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.