Tuesday, September 16, 2014

That's Right: We Just Want to Attack Feminism!

The following brief statement was posted by somebody, somewhere on the internet. I share it here because, in my opinion, it neatly summarizes what needs to be summarized:

"Why work to end feminism instead of men's human rights violations? The former engenders those violations and organizes to frustrate our efforts to end them."

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Watch this Video!

I reckon they lay out a pretty sensible philosophy here . . . don't you think so? ;)

Friday, September 12, 2014

A Minor Skirmish on the Twitter Front

I offer the following brief vignette by way of example, to show how men and women (in this case, myself and Kristal Garcia the Honey Badger!) can work together to open a can of whoopass (metaphorically speaking) on feminism:


This ^^ is small stuff, on a small scale, but the underlying principle of operation is the important thing here.

Thursday, September 04, 2014

Thought for the Moment: On MGTOW

I acknowledge and respect the MGTOW principle in its world-historic aspect. 

By "MGTOW principle", I mean the morally justified prioritization of male self-interest as against the anti-male zeitgeist of the feminist regime.

However, I disavow any human group, clique or club which sticks the label "MGTOW" to itself. 

Hopefully, that clears things up. ;)


A Lot of People Don't Want to Talk About Feminism

A "conspiracy theorist" recently twitted the above ^^ at me.

So why am I presenting this? What is the takeaway point here? What is the object lesson?

It is this: that a lot of people want to steer the conversation away from feminism. Some of these people are feminists, others are not, and their motives will vary.

And yet, they all want to steer the conversation away from feminism.

Sort of makes you go "hmmm", doesn't it?

Well. . . counter-feminist analysis holds that we must keep feminism, as a topic, front and center.

But if I were to reply to "EqualB4Law", I would start by granting, just for the sake of argument, that the Illuminati are real. Then I would define "feminism" as a tool of the illuminati, and would quickly suggest that we ought to wreck their tools.

Yes, I am a strong believer in fighting the power by wrecking their tools.

Hey, you never know, the Illuminati might just turn out to be real. But whichever way it rolls we've got our bases covered, and we are reclaiming power in a very real way.

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 16: The Application of Feminist Collectivism

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Feminist Micro-Aggression: Sneaky Language

Here is what I call "allegation by induction". Notice how feminist Shanleigh MacKenzie means to say that I am "threatened by women having power", but is too dishonest to be straightforward about this. By avoiding a direct accusation, and by not seeming to address me at all, she leaves me no ground from which to formulate a response to her insinuation. But I knew how to put her in her place, tartly:

Are the Feminists Planning a Smear Attack on the Computer Gaming Community?

Are the feminists planning a smear attack on the computer gaming community? Go to the following Reddit post, look at what is presented there, and consider the matter for yourself:


We make no claims, but we are presenting this material for the consideration of the world. We know what kind of people feminists and "social justice warriors" are, and how they operate, and we certainly don't put such a thing past them.

But still, we cannot pretend to know anything for certain. So, decide for yourself.

And if so inclined, share this widely by publicizing the Reddit link given above.

Thank you.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Thoughts for the Moment

The following are two forms of feminist aggression that should be harshly called out whenever they occur:

1. Failing to engage you as a non-feminist individual, and instead treating you as part of a collective.

2. Making YOU the subject of conversation, rather than the topic at hand.

Short form: You are an individual, and the conversation is not about you. 

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode 15: The Poison Manifesto

Due to a last-minute emergency, this episode consists mainly of Fidelbogen reading the Poison Manifesto. But the originally scheduled episode 15 will be rolled over into episode 16, next week.

The Poison Manifesto may be read online at the following address:

A PDF copy of the Poison Manifesto for offline reading and distribution, is available here:

The illustration for this week's YouTube version is a 19th-century lithograph depicting the infamous Five Points district in old New York. 

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 14: Critique of MGTOW, and Other Topics

Monday, August 25, 2014


Sunday, August 24, 2014

Nicht-Feminist Deutschland - auf Berlin

Okay, I realize that most of this blog's readers live oceans apart from Germany and cannot attend the meeting advertised here, but I thought I would share this just for the international flavor.

Counter-Feminist Plans for 2014 Edmonton Walk-a-Mile Parade

Please tweet this, and skype this, and Facebook this, and e-mail this, and Reddit this, and propagate this in every way that occurs to you.

Academic Feminism and Pop Feminism

Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: Academic feminism (more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them.

Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual vanguard -- so that the snake will have a head, in other words. The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers -- so that the snake will have a body, in other words. 

Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.


Friday, August 22, 2014

Feminism Has Ulterior Motives

Every positive thing which "feminism" accomplished for women had a slimy underlying motive of some kind, and when you scratch the surface this becomes apparent.

Everything which "feminism" does, serves one core purpose: to increase the power of women. And over the long term, the agenda has been to increase the power of women with no limit. This process operates, for the most part, blindly and mechanically. That is why we are now in such a dangerously unbalanced situation. Power for women (in myriad forms) has grown out of proportion to responsibility.

Feminism's Essence is Visible to Outsiders from Where They Stand

If feminists were honest, they would call themselves what they are: female supremacists. But they can't afford to be honest because they are playing a game of stealth and they need to be surreptitious. So they call themselves "feminists" because it is easier to sell that name to the general public.

The complete phenomenology of female supremacism outdistances what any given feminist would candidly acknowledge to be feminism, and the word feminism itself operates as a misdirection of attention. So if we marshall our understanding according to feminist categories, we will never stop looking where the feminist finger is pointing, and that finger will never point us toward victory or truth. Indeed, it will never point us toward anything but a continually evolving female supremacist future.

And that is why we should brush aside quite brusquely what feminists say about feminism. We non-feminists in general, and men in particular, are on the receiving end of feminist innovation. The impact is on US, so we have a perfect right to say what feminism is or isn't from our own end of the transaction. Our input upon that point is as valid as any. We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

A Potent, Viral Idea in 140 Characters

I recently had the above Twitter exchange with Kristal Garcia, the Honeybadger. This one is a keeper.

Kristal's original statement is excellent and thought-provoking -- an inversion of conventional wisdom that simply cannot be answered!

My reply takes it to the next level.

Yes, it is true that feminism would be nothing without the support of women -- or at least some portion of women.  However, what's equally true is that feminism would be nothing without the support of men.

Hence, we conclude that without the support of humanity at large, feminism would.. . . .

Hey...I just got interrupted by some Mormon missionaries who wanted to share their faith! I politely sent them on their way. . .

Okay, where were we?

Oh yes..... without the support of humanity at large, feminism would be just like those Mormon missionaries, peddling their philosophy from door to door.

You see, just as the Church of Latter Day Saints depends on the support of humanity at large (or at least some portion thereof), so too does feminism.

Yes. Feminism owes us, humanity at large, a big debt of gratitude for underwriting its very existence.

And that is something that we ALL need to think about.

Recently Tweeted -- Pass It Along

The way to win this war is through the spread of potent, viral ideas. So please take a few seconds to retweet what I tweeted, just above. ^^

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

A Report from the Cutting Edge Front Line!

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Thought for the Moment

"MRA" (or "MRM") is a fuzzy set and a phony category. Essentially, it is a cognitive grouping device, used by feminists to encapsulate any perceived threat to the feminist worldview and the feminist power structure.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 14

Episode No. 14 of the Vanguard Report will feature a discussion of the MGTOW phenomenon, its present condition, its place in the political scheme of things, and its function within the non-feminist revolution.

Join your hosts Fidelbogen and Nick Reading at 4 p.m. USA Pacific time, on the Live 365 channel:


Saturday, August 16, 2014

Thought for the Moment: Man-Hating!

Consider: Not only do the feminists deny that feminism is about hating men, they go further and deny that hating men (misandry) is even a real thing in the first place.

Let the significance of that sink in.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 13

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Reprint: There is No Such Thing as the "MRA Movement"

I am re-posting this article from Feb, 2012, because it seems even more apropos now than it did then. I have such a gift of prophecy!


There is no such thing as the so-called "men's rights movement". It is a spectre. A mirage. A figment. A mental spook. It does not exist. Full stop. The phrase or letter combination does, however, exist. And you will see it posted on a lot of web screens.

The same is true of the popular acronym "MRA", and its companion "MRM". These letter combinations are commonly seen in cyberspace, but they do not signify a tangible underlying reality. Semantics 101, folks. The word is not the thing.

Finally, we must consider the annoying letter-string "MRA movement". It is purported to signify something akin to "men's rights movement", but alas! It too is a naught. A phantom. A will o' the wisp.

Again: there is no such thing as the men's rights movement, no such thing as the MRM, no such thing as an MRA, and god help us, no such thing as an MRA movement. None of these are real. They do not exist.

Oh very well, I grant you this is a long story. Paradigm-shifts tend to be that way, at least until they settle into place.

But here is a short version to get you rolling. You see, the feminists did not invent the acronym MRA. Other people invented it. What the feminists did invent, was three-quarters of the cognitive and affective baggage which clusters around that acronym in the mind of the broader public.

Read that again. They invented it.

And they did not invent it "out of thin air". No, they invented it out of thick air. Very thick. Too thick. Open up a window, please!

The term "MRA" was never coherently defined by the people who first launched it into circulation. In fact, "MRA" was never intended as more than a catch-all for "angry men opposed to feminism." Or something like that. Those early ones weren't thinking ahead; they were struggling with startup issues and learning as they went along. And mostly, they were venting. So there was never any over-arching vision, and never any disciplined vanguard to generate structure in the realm of theory and policy.

So the result has been, that whoever considers feminism sacred can easily harvest phony "evidence" about nearly anybody who attacks feminism for any reason. The term "MRA", which was meant only for an umbrella word, has perversely been given a very narrow meaning -- and not a good one.

Let's break this down step by step. Early "MRAs" never coherently defined their so-called "movement" -- which was not, in fact, a movement at all. The result was anarchic; a smorgasbord of undisciplined rhetoric and wildly varied opinionizing. And so the feminist cult-followers piled their plates arbitrarily with the most compromising stuff they could find, and exhibited this as "the MRA movement". And the fact that they were intellectually dishonest made their task easier.

In their panic at the growing cultural groundswell against feminism, the feminists have stuck the "MRA" tag to nearly anything which they think is opposed to feminism for any reason -- and the results are sometimes bizarre, bordering on comical. So they are gradually negating the propaganda edge which they had initially acquired. You might say they are inflating their own semantic currency and rendering it worthless. (They do the same with words like "rape", "misogyny", and so on. )

But here, let me wrap this all up in a few strokes.

Firstly, the feminists ordain that feminism is a Good Thing and that, by implication, whatever attacks feminism is a Bad Thing.

Secondly, they use bias confirmation and feminist subjectivism to "prove" that the so-called "MRA movement", which attacks feminism, is a Bad Thing.

Thirdly, they bloat the appellative "MRA" to mean any person or thing which seems to threaten feminism for any reason -- even if that person or thing does not so self-label.

Fourthly, they ordain that whatever attacks feminism must be a Bad Thing because "MRA" is a Bad Thing. In other words, they arrive back at step one by a circular pathway.

Then the loop starts over.

Very well, then. The reason the "MRA movement" doesn't exist, is that there is no fixed, permanent, discoverable object corresponding to the term itself. There is only a mental hobgoblin which is largely, though not entirely, a product of the feminist imagination. And yes, I have acknowledged that the early pro-male partisans were at fault for their lack of foresight -- although in hindsight one sees that foresight was not easy under the circumstances.

The same remarks apply to a range of terminologies which have sprung to life over the years, and I have named a few of those -- MRA, MRM, men's movement, and so on.

So what do you think, is it time to "kill" the MRA, the MRM, and all the rest of that? Is it time to seek out a more efficient political worldview, and a more insidious narrative frame from which to kill feminism more insidiously? Is it time, at long last, to do what should have been done years ago?

Vast are my thoughts upon all this, too vast to share in one sitting. So I leave you with the following. The resistance to feminism is, let us say, a pool of nameless, primordial energy. And it is growing. Yet for a number of reasons this energy lacks effective organization or, you might better say, effective formatting. And a crisis of the imagination now looms, in that one is stuck on a particular formatting which does not serve so well. I believe one can do better, really, than to attack feminism from a format which feminism itself has invented. Don't you think so?

Monday, August 11, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode 12

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Fighting the Fire

I trust that you are familiar with the trendy feminist expression, “you don't really care about men, you just want to attack feminism!”
They're all saying this nowadays, and they appear to think it is some kind of deadly moral argument against all of us uppity non-feminist people who dare to speak unkindly of feminism.

To me it sounds like pretty weak stuff – almost like saying: “You don't really care about the house, you just want to fight the fire!”

All right, so when they say this, what are they really doing? What are they really up to? What precisely is their game?

Well it's simple. They are trying to pull the spotlight off feminism. They are trying to steer the conversation away from feminism's crimes.

They are trying to get feminism off the hook!

But wait, it goes deeper. When they say “you don't really care about men, you just want to attack feminism”, they are trying to separate the principle of “caring about men” from the principle of “attacking feminism.” They would like to instill the phony idea that these things are, somehow, mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, they want to incorporate “caring about men” into the feminist narrative, in order to make themselves the authority on that subject.
Finally, they want to cast “attacking feminism” adrift from its organic relation to “caring about men”. Feminism will then be able to assimilate pro-male politics and turn it into a feminist brand. This will also isolate counter-feminism and make it an easy target. In this way, they hope to regain full control of the conversation and silence all effectively political non-feminist voices.

All right feminists, I'll play your game. I admit that I don't care about the house, but I hate the fire and I want to pour all the water on it that I can!

Now try to shut me up!

Thursday, July 31, 2014

It's Official: Fidelbogen is a Feminist!

Aw shucks, it looks like somebody blew my cover. I recently had an exchange on YouTube with a person named Sykeo123, and he thoroughly exposed me - as the following screen cap makes abundantly clear. Click to enlarge:

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 11

Sunday, July 27, 2014

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 10

Nick Reading and I are doing a weekly radio show on Live 365. The name of this program is 'The Vanguard Report', and it is broadcast every Monday at 4 p.m. USA Pacific Time, at the following address:


Our e-mail address for the show is vanguardreport@usa.com

This is episode no. 10, from July 21, 2014. ^^

Other episodes, not necessarily in chronological order, will be uploaded gradually, when we find time for it.

The Vanguard Report is a platform for the non-feminist revolution. Our main focus is the struggle against feminism rather than "men's rights". We believe that people should stick to what they do best, and typically the way to accomplish that is to follow your passion.

We are grateful to Wolle Pelz of Berlin, for his kind assistance in producing this video when our own software failed us. Wolle, you have been most sympatisch!

Check out Wolle's web presence at the following locations:



Sunday, July 20, 2014

A Recent Conversation on Facebook

I had the following interchange with a commenter on Kennesaw State University Men Facebook Group. It clarifies some important points:

Chris Loving-Life -
@Victor Zen:

What is a "non-feminist" and how does that differ from a "chauvinist", and is the end result to combat the "mysogynists"?

Victor Zen -
@Chris Loving-Life:

Non-feminists are just those that look at gender issues in an alternative lens. Humanists that don't identity as feminist classify as non-feminists. So as you can tell, it's actually pretty broad. We mention them because they don't have many places to share their views.

But we're against hatred, period. Misogyny, misandry, racism, etc have no place in KSU Men.

Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:

How does "non-feminist" differ from "chauvinist"?

Look at the words. "Non-feminist" simply means that one is not a feminist.

"Chauvinist" has an entirely different meaning.

Merriam - Webster's online dictionary defines 'Chauvinism" as follows:

" an attitude that the members of your own sex are always better than those of the opposite sex

: the belief that your country, race, etc., is better than any other"

Hence, a "chauvinist" would be one who displays "chauvinism".

So on this basis, if you compare the two terms, there is no reason to suppose that "non-feminist" means the same thing as "chauvinist".

Chris Loving-Life - @Fidelbogen:

I agree. I originally asked this question an effort to better understand what this group represents. As with my other post, this question seeks to better clarify the meaning and purpose of this group in the face of accusations from others, especially on the Internet. I personally believe in Human rights, not just the rights of one gender or/over the other.

Fidelbogen - @Chris Loving-Life:
It is important to remember that "this group" is part of a much larger social trend that is cropping up worldwide - for convenience, call this trend the "non-feminist revolution".

The grist of this non-feminist revolution is that the authority to define feminism itself, is no longer entirely in feminist hands. The decision as to what feminism "IS", can as well be made by those who do not identify as feminist. Such persons are more likely to be honest and objective about the phenomenological reality of the world.

So, to pose the question "how does non-feminist differ from chauvinist" seems to imply a framework of feminist semantics as a starting point. It is as if one had already defined feminism in an authoritative manner, and held all conversants accountable to that standard.

Hence, if one had INITIALLY defined feminism as "the opposite of chauvinism", then it would follow merely by rule that to be "non" feminist would mean that one was a "chauvinist".

Thus, it becomes difficult to take any stand in opposition to feminism, or (critically!), even to take a non-oppostional stand *independent* of feminism, without suffering the imputation of "chauvinism" or some other unsavory thing.

In this manner, feminism *controls the language*, and to a great extent likewise the mind of the masses, when said masses take said language on board without giving it any thought.

So among other things, the non-feminist revolution seeks to regain control of the language such that principled opposition to feminism becomes possible, and in a manner that is unfettered by feminist discourse.

The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 10

Episode number ten of the Vanguard Report will air on Monday, July 21 at 4 p.m. USA Pacific time:


Do you have any idea how much the feminists hate you for not being a feminist? Do you wonder why they are saying "you don't care about men, you just hate feminism"? Does that expression annoy you? Well tune in, because we shall be exploring these subjects, and taking calls if we find time for it.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Feminist Propaganda at Michigan Daily

A feminist woman named Victoria Noble has published a mildly back-peddling and retrenching piece of feminist propaganda, here:


The best part of this is the comment thread, where feminism gets a proper whupping from the various commenters, and feminists themselves are pretty much drowned out.

Good for that. They've been the only voice for years and years now, and it's high time they got a taste of their own.

I have left several comments there myself, in classic style.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Trust Issues and Feminist Plans

Men can no longer reasonably trust women: that is a fact of overshadowing importance nowadays, and I blame feminism for bringing this about. It is not a healthy situation as I am sure you will agree, but given the arrangement of the current legal system, every woman is a potential betrayer to every man, and no man with any self-respect or any mind to his own safety can afford to overlook this.

Simply put, men are now second-class citizens, so it is no longer reasonable to demand a first-class attitude from them, is it? It is no longer reasonable to demand that they care, is it? The feminists love to bang the gong about "misogyny", but I would hold feminism responsible above all other forces for creating misogyny, by fostering the conditions which guarantee the natural growth of it.

Men can no longer reasonably trust women, while at the same time too many women have been corrupted by the "empowerment" which feminism has secured in their name. It takes no brains at all to understand that this will never foster a loving attitude, by men, toward women. On the contrary, it can only fuel a downward spiral of animosity on both sides. But the feminists wish to see this very thing happening. For them it holds a vital importance because it keeps their cult alive.


Friday, July 11, 2014

Superlative Video from Men's Rights Edmonton!

I love this!!!

And I am especially honored that they included the poster which I created for them - the one which begins with "my strength is to destroy him".


How to "See" Anti-Male Bias

A commenter named Railstarfish recently posted the following on a YouTube comment thread, and I thought it was excellent enough to share with my readers: 
"On the whole outrage surrounding "Bash A Violent Bitch", and why the offensive presentation serves a purpose.

" "Bash A Violent Bitch" describes an abused boyfriend/husband retaliating and severely hurting his attacker. The mental image disgusted me no end.

"Whereas my instinctive reaction to the mental image of an abused girlfriend/wife retaliating and severely hurting her (male) attacker was to cheer for her - even highlighted in the article with "You GO, boy."

"This showed me part of my anti-male sexism. By inducing me into a state of outrage, I realised that I was more upset by the image of a man fighting back than I was by the thought of a woman attacking a man in the full knowledge that he is unwilling to hurt her: in my mind, for a man to hit back was worse than for a woman to intentionally torture someone. The offensiveness of the message used my outrage to expose my own prejudices against men.

"Then the article specifically says not to hit back (something that keeps getting missed out when commenting on it), which made me feel better about the whole article, then finishes up by pointing out that fighting back is what equality would look like... and I didn't like it. This said a lot about my perceptions. Equal treatment appeared extremely misogynistic to me.

"Unfortunately, a polite message telling people they have a double-standard can be intellectually accepted and then ignored. Actually experiencing the outrage taught me to take my own anti-male sexism seriously.

"I hear messages about men every day, and it is only when I hear the same message said about women do I realise how offensive that message is. Removing the mental filters is always going to be a challenging and provocative experience."
I'd like to hear a feminist address, very thoughtfully and seriously, what is being said here. I don't expect any such thing to happen, however. 

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Feminist Cop-out

A left-wing radical blog called "Fat Body Politics" (I'm not joking, nor are they!) has issued a Big, Important Statement about the upcoming pro-male conference in Detroit. Basically, they are urging all anti-male activists to cancel any plans to stage a protest there. Following is the statement:

I don't know if the Fat Body Politics people have declared themselves feminist at any point, or if they are following the usual practice of blending with the social justice warrior crowd. You can be the judge of that.

I left a comment there, and they zapped it into oblivion in less than five minutes. So, did I screen cap it first? I did of course! (Click to enlarge.)

When you read the article at Fat Body Politics, you will notice that they are projecting feminist aggression onto non-feminist people - and in this case, AVfM serves as a proxy, or lightning rod if you will.

Consider the following gem. Read it slowly and carefully, and ponder what is being said:
"As local activists we are collectively speaking out against the horrific and vile hatred that A Voice for Men spreads on their website by blaming feminism as the root cause of men’s issues and not deconstructing how gender, class, race, sexual orientation, ability, body size etc distinctly impact the lives of people in our society."

In other words, they are attacking AVfM for being non-feminist.

They feel that not being feminist is some kind of a vile crime.

According to them, if you don't quite manage to "deconstruct how gender, class, race, sexual orientation, ability, body size etc distinctly impact the lives of people in our society" . . .  then you are spreading horrific and vile hatred. Yes, that is what they are saying. Read it.

All right. Nobody but a radical feminist or social justice warrior would rattle off that kind of lingo, so they are only preaching to the choir in their echo chamber here. In sum, they are merely whining that you are a big, bad bully if you dare to speak adverse words about feminism, and they are counting on their insular audience to nod along in agreement. So let that thought be a comfort. The non-feminist majority would be roundly unimpressed by any of this.

For the record, feminism is not precisely "the root cause" of men's issues. In fact, the root cause is a forked root, with feminism being one of the prongs. The other prong is traditional gynocentrism.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Activism Opportunity - Help Men's Rights Sydney in Shaming the Australian Media!

Go to the page linked below, and that will explain it all:


Friday, June 13, 2014

We've got the Feminists in an Intellectual Bind!

The following comment has appeared on the post prior to this:
"As you know feminists have, for decades, been saying that rape is about power and nothing to do with sex.

"In the wake of the Elliot Rodger's shooting there's now much hubbub in the 'femisphere' about male 'sexual entitlement'.

"And it's almost a certainty that more than a few feminists (perhaps even some of the most prominent) have said or alluded to the idea that such sexual entitlement is ....'rapey'.

"You, of course, see where I'm going with this?

"Let's not let them have it both ways.

"Either they have to dispense with the "rape=power not sex" meme OR we can ask "If rape has nothing to do with sex then what's all the fuss over male sexual entitlement?""