and endorses that hate, and incites individuals and governments to act on that hate.. . . 
The way to prove that an ideology is based on hate is to demonstrate that 1.) It's false, 2) its falsities engender and promote unjustifiable hate, and 3) those falsities are the ones most adamantly preserved and defended by its followers. . . The ideology, and those in control of the narrative, are at their most vehement when it comes to maintaining feminism's most hateful premises."  

Now, go and watch the video:


Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Death to Feminist Lingo!

Nearly all the jargon of feminism ought to be tossed into the cliché can. Individual words such as “misogyny”, “patriarchy” and “equality” are used in a mystificationary way, given that the speaker will employ them with creative latitude. I find that people who bandy these items are either unclear in their own minds about their own meaning, or attempting for underhanded reasons to conflate something with something else.

The word “misogyny” alone will serve as a prime example. It is almost never honestly used any more, and is typically a way of smearing or silencing individuals or groups who are deemed to have wrong opinions about certain topics. More often than otherwise, people use this word as something to hide behind.

As an exercise in semantic hygiene and intellectual probity, people ought to rethink their use of this word and even do a bit of soul-searching if that proves necessary. Every time they feel the urge to slip “misogyny” or “misogynist” into their communication, they should stop and think carefully about what they are actually trying to communicate. Then they should pick from the smorgasbord of possible meanings the one item which maps precisely to their actual thought, and use either an exact term or a short descriptive phrase to convey this. Such exercise might force people to think outside the box, but at least it will keep them on the straight and narrow.
Taking this to a still higher level, why not place a moratorium on ALL use of “misogyny” or its derivatives. Ditto for nearly every keyword in the feminist lexicon. After all, these are clichés, so why not give them a rest?

Note: The above is a reader comment which I posted on one of the notorious Free Thought Blogs. Amazingly, it sailed through the moderation queue and now appears toward the end of the thread:

Consider this a lesson in the second point of Rhetorical Discipline, namely tonal mastery.  If you can achieve a tone of erudite sophistication and urbanity, doors that would otherwise slam in your face will open for you, and you will be able to "put one over on them" and speak your mind with perfect frankness. Rub their bellies and make them purr, and you can say whatever needs saying with little to no dissumulation.


Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Prediction is Not Prescription

When you bury things in the vault of time, and never take them out to dust them off and air them, they get forgotten. So in the spirit of historical memory, I will now repost an entire counter-feminist article from early 2007. I had such energy in those days; I could write and write and write! 

And I thought this item was especially apropos in light of a recent post on the Manboobz blog. The funny thing about "prediction" is, that keeping your mouth shut about certain things will do nothing to prevent those things. You can predict them, or not predict them, but either way they will happen. So the morally correct thing is to open your mouth and preach like the prophet Jeremiah himself! That way, there is at least some chance of heading off calamity.  So in this you are following your conscience. And under the circumstances, whoever slanders you or tries to shut you up is a moral idiot at best, or criminally malign at worst. (But no, I don't think David Futrelle is criminally malign.;)

At its core, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive: it may be reckoned as a prediction-driven political formula which undertakes to foretell the course of developments, to spot emerging trends, and to harness the energy of these things in a profitable manner. Counter-feminist prediction is built upon a close analysis of feminism's occult operational structure, and takes into account both the constraint which that structure imposes, and the consequences likely to arise from the working of it.

As we never tire of saying, certain things may be predicted. Men as a group have felt the revolutionary impact of the feminist innovation over the last forty-odd years, and it would be predictable that male behavior on average would show evidence of this. The opposite—that male behavior on average would show NO evidence of this—would not be predictable.

Continued unchecked growth of feminist plans and policies—in the form of perpetual revolution—will predictably force a growth of dysfunctional behavior among the male population at large. The dysfunctionality will take many forms, only some of which can be directly traced to feminist influence, with the bulk of it owing to secondary environmental pressures which feminist innovation has originally set in motion.

Eventually, the growth of perpetual revolution will culminate in the rise of oppositional forces. How? What forces? The short and simple answer is, that perpetual revolution will force the growth of its own contrary energy—which will eventually take the form of political consciousness among far more men than presently.

All of this comes into focus when you consider that perpetual revolution operates contrary to nature. Nature has an elastic limit which dictates how far it can be distorted. Once approaching that limit, perpetual revolution slows to a crawl. Finally it hits a brick wall and can travel no farther. And as I have explained elsewhere, perpetual revolution cannot stand still: whether moving forward or running in reverse, it is imperative that perpetual revolution remain in motion. So when forward momentum is blocked, perpetual revolution can do none other than run in reverse. And when that happens, it is no longer devouring the world but rather devouring itself—which is a limited and self-defeating food supply.

It is worth asking why feminism, being contrary to nature, can even make such headway in the world at all. One explanation is that feminist polemic cuts a swath through its challengers because it seems morally intimidating . Yet the only reason it seems morally intimidating is because it presents a tangle of incoherencies, and incoherency cannot be rationally answered!  The lightning-swift illogic overpowers us and renders us voiceless.

Feminism is "incoherent" because it tells a hundred different stories about itself, and those stories very often contradict each other. In fact this is very clever, because the mass of contradiction makes a perfect smokescreen. However, once feminism's hidden coherency is drawn to the surface by means of counter-feminist analysis, the shabby trick is seen and the power of moral intimidation vanishes.

This lack of rationality or coherency deserves a closer look. It is in fact the irrationality of a cancer—a neoplasm. Upon reflection, it is not so much irrational as driven by an alien logic. It might not seem "rational" that a neoplasm would destroy the host body and thereby destroy itself also, but when you consider that this is exactly the nature of a neoplasm, it makes perfect sense! It is what neoplasms do—they destroy their host and eventually themselves. There is no point in asking why. It is a neoplasm's natural purpose to behave so, and there is nothing irrational about fulfilling your natural purpose: you mustn't expect a cancer to think the same way you do! It is fully coherent within itself, upon its own terms—even if it does not openly admit those terms.

The foregoing has been a digression, but it helps us to understand how the world works. And understanding how the world works makes us familiar with patterns and cycles that are likely to recur.

Feminism, by reason of its deception, advances a greater political distance in the world than might seem credible if mere honesty were the only force in effect. But finally, the order of nature—by which I mean especially human nature—rises up to challenge feminism's passage in the way that I have outlined. It is important to recognize that the cleverness of feminism's deception will not check the eventual uprising, for once a certain tipping point has been reached, the developed oppositional energy will IRRESISTIBLY force its passage through the inhibiting overburden of alien logic. Reality is pushing back against actuality! Two logics, mutually alien, at a point of confrontation where logic is annihilated as a channel of transaction, leaving only brute force to settle the issue. And this outcome, as I have explained many times, is apt to be ugly—a blind explosion of pent-up fury punching its way out of a box! For there is nothing civilized or even entirely rational about punching your way out of a box. Truly, it is a messy and destructive endeavor- but when you reflect that confinement to a box can only breed ignorance, and that ignorance can only breed ill-advised action, that should come as no surprise.

My advice to everybody everywhere, is to stand well clear when the predictable punching gets started! Do this, and you'll have naught to fear. Admittedly, those who have a vested interest in "the box" will be unhappy about the turn of events, but I am trying to warn them also, since they are the ones most likely to be in harm's way. Forces of nature are not to be trifled with.

So again, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive, and it foretells the growth of dysfunctional male behavior due to the direct or indirect influence of feminist innovation. Counter-feminism asserts that the growth of feminist plans and policies operates contrary to nature, and that sooner or later this growth will encounter the brick wall of natural constraints, which will in turn reverse the energy of feminism's perpetual revolution, forcing feminism as an ideology and as a movement to consume itself.

The elastic limit of nature logically encompasses that of human nature. Specifically, people—meaning men at first, but more and more women also as time goes on—will either rebel openly against feminist requirements, or quietly subvert the more indirect forms of feminist influence. This will be like the construction of countless roadblocks both large and small, directing certain traffic back to its point of origin:

We need to understand why counter-feminism is more predictive than prescriptive. The expression signifies that counter-feminism merely sees but does not summon what it foretells. To predict a thing means only to bespeak its arrival in advance, whereas to prescribe a thing means to issue a command or at least a suggestion that the thing should happen. The distinction is critical.

Allow me to explain. In theory, it would be possible for the present writer, or any other activated non-feminist, to simply retire from the game and "disappear". It would even be possible for all of us at once to hang up our spurs and say "que sera, sera"—what will be, will be!

And what might follow? That is a question of the first importance, and our answer takes the form of a prediction: the feminists, after a fleeting interval of puzzled silence, would simply pick up their tools and take up where they left off. Perpetual revolution would go right on as if nothing had ever happened! For that is exactly what our movement means to them: nothing! Or at any rate nothing more than a speed bump. And so it is for any mechanical device at all: the device predictably does what it does, and anything extraneous means nothing to it - except where this might randomly factor into its operations.

Perpetual revolution (the true powerhouse of the femplex) is preeminently such a device. And being such a device, it would go on blindly poisoning the world against men and driving the wedge between the sexes deeper and deeper. It would do this because, being what it is, it could do naught other.

So far, all of this is highly predictable. And the next stage is equally predictable. Among other things, we could foresee a continued growth of dysfunctional male behavior. Moreover, the disappearance of activists and agitators would accelerate such growth by removing a natural set of brakes.

And so I pose the question one more time: what would happen if the present crop of pro-male activists and agitators elected to retire from the game and leave it all in the hands of "blind fate"?

I will tell you: the same thing all over again! A fresh crop of activists, agitators, bloggers and similar characters would rise up in the field and commence the cycle anew! Think about it: predictable forces generated the first awakening of male political consciousness, and those very same forces would generate another awakening through the very same archetypal patterns of occurrence. There would be nothing at all "blind" about such "fate".

What happens when you prune the tree? It puts out new shoots!

It is really just that simple.

Yes, the awakening of male political consciousness is a force of nature—like water finding a natural egress when it builds up past the point of containment. You cannot stop it. History will repeat itself as often as necessary, and suppression will ultimately fail. You might in theory quash the the pro-male agitators with clever propaganda, but such a victory would only be a stop-gap because the social conditions which originally created these agitators would only generate more—especially if those conditions got worse, which they predictably would. New preachers and agitators with new arguments would unfailingly arise, and kickstart the cycle back to life. As ever, men would initially recoil against the toxicity of their social environment with no radical insight concerning the what and why of it all. But again as before, a certain number of cognescenti would connect the dots and learn to identify feminism specifically as a source of the poison. And of that number, a smaller number would again commence speaking out and sharing their realization with others. And the realization would propagate geometrically among widening circles of hearers.

he awakening of male political consciousness will happen again and again; the continued growth of feminist innovation will invariably trigger this awakening whenever the objective nature of the world becomes so evident that the more perceptive cannot fail to make note of it.

One thing is certain: the feminists will never change. Come hell or high water, they will move forward with their plans. They will not amend their dispositions; at best they will seem to pull in their horns and govern their tongues for the sake of propriety when failure to do so would politically compromise them. But they will continue to creep in the night—whenever possible stealing a march under cover of darkness. As always, they will quietly smuggle in the parts of their machinery and bolt these into place when nobody is looking. As always they will continue working doggedly to consolidate their position on every possible front.

All of this we know with moral certainty, for it is predictable. Yet we know with equal certainty that the feminists cannot keep their game rolling forever. We know that their fate is sealed, that their game must sooner or later collapse. For what is written is written, and can only be postponed—repeatedly perhaps, but each postponement will exact a greater toll than the one before it, until finally the game implodes in futility.

We know that the awakening of male political consciousness has already happened. And having once happened, it will continue on an accelerating growth curve when the pioneering thinkers and explainers pave the way for those who follow. And if all of this revolutionary activity be somehow suspended, renewed feminist innovation will simply bring the pot to a greater boil, whereupon a renewed upwelling will again force the lid.

Male political consciousness is bound eventually to reach a critical mass. This can happen either sooner, or later. But for the good of all, we should try to make it happen sooner. That is what my conscience tells me. I say TRY to make it happen, and by that I mean a rational, purposeful effort.

And here we arrive at the difference between prediction and prescription, for the things we are describing would happen all by themselves. People such as the present writer would prescribe absolutely nothing; we would only sit back, watch the parade, and say "I told you so!". We will only have predicted these things; we will not have summoned them into existence.

If feminist evolution continues on its present trajectory these things will happen anyway, and vanguard community would raise no finger to counteract these developments if such effort would seem to validate feminism's game. By that I mean that we would eschew any rhetorical posture that might strengthen feminism by deflecting accountability away from it, or might seem to infer that others have a duty to make good what feminism has made bad. For example, they may insist that we as men have a duty to 'oppose misogyny'. We would respond that not only have they got no business telling us what our duty is, but given that a continued growth of feminist plans will naturally generate more misogyny, it is accordingly their duty to regulate their own political behavior in that regard and not foist their work upon others.

No, it is not our responsibility to shoulder the burden for what feminism has wrecked, but only to assist in providing a clearer view of the wreckage. We will hold the lantern while the feminists do the clean-up work! For such work requires an honest light in order that the shape of things be accurately discerned.

Yes. Counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive. This does not mean that counter-feminism makes no prescriptions, but rather that its prescriptions are informed by its predictions, guided by them, driven by them, contextualized by them, and in nearly every way dependent upon them. And the fact that we predict more than we prescribe makes us the "messenger" whom they cannot ultimately shoot.
We maintain that the non-feminist revolution is a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population, and that this uprising will at times include some unsavory people doing unsavory things. How on earth can a movement that would involve at least half the human race remain morally pure like the driven snow? The notion is quixotic!

However, the fact that unsavory people are reacting in unsavory ways to the unsavory consequences of feminism's unsavory machinations in no way compromises counter-feminist analysis, but rather confirms and strengthens it. And if such folk be apprehended in their unsavoriness, it is only a matter for the police and does not implicate the male population at large. That is how it must be, because any feminist effort to deflect blame onto men as a group would only result in more dysfunctional male behavior, and more trauma for society as a whole when the consequences of such dysfunction ripple through the social ecology.

We may expect male dysfunctionality to assume many forms under the distorting pressure of feminist innovation. Not all of this would involve violence, but all of it would tend to the entropic degradation of the world, and be marked by a state of false consciousness. I mean that men and boys would behave in chaotic or entropic ways because, for want of a guiding theory or conceptual roadmap, they wouldn' t know what else to do! They would not recognize what was being done to them and, for want of an identifiable target, they would lash out randomly. This would be unhealthy for society and we could anticipate, in consequence, much suffering of the innocent.

Suffering of the innocent does not please me, and I would like to keep it to a minimum.

Male dysfunctionality and male political consciousness stand in diametric opposition ; they repel each other. And the good news is, that with the growth of the latter the former quickly finds the door! To become politically conscious, men must become acutely aware of the interests that unite them as a group, and they must understand that political warfare is being waged against them. In short, they must begin to exist politically.  Thus enlightened, men may combine their strength in the service of a common good and to the disservice of an objectively real enemy.

That objectively real enemy is, of course, feminism. NOT feminism as feminist theory defines it, but feminism in real life terms as the lantern of our accumulated study and experience reveals it.

So long as men and boys remain in a dysfunctional state of false consciousness regarding their objective political situation, we can predict chaotic social outcomes and suffering of the innocent. And the longer the growth of male political consciousness is postponed, the worse this will get - and it might get truly nasty! Although male political consciousness will blossom eventually, and quite spontaneously, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to accelerate the growth by deliberate effort—by preaching—and to reduce the lag time as far as might be feasible.

That is what my conscience tells me. As if there were any question what a man of conscience should do!


First Principles Briefly Stated

The First Principles may be briefly stated in list format. From these five items, a talmudic wealth of commentary may be developed:.
  1. Personal Accountability
  2. Personal Responsibility
  3. Characterization by Merit
  4. Non-Aggression and Non-Violence
  5. Respect for Personal Property
The First Principles are a game changer that will form the basis for a third path, and in the years ahead this will prove decisive for the entire non-feminist revolution. That is a bold claim, yet I feel confident in making it. For the present, however, I will be mysterious and say no more.


Thursday, February 07, 2013

Woman Cooks Her Son in the Oven

Here's a toasty little item I just pulled out of cyberspace:
"Mississippi mom Terrie Robinson who took her 3-year-old son -- who was either sleeping or already hurt, it's unclear -- and put him in the oven. Police say the boy, Tristan, was found charred and still “warm to the touch” when they recovered his body.
"Robinson's twin sister, Sherrie Robinson, was quoted telling WXTV:
She was a great parent, a good person. We don’t know what’s wrong ... If you don't know her, don't criticize her."
Well I must say, that does put a new spin on the idiomatic expression to "have one in the oven."  But seriously, how would you feel about this woman sitting next to your unaccompanied child on a commercial airline flight? ;)

The full article is HERE: