Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Sunday, August 17, 2014
The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 14
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!
Let the significance of that sink in.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Reprint: There is No Such Thing as the "MRA Movement"
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
Sunday, August 03, 2014
Fighting the Fire
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.
All right, so when they say this, what are they really doing? What are they really up to? What precisely is their game?
Now try to shut me up!
Thursday, July 31, 2014
It's Official: Fidelbogen is a Feminist!
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 email@example.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
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
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
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
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
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."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."
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
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!
Friday, June 13, 2014
We've got the Feminists in an Intellectual Bind!
"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?""
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Saturday, June 07, 2014
Look! This is What They Want to BAN in Detroit!
Erin Pizzey will be one of the speakers at the First International Men's Issues Conference, scheduled at the Doubletree Hilton in Detroit on the 26th - 29th of this month.
As you are surely aware, anti-male protesters are foaming at the chops to keep this conference from happening. So, while you are watching the present video, think to yourself, " ah ha! So THIS is the violent, hateful, misogynistic message that the feminists want to suppress!"
Reflect deeply upon all of this, and you will understand why feminism is a social cancer.
Thursday, June 05, 2014
An Open Question to All Feminists Everywhere
Would any of you or all of you describe yourselves as pro-male?
Is feminism pro-male, or not?
Do give this your thoughtful consideration.
Monday, June 02, 2014
Petition to Classify Feminism as a Terrorist Group
Feminism is sufficiently monolithic to be held accountable as an entity, and we are entitled to stick labels on it.
Non-feminism, on the other hand, is simply humanity-at-large. It is too big to be classified as a "group" or to be subjected to any form of moral generalization.
Sunday, June 01, 2014
Feminist Terrorism Seeks to Silence Us
Please retweet the hell out of this, spread it via Facebook, and propagate it all over the universe by every means at your disposal.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
JS38 - Portuguese Translation
The Operational Overview, which lays out the philosophical basis of the document, may be viewed here:
Friday, May 30, 2014
Feminist Groups Threaten Violence Against Non-Feminist Conference
First, on or about June 6, the feminists will form a street mob in Detroit and march to the hotel, where they will try to bully the management into cancelling the conference hosting contract.
That date, however, is still more than a week distant. In the meantime, some people have been busy. The hotel management reports that it has gotten threats of violence and destruction, and even death threats, over the past few days. Please refer to the following sourced evidence for more about this:
Yes, you read that correctly. The hotel management has serious fears for the safety of their property, their guests, and the conference attendees.
It is hard to know if these threats are merely huff-and-bluff meant to scare the management into shutting down the event, or if there is a real chance they'll be carried through. Either way, it reflects very badly on the people who made the threats. . . . doesn't it?
The people who made the threats are more apt to be feminist than not, wouldn't you say so? I would say so. In fact, that is perfectly logical, and I'd put money on it.
Let's summarize. A non-feminist public conference has been scheduled, whose purpose is to advocate for male human rights, and feminists have organized an angry, violent campaign to wreck this conference.
Don't forget that this action, replete with death threats, follows hard on the heels of the Elliot Rodger episode in which six people died - including four men. On the strength of this episode, the feminists have tried to label non-feminist people as violent, homicidal misogynists.
Let's be clear about that: if you refuse to be a feminist, and especially if you speak your mind freely about this, they will denounce you as a misogynist and possibly as a terrorist. Feminists routinely use character assassination to mow down anyone who stands up against them, and that is why they will target you for a smear campaign. The more assertive and successful you are in voicing your lack of feminism, the more extreme shall be their actions against you, finally to the point of physical attack.
On the other hand, if you are a nice little non-feminist, and if you act meekly and humbly, they will leave you alone, for now, and continue ratcheting their plans along, stage by stage.
But sooner or later it will become too much for you, and you will feel driven to break the silence at last. Yet the longer you put this off, the further they shall consolidate their plans, and the greater shall be their power to make life ugly for you. So why wait? Speak up now. There is no time like the present.
Nick Reading Makes Announcement about Edmonton Slutwalk
As Nick makes known in this video, their approach to the Slutwalk will be very different this year than it was last year. I am completely in on the plot, so to speak, but I will say nothing before the actual event.
So without getting too specific, let's just say that this year's strategy involves cutting the feminists out of the loop entirely and sending a message directly to the middle mass. In fact, we are pointedly ignoring the feminists and turning our backs on them. You might say that we are having a conversation about feminism with the general public, right under feminist noses, and not inviting the feminists to join the conversation at all. I can assure you that's a method after my own heart.
I repeat: we are cutting feminism out of the loop. We are not engaging them, and more significantly, we are not engaging their discourse.
A few quick observations about the Slutwalk. The premise of this feminist event is, that it is wrong to rape women who dress scantily. According to the feminist narrative, non-feminist society is a "rape culture" which condones the rape of such women. Feminism teaches that our society in general considers such women to be fair game - in effect, we are made to understand that this is a normative attitude among most non-feminist people.
So Slutwalk is a kind of didactic street theatre, meant to instill into the collective mind that it is not okay to rape scantily clad women - because after all, according to feminism, most people currently do believe this is okay.
Hence, by marching down the street in scanty attire, and calling all non-feminist people rape apologists, the Slutwalk feminists will ultimately impress a change of heart upon us all, and convince us not to rape scantily clad women.
So the Men's Rights Edmonton crew will be informing the general public, on the fringe of the event, of pretty much what I've written above. After all, we want the people to know what feminism is saying about the public...right?
Hey, we're just helping to get the message out there because, damn it all, we don't want scantily-clad women to get raped! Okay? So that is why we are helping the feminists by giving their narrative more exposure.
Further reports will be forthcoming after the event.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
There is no Common Ground with Feminism
"Feminism says _______ "
Immediately above is a blank check drawn on feminism's bad karma. Fill in that blank as needed. Write as many of these checks as you please. The fund is in no danger of depletion any time soon.
Jessica Valenti: Check your Feminist Privilege!
Jessica Valenti appears to live in a time warp from 8 yrs ago... or could it be 18? It's hard to tell, since nothing ever changes in the feminist universe. Said universe is an infinite loop where the same old bathwater gurgles down the memory hole and cycles through the tap again, ad infinitum, and grows murkier every time. Only the feminists themselves enjoy this monotonous reiteration, but the rest of the world is getting bloody tired of it.
Jessica's recent Guardian opinion piece about the mass-murderer Elliot Rodger is a case in point, but before I talk about that I should make one thing perfectly clear: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. That's right. I am not belaboring the obvious in order to sound silly. We should know this by now, yet it bears repeating: Jessica Valenti is a feminist.
All right, I will be the first to admit that Jessica Valenti has publicly avowed her feminism countless times. It is to her credit that she doesn't hide her feminism as so many do, but on the other hand, she can't back out of it now. Everything she says is spoken in the light of her feminism, and cannot be understood otherwise.
Jessica's opinion piece offers nothing but ideological talking points that we have heard again and again for many years. She says nothing new and certainly nothing illuminating, but chooses rather to bore and alienate the non-feminist public. She not only insults our intelligence but flatly ignores our very existence in the first place – and that is simply intolerable.
From this it would appear that Jessica Valenti, the feminist, suffers a delusion common among her peer group, that feminism is the world. And that is why we insist on repeating the obvious: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. The very presence of other voices, talking about you and telling you what you are, is a powerful tonic against the solipsistic fantasy that you “are the world.”
Jessica Valenti, the feminist, must believe that we are jolly thick, or that we have a jolly short memory. Consider an article about the Julian Assange case that she published in the Washington Post in late 2010, from which we cite the following:
“Swedish rape laws don't ban "sex by surprise" (a term used by Assange's lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation. . . In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.”Did you catch that? Jessica never flatly states that she would shift the burden of proof to the accused – she's too clever for this! What she does instead, is recommend current Swedish rape law as a “potential model” for the USA. Then she adds in a sort-of-parenthetical way that “legal experts” are thinking about reversing the burden of proof in Swedish rape trials. That's right, Jessica is obliquely hinting that the latter sounds like a nifty idea, while giving herself plausible deniability because she never directly voices the idea herself.
Something else here: did you notice how Jessica was careful to say "the alleged rapist", but forgot to say "the alleged victim"?
All right. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is fine with creating an anti-male double standard in law that would destroy more innocent men. She apparently sees no problem with this, even though she is sharp enough to realize that other people would indeed see a problem with it – and she doesn't want to get caught harboring such a wicked idea! In other words, she wants to cover her ass.
We pro-male partisans have an iron-trap memory for things like this. That is because we too are “the world”, are keenly aware of what goes on, and can clearly see feminism for what it is even if feminism (which considers only itself “the world”) cannot see itself for what it is.
What we have shown here marks Jessica Valenti quite definitively as a feminist. She clearly doesn't give a toot about equal rights where men are concerned, and we are entitled to wonder if that frame of mind pervades everything else she talks about. So let this inform our thinking, when we consider Jessica Valenti's recent article in the Guardian, where she talks about the Elliot Rodger affair.
The title of Jessica's opinion piece is, “Elliot Rodger's California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills”.
I do not agree that “misogyny” (hatred of women) kills. To kill is to inflict death, and the only way to make that happen is through physical agency. Since misogyny is a mental state, it cannot inflict death. I grant you that it might inspire the physical agency necessary for killing, yet by itself it generates no body count.
Furthermore, it just so happens that “misogyny” is feminism's pet monster, although the word itself is almost never honestly used. You see, even though bonafide misogyny is not the norm, feminists brandish the mere word as a weapon to commit moral battery against anybody who holds women morally accountable, or simply dares speak harshly of feminism (as I am doing here). Actual hatred of women is not necessary. If they decide to call you a misogynist, they will, and there is nothing you can do about it.
That is why I cannot take the title of Jessica Valenti's opinion piece seriously – both because “misogyny” doesn't kill a damned thing, and because Jessica (who is undoubtedly a feminist) cannot be trusted to use language honestly. And when you combine all of this with Jessica's underlying misandry (hatred of men or maleness) then it becomes a deadly cocktail indeed.
The title was bad enough, but it gets worse. Jessica Valenti is keen to promote an agenda, that much is evident. The thesis of her article hinges on the notion of ER's “mental illness”. Jessica doesn't like that idea, and she eagerly looks for some other way to unriddle the horrid tragedy. After all, she's a feminist, and explaining Elliot Rodger as simply a “nut case” would not yield any political hay.
“According to his family, Rodger was seeking psychiatric treatment. But to dismiss this as a case of a lone "madman" would be a mistake. . . It not only stigmatizes the mentally ill – who are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it – but glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society.”There we have it. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, wants to exploit this horrid tragedy in order to make political hay for feminism. Her passing remark about “stigmatizing the mentally ill” shouldn't impress anybody. Not only is it questionable if Jessica truly gives a rip about this, but if Elliot Rodger was indeed mentally ill, it is only proper to factor that into our search for truth.
In the concluding phrase Jessica spills the beans and betrays her agenda conclusively. She also uses her feminist privilege, because she is plainly controlling the narrative according to a feminist ideological model. But rather than offer any proof, she merely assumes that she, being feminist, speaks from a position of authority.
To a non-feminist, it is far from self-evident that “misogyny” and “gun culture” play the role which Jessica Valenti describes, or that the society in which these things allegedly happen is indeed “sexist”. Neither is such violence necessarily “forseeable” - we are free to take exception to any of these claims. Jessica Valenti is merely being presumptuous, but seems oblivious that she is doing so.
“If feminism says X, then X is true.” That is the subtext which runs in the background of Jessica Valenti's mind, and she wants us to lap it up without a word.
And that is why Jessica Valenti, the feminist, can blithely rattle off one bucket of bollocks after another with no trace of respect for the reading public and no hint that she even takes responsibility for what she is saying. She is a feminist, therefore she enjoys feminist privilege:
“Rodger, like most young American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention.”Rot! There is no evidence that “most” young American men are taught anything of the kind! I've seen precious little such evidence myself, and I've been around. The most I've ever seen is scattered pockets of men who show signs of such “teaching” – mainly thugs and low-lifes. Jessica Valenti is simply pulling this story out of her ass, and she ought to slink away like a guilty dog because she is lying, poisoning the well of trust and understanding, and fomenting war between the sexes. But of course, that is what feminists do. That is what keeps feminism in business.
Yes, it is feminist privilege to pull wild statements out of your ass and expect the world to swallow them without a murmur. In the feminist universe reality is whatever feminism says it is, and you are a “misogynist” if you think for yourself.
Remember that this is the same Jessica Valenti who feels no moral objection to railroading innocent men in the court system. So it is understandable why this particular feminist would happily paint men with the slime brush every chance she gets.
However, the plot thickens:
“Rodger was reportedly involved with the online men's rights movement: allegedly active on one forum and said to have been following several men's rights channels on YouTube. The language Rodger used in his videos against women – like referring to himself as an "alpha male" – is common rhetoric in such circles.”Once again, Jessica lies brazenly. There is in fact no such thing as “the online men's rights movement”. Rather, there is a hodgepodge of groups discussing loosely related themes at various websites and forums. These sometimes overlap and other times only make a tangent, but overall they are about as monolithic as the population of New York City. Furthermore, this “movement” has no definite perimeter – it merges seamlessly into the general culture, and not all of it is “online”. Finally, the term “alpha male” is far from a universal usage among these groups – there are vast swathes in which you will never hear that expression. If Jessica Valenti had done her homework she would know all this, and maybe she does. At any rate, she is a lousy journalist because she wants to indoctrinate her readers rather than inform them.
Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is also a “racist” – as we gather from the following, which comes after a short paragraph about the Southern Poverty Law Center:
“Yet, as the artist Molly Crabapple pointed out on Twitter: 'White terrorism is always blamed on guns, mental health – never poisonous ideology.'”This seems to arrive out of nowhere, since “white terrorism” has no discernible bearing on the matter under discussion. But Jessica shoehorns this into her discourse because she wants to throw her opposition off balance by creating a deflection. It's a red herring. Nothing but a red herring. And since it is juxtaposed with a reference to the SPLC, it works by induction upon the reader's mind. Jessica wants to insinuate, without expressly stating so, that “men's rights” is somehow “white” and possibly “racist”. That's how she operates.
Shall we go on? Jessica Valenti says this:
“If we need to talk about this tragic shooting in terms of illness, though, let's start with talking about our cultural sickness – a sickness that refuses to see misogyny as anything other than inevitable.”Once more, she is pulling stuff out of her ass. We want to ask, “What cultural sickness?”, for Jessica reckons that if she merely insinuates the existence of this sickness, her readers will nod along and never give her any trouble. But we don't know that this cultural sickness is a real thing, and furthermore, given the feminist debasement of language, we don't even know what “misogyny” means in this example. So you can wad up that whole worthless passage and throw it in the garbage.
“The family attorney said that police interviewed Rodger and thought he was a "perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human" . . . I have to wonder how much police dismissed Rodger's video rants because of the expectation that violent misogyny in young men is normal and expected.”Jessica does not in the least “have to wonder” this, but she chose to do so anyway. Fine, that's her choice. Personally, I don't find the case wondersome at all. The police, I would say, made a poor judgment. What the hell, that happens! But Jessica Valenti wanted to make political hay for feminism, so she forced an interpretation from a scenario in the service of a narrative. By the look of it, she got what she wanted, and the article went to press.
"Dismissing violent misogynists as 'crazy' is a neat way of saying that violent misogyny is an individual problem, not a cultural one," feminist blogger Melissa McEwan tweeted.”Piffle! This is circular argument and nothing better. When feminist blogger Melissa McEwan dismissively talks of “dismissing” something, it poisons the well against the very idea that a violent misogynist might actually, truly, be crazy after all! And since I find no objection to that possibility in theory, I cannot be bullied into acquiescing to the feminist theory about violent misogyny, can I? Jessica Valenti conveniently borrowed this snippet, so you can see how the feminists take in each other's intellectual laundry. Props to Jessica for admitting that Melissa McEwan is a feminist.
“The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tells them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified.”No, the truth is that this statement has no inherent power to command the belief of any non-feminist. Proclamation by a feminist does not make a thing true, so you can immediately flush this one down the toilet unless you have time for an intellectual audit on the spot.
And finally, this:
“So when we say that these things are unstoppable, what we are really saying is that we're unwilling to do the work to stop them. Violence against women does not have to be inevitable, but it is almost always foreseeable: what matters is what we do about it.”And again, this has no power to command our belief. Jessica Valenti has no idea what “we” are “really saying”, or what “we” are theoretically willing to do in situation x or y – her remarks are sheer speculation, not to say fantasy. That said, violence against women or anybody else is a factor in this world and not likely to fly away any time soon. It is sometimes forseeable and other times not, but if we live our lives in the best way we can, we can steer clear from 99% of it.
All right, I think I have given Jessica's opinion piece all the attention it deserves. You might wonder why I gave it any at all, and I can only reply that the blockbuster Eliot Rodger event weighed greatly in my decision. A desire to sharpen my claws a bit also entered into it. At any rate, the feminist spin machine is now going wild about Elliot Rodger and spinning the wildest web of lies you can imagine. And we can plainly see that Jessica Valenti, with her privileged position at the Guardian, is leading the charge.
I must confess that I am disappointed, but then, what was I expecting? Something more formidable? Well formidable hardly describes it. If this is the best that feminist Jessica Valenti can bring to the Elliot Rodger episode, then she must enter a new line of work as soon as possible, for the occasion requires a competence she apparently hasn't got.
Feminist privilege means nothing if not the privilege to rattle off dogmatic twaddle and not get challenged for it. Well Jessica Valenti must check her feminist privilege and Back The Fuck Up.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Thought for the Moment - Keeping Feminism Honest
I am a non-feminist, because if I don't keep feminism honest . . . who will?
Monday, May 26, 2014
The Vanguard Report - Episode No. 2
We shall be conversing about the Three Sphere Model of political activism and message management, and about some of Nick's celebrated activities in Edmonton - such as the Slutwalk and the "Don't be That Girl" postering campaign. Later in the show we will open up the line to callers.
We hope that you will be able to join us.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Feminist Establishment Launches Smear Attack Against Non-Feminist People
This journal is a mouthpiece of the feminist Establishment if ever there was, and here we see the maxim borne out, that feminism cannot tolerate the existence of people who are not feminist. Mind you, the Daily Kos does not clearly confess to being a feminist publication, but presumptuously saddles you, the reader, with the burden of figuring this out. Okay, fine. If they will not be forthcoming about their feminism, then I will have no choice but to LABEL them.
The Daily Kos article is purportedly about the mass-shooter Elliot Rodger, but that is only on the surface. The political subtext goes far deeper.
It is probably a safe bet that Elliot Rodger is not a feminist. Yes, I'd fearlessly wager my life savings on that.
But additionally, if you have read the article, you will know that Elliot Rodger is a mentally unstable chump with serious issues, apparently of a sexual nature. You will know that he has been a reader of "PUA" and "manosphere" literature on the internet. Consequently, you will know that he makes the ideal poster kid for every feminist's idea of a politically outspoken non-feminist person.
Anybody with any sense can tell you that non-feminist people number in the billions, and that all moral generalizations about them are simply irresponsible. They are not an organization, not a "movement", but simply a demographic - and incidentally, the majority of the human race. As such, they make a cross-section of human nature. Let that be noted.
But mark my words, the feminist Establishment will capitalize on this tragedy to slander the majority of the human race - the part that is not feminist. They will waste no time trotting out comparisons to Marc Lepine and George Sodini, and as the Daily Kos article does, they will depict non-feminist men and women as members of the PUA (pickup artist) cult. Weird as it sounds, they will try to brand non-feminist men and women as "a nebulous group of pickup artists and misogynists who have found each other online" - never mind how freaking bizarre it is to paint the majority of the human race that way!
But friends, that is how feminism rolls. And their behavior is not hard to decipher, not hard at all. They are making Elliott Rodger a propaganda stand-in for any non-feminist person who is outspokenly critical of feminism.
Now listen closely, because this is where it gets tricky. We have no evidence yet that Elliott Rodger was anything but apolitical in regard to feminism as such. He was not outspoken about feminism, and he apparently had nothing say about male human rights in an ideological way. He was by no stretch an intellectual with an "analysis". He was only a sexually frustrated chump with mental issues, who apparently "hooked up" with PUA literature, and websites like "the Manhood Academy".
And yet, the feminist journal Daily Kos deliberately links Elliott Rodger with anybody, anywhere, who dares to speak his or her mind critically about feminism. How do they do it? Simple. They tag Rodger and his activities with the label "men's rights". In the minds of the Daily Kos audience, that is enough to justify a cultural lynching of the entire politically activated non-feminist population. Chillingly simple, isn't it?
Notice that I used the phrase "politically activated". That means, that if you are a nice little non-feminist chump don't stick your head above the parapet, then you won't catch any of the propaganda machine-gun fire.
Yes, if you are a nice little non-feminist chump, you will not end up like Warren Farrell or Janice Fiamengo. But if you won't keep your mouth shut, they will clump and tar you with this Elliot Rodger guy, and put you on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate watch list.
Again, if you are a good little non-feminist, and if you act meek and humble, they will leave you alone and not shove you into the same tar barrel with Marc Lepine and George Sodini and this Elliot Rodger guy.
Yes, they will leave you alone.
For now, anyway.
Note: This article has been reposted to A Voice for Men.
White Ribbons are for Women Too!
I would like to dedicate this post to the White Ribbon Campaign, a worldwide group which does such fine work depicting men as violent dirtbags and perpetrators, and women as innocent doves.
To my knowledge, the WRC has never categorically admitted to being a feminist organization.
The White Ribbon Campaign has the following hash tag on twitter:
The WRC may also be messaged on Twitter:
The above video was filmed with the unwitting cooperation of the London public, at the sly instigation of two very convincing actors - one male, the other female.
"To raise awareness about domestic violence, Dare London in England set up three hidden cameras in a crowded park and staged two scenarios of domestic violence to see how strangers would react. When the man in the PSA physically attacks his girlfriend, several onlookers rush to woman's aid. But when they recreate the same scenario with the woman physically attacking her boyfriend, it's a different story."The only thing I don't like about this, is that they haven't got the stones to say that 50% of DV victims (not 40%) are men. They're still afraid of appearing politically incorrect, I reckon.
Still, I count this video as a 'smoking gun'. Watch this, and you will understand why female violence against men is "invisible". The underlying dynamic will become painfully clear to you, and if you still refuse to see what's going on you are either a feminist or a moral idiot. Same difference, come to think of it.
When we are discussing items like this, we must never forget to underscore the moral nexus between feminism and such things. Breaking the silence about feminism, every chance you get, is a vital exercise that demands diligent practice.
The social double standard illustrated here is part of traditional culture. Feminism did not "create" this, but feminism most certainly feeds upon it, and grows fat upon it, and wouldn't long survive without it. Feminism is, in point of fact, only a modified form of traditional culture. Everything comes from somewhere, nothing emerges de novo from an ahistorical void, and so finally, there is nothing new under the sun.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Feminist Self-Disclosure is a Required Protocol
Even if it "seems obvious" that they are feminist, they should still make a clear, categorical position statement.
If they fail to do so, it is a breech of protocol in dealing with the non-feminist world, and will be held against them.
This protocol has been set forth in point 45 of the JS38 Prime Convention:
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Counter-Feminism is on the Radio Now!
The title of the show is "The Vanguard Report", and it airs every Monday from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Coast Time, USA.
Our mission is to share cutting-edge ideas, to build non-feminist solidarity, and to advance pro-male politics.
The content of the program is driven by three central questions:
- What is feminism?
- Where do we stand?
- What is to be done?
Our first episode ran yesterday. Nick wasn't able to make it this time, so I hosted on my own. The show went well. We hope that you will join us in future episodes, and even call in.
The Vanguard Report is hosted by Live 365. Here is the link:
You will need to go there at the scheduled time. You will find the program player at the upper left corner of your browser screen - just click the play button and off you go. I'm not sure how you log into the program chat, but I'll try to find out.
I thank our German friends at Nichtfeminist for helping with promotion. One good link deserves another, and here it is:
We have an e-mail address for the program, which is:
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
As "Counter-Feminist" as it Gets
The QR code displayed above will take you to the most definitively and quintessentially Fidelbogen-ish statement ever made - informally known as "The Poison Manifesto". If you are more "old school", a convenient hyperlink is given below:
If the sentiment expressed there meets with your approval, share the link.
Alternately, you could share the PDF file, linked as follows: