FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real..

Fruit is always a good indicator of the mindset..

One wonders where one has to wallow to generate their mindset. They obviously have a different perspective on life they link into, in order to fantasise and generate their neurosis. It is not uncommon for a feminist to arrive at such an opinion as they are constantly fed a plethora of false information that has nothing or very little basis in reality. Anyone can make a fanciful argument using only their confusion and utilising a plethora of irrelevant doses of misconstrued facts to argue any issue they feel they should. Even when the method chosen only demonstrates their delusional mindset and has no relevance to the subject or topic at hand..

That fear issue again raises the fact that a certain level of the population prefer to thrive on their chosen path, their level of ignorance and obvious stupidity shines, like a beacon, or in this case, a bowl of fruit..

Proof That Fidelbogen is a Criminal

I know a certain Carmen Miranda feminist who carries a head-full of fruit, and I've been tossing limes and pomegranates back and forth with this person. Yes, yes, we all know that argument with these people is, well . . . fruitless! So that is why I do not argue with them. I might appear to be doing so, but in fact I am only engaging them -- which is not at all the same thing. For I happen to believe in the old adage of "know thine enemy", and although you can do this while merely observing thine enemy from a distance, an important dimension of knowledge will escape you if you neglect the "hands on" aspect of learning.

So that is why you will sometimes find me dancing round and round the mulberry bush with feminist twits, nitwits, half-wits and fruitcakes -- even when comrades say, "Fidelbogen, you are wasting your time arguing with these people." My response is twofold: 1.), that I am not truly "arguing" with them, but rather studying them, and 2.), that I am showing them up for the benefit of non-feminists who are not quite activated yet, but leaning in that direction.

Yes, I am both studying the enemy, and making the enemy play the fool in the eyes of a candid world. But in particular, I am mapping their mental weak points so I will know how more efficiently to block and dismantle their game. For when you learn such things one-on-one, you garner valuable insight toward blocking and dismantling feminism as a whole. Such, at any rate, has been the fruit of my own effort.

I recently got a long-ish message from Carmen, as I will call her. I gather she is from Alberta, and is involved in the domestic violence industry there. I think you will be entertained by her mental gymnastics as she tries to conceal, from herself and others, her hatred of non-feminist men and women. With typos verbatim, here it is:

"The men's support groups are often involved in organized crime and are criminals. I would guess that you are promoting human trafficking and child porn. That is waht Men's groups faking their own abuse or acting as pretended under-dogs do.

"The MEN's GROUPS here are involved in the child sex trade and child porn. They are supported by hookers which have inflitrated the services. You appear to like only filthy hookers and those who have the attitude of woman hate which is common to hookers and child sex trafficking women.

"I understand that you are making efforts to spread the hatred of women and their degradation world wide. I can see that you want decent people to get out of the way and that the scum who support you oftenb make efforst to terrorize women who disagree. This is simply an exercise in bringing them out. There is no conspiracy against men. There is however an organized crime child sex sales and hooker sales conspiracy in which women bacl;ked by scum are taking over the management of the child porn industry. I would giuess that this is your goal as it is the only goal of faking that women have even achieved equality let alone abuse men.

"Nowhere have I seen any evidence that women have equal rights in the USA or anywhere else. I do see that many women support sex trade operations against their gender for the enrichment of their male handlers and owners.

"You are obviously a CRIMINAL.

"Goodbye."

Now, to be completely fair and honest, I must admit this isn't quite so bananas as it might first appear-- although it is still quite bananas. You see, I know what brought this on, or at least I think I do. I am pretty sure, based on contextual evidence, that Carmen was "triggered" by my most recent YouTube video, the one about feminism's diseased underbelly.

Carmen's mind, which had somewhat settled after our previous exchanges, now went into reactive overdrive. My brief against feminism, based on the Agent Orange files, drove her to compose a counterpart story about a global conspiracy of so-called "men's groups" involved in sex trafficking and child pornography. Feminists are nothing if not wildly imaginative, and Carmen is obsessed with these issues in particular. You have just read her narrative, which was her way of pushing back. The trouble is that she was working in haste, so she did this poorly. Her analysis is slipshod, as hasty things will be, and is very unlike our own counter-feminist analysis, which has ripened for years.

And a touch of irony, like a twist of lemon peel, sits on top of all this. In a separate statement, Carmen replies to a quip which I'd stolen from Henny Youngman:

"Folksey charm. Fidelbogen you are delightful sometimes. Too bad about the woman hate thing."

Once again I must be honest, for my outlook on women is one of finely honed objectivity. I prefer not to have any illusions about women, so I don't sugar-glaze them any more than I'd sugar-glaze the rest of reality. Likewise, I can't be bothered to hate women any more than to hate the world at large. You see, hate is an energy sink, and I try not to sink my energy. Further, I consider it below my station as a philosopher to bestow that level of emotional engagement upon either women or the world. Finally, as a pragmatic counter-feminist strategist and policy wonk, I cannot let primitive feelings cloud my lens and compromise my clear view of the field. The way I see it, hating women gets in the way of attacking feminism intelligently.

You may gather from the foregoing that I have no truck with the pro-feminist men's movement or any of their brown-nosing affiliates. Given that I am not sycophantic or servile toward Ms.Muffet, that stands to reason, don't you think so? But just for the record, I get along with women rather well. Forgive me, but I'm a charmer, and women of all ages take a shine to me.

And do I try to be charming? Not on your life! Fact is, I'm just lazy, so I'm doing what comes easy. I'd sooner spare myself the work of being uncharming -- although I grant you there is a time and place for everything.

But the matter at hand is political, not personal, so enough about me.

Feminists: Facetiously Fornicating Fakery..

This a comprehensive presentation by Fidelbogen that includes commentary about both hypocrites, Marcotte and Valenti, the Agent Orange expose and the bigotry at that radical feminist forum, RadFem Hub. A truly interesting coverage that would be ideal for the MP3 player and have a listen to on the way to work or your the next time you jump onto a plane or bus. Strictly for your own amusement.

Thoroughly entertaining...

Partnering Up, What's in it for Men..

Well, Strike me puce..

TOO much Vinegar, Not enough Honey..

Amazing, there are some sane minds out there but unfortunately way too few. Fidelbogen made a statement the other day where he suggested that maybe women should get of their butts (my interpretation) and start making more positive noises about men rather than allowing the male haters to continually wax malicious every time. It never ceases to amaze me that it's women who are desperately seeking relationships but fail to even bother raising the obvious questions on the subject that needs to be answered.

Woman UP..the Private Man.

Nothing will change unless the hate laws that feminists have forced down societies throat are tossed out for the rabid jokes they really are, they were influenced and introduced by radical feminists who are right now still in the process of introducing more hate laws to ensure that the sexes continue at each others throats. Meanwhile we have crickets chirping in response..

How often does one have to read another of those millions of comments where women are claiming that they cannot find a partner, their life generally sucks because those cats are not that good a company and their clock is ticking away and there is no hope in hell of leading a more fulfilling life even though they feel it is no fault of their own..

If you have no idea what the issues are, have a read here..The Online Men's Compendium..

It is right there that reality should raise it's ugly head but it still fails to register. Obviously, if you do nothing, nothing will change. Sounds simple but apparently it's way too complicated. somehow..

Why can't women find a partner ? ..read on..

Marriage: What’s in It for Men?

By Suzanne Venker

December 19, 2011 10:05 A.M.

A new report by Pew Research Center shows that barely half — 51 percent — of adults in the United States are married. In place of marriage are nontraditional living arrangements — including cohabitation, single-person households, and single parenthood — that may likely continue. The share of adults who are currently married could drop to below half within several years.

While the report says it’s “beyond the scope of this analysis to explain why[emphasis mine] marriage has declined,” senior writer D’Vera Cohn adds this: “I’m struck by the fact that a large percentage of people who say that marriage is obsolete still want to get married. I think they may be having two ideas in their head at once: one about the institution of marriage and what its status is in society today, which is to say that it’s a lot less dominant, central, or important in society, [and another about] their own wishes for their future, in which they personally would very much like to be married.”
Indeed they do. But some major changes have to take place first.
For starters, parents have to stop getting divorced for less than dire reasons. Many, if not most, of today’s 20- and 30-somethings are products of these divorces and thus have no role models. They may be looking for love, but they have no idea what to look for. Susan Gregory Thomas, author of In Spite of Everything, is a great example. Her parents split when she was twelve, and in an article about her book she laments the lack of guidance available to young people. “Why would we take counsel,” she asks, “from the very people who, in our view, flubbed it all up?”
Second, we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable. Consider these examples:
#*# Author and journalist Natalie Angier begins an article in the New York Timesby writing, “Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically#…#why doesn’t he just go away?”
#*# In a CNN interview with Maureen Dowd about her 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd says, “Now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know, we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’”
#*# Lisa Belkin, a blogger for the New York Times wrote, “We are standing at a moment in time when the role of gender is shifting seismically. At this moment an argument can be made for two separate narrative threads — the first is the retreat of men as this becomes a woman’s world.”
#*# In an article in The Atlantic titled “Are Fathers Necessary?” author Pamela Paul wrote, “The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution.”
Women have also been raised by their feminist mothers to “never depend on a man.” As a result, couples no longer think of themselves as one unit but as separate entities sharing space. “The confusion over roles is there, as are the legacies of a self-absorbed, me-first, feminist-do-or-die, male-backlash society,” wrote Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee in The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. Honestly, are we really surprised marriage is on the decline?
The concerns of men frequently arrive in my inbox. The latest is from Mark Trueblood, who had this to say: “From a man’s perspective, men take on an untenable risk. The culture of male disposability runs deep — some say even at the level of our DNA.” Because of this, he says, “Men are making a lifelong commitment to eschew marriage, cohabitation, and even dating in some cases. We do so for all the reasons you can guess, and more. As far as I am concerned, this is the wisest lifestyle decision for men in the United States at this point in time. And I say so as a conservative/libertarian who fully acknowledges the power of a functioning nuclear family.”
Mark Trueblood is not an anomaly. Countless men’s-rights groups have popped up across the country, and even more men happily shack up with their girlfriends with no plans to get married — which may sit well with women for a while, until their clocks begins to tick, and they become desperate for a baby. All of the sudden men look more appealing — but the men don’t want to marry them.
There may be more than one reason Americans are delaying or eschewing marriage, but almost all of them can be attributed to feminism. Feminists assured women their efforts would result in more satisfying marriages, but that has not happened. Rather, women’s search for faux equality has damaged marriage considerably (some might say irrevocably, but I’m an optimist) by eradicating the complementary nature of marriage — in which men and women work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the unique qualities each gender brings to the table. Today, men and women are locked in a battle. The roles have changed too drastically, and the anger runs deep.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t call that progress.
— Suzanne Venker is co-author of the new book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say. Her website iswww.suzannevenker.com.

More Proof That Feminism is a Social Cancer..

Some would have to wonder if Fidelbogen's request for the "roaring" from women request will ever eventuate, call me cynical but I have never seen it nor would I expect it. When women can sit in a television audience and laugh along with the likes of Sharon Osbourne about some lunatic cutting off a man's penis then one has to wonder if there is any level of humanity left in them at all..

Feminists have hit on two of their favourite topics - One, is the prostitution angle, where free women go about selling sex for money as is their majority wish, easy money for minimal effort on their part. Secondly, the radical feminist introduced the "Slutwalk" response because a man told women not to dress like sluts, take some responsibility for your behaviour, the sensible women do anyway. So it is not a problem of it being good advise, the issue was that feminists found another opportunity to malign and generate hate against men. Regardless of the fact that a majority of men do not use prostitutes as a majority are married, not that it makes much difference, ask Bettina Arndt. What amazes me about the entire topic of prostitutes and slutwalks is that it can all to traced back to women and their behaviour being the culprits, but don't mention any of that as it appears to be irrelevant. Waiting for feminists to be honest will never happen..

More Proof That Feminism is a Social Cancer

Here we are treated to the famous anti-porn feminist Gail Dines on a talk show. And if you don't savvy what's wrong with this blabbering diarrhea-mouth, who fills the air with lies and won't shut up for even one second, then you are either willfully obtuse or rectal-cranially conjuncted. Do I really need to explain what is EVIL about this? If you cannot instantly comprehend the poignancy of the crisis here, then you are frankly beyond hope and I haven't got the patience to deal with you. So please go away. Now.

Gail Dines is not what's generally called a "radical" feminist. She is not a person of the so-called fringe. She is a mainstream activist, and people like her are painfully common. They yak it up on talk shows, they write glossy books that get reviewed by glossy critics, and they have a large following of uncritical sponges who sop up every word they say. Nobody -- especially not men -- will publicly stand up to these people and administer the verbal bitch-slapping they so desperately need. Pretty much the only ones who will tackle that unpopular job, are the "creepy" men who populate obscure websites.These men call attention to creepy things, and that makes them "creepy".

As feminism goes, Gail Dines is standard fare -- although I grant you she is worse than many. In olden days of rough village justice she'd have gotten the scold's bridle, or the the ducking stool, or the stocks. And quite right. Half the women in the village would have been throwing rotten garbage at her too, back in those days. But nowadays . . . women in critical numbers are eerily silent. And I won't try to explain that, especially considering that men are equally silent.

I realize that Gail Dines is ostensibly "not as bad" as the radfems who hide in private forums and talk about male genocide. No, Gail does not talk about male genocide (although it is an open question whether she entertains the thought), but that only makes her somewhat less poisonous. Two drops of cyanide in a glass of water as opposed to three, let us say. Aye, her demonic hatred of men is painted in blazing colors for all to behold.

I should add, that in my opinion Sharon Osbourne -- who thought it was "quite fabulous" when a man got his penis cut off -- is somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines. And I would say the same of the female audience on Sharon's TV show, the ones who tittered uproariously about the incident. Overall, they are somewhat less poisonous than Gail Dines, and I don't doubt they would be totally creeped out if they knew about the radfems in the private form. And I'm sure it is a great relief to know that they would feel this way, even while they were tittering uproariously about the man who got his whacker whacked off.

And I am certain that Sharon and most of her female audience would assure us that those feminists in the private radfem forum are only "fringe radicals", that not all feminists are like that, and that certainly not all women are like that.

Here is a thought experiment for you. How if all hatred of men -- and all social proclivity to be silent about such -- were all at once to vanish from the world? Do you seriously believe that this thing we call "feminism" would continue to exist for even five minutes?

A concluding thought. Although it is deadly clear to me that all feminists are indeed "like that", I still refuse believe that all women are like that -- although a painfully large number are! Call me a fool, call me a Simple Simon, but I still think the majority of women are fundamentally decent, honest people. And I really think they need to find their voice. I really do.

I want to hear them roar.

It is urgently important for this to happen. The future depends on it.

Men DO NOT Owe Women A Living..

This may come as a shock to many but it is inevitably the case. We owe women a living like a forest owes the ground,we are not talking symbiosis here. Feminists rely on this false premise in order to make unreasonable demands and justify their disgusting behaviour..

December 2, 2011FidelbogenSHORT UPDATES

The ontology of female supremacism

I have concluded elsewhere that men as a group owe no special collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special collective favor to Republicans as a group. In view of the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would lend itself.
However, I know that plenty of feminists would take issue upon this point. And being feminists, they can do no less. If they agreed with this way of thinking, they would no longer be feminists. And why? Because the entire feminist enterprise is constructed around the overarching and atmospherically all-pervading premise that men are the problem. This is so because feminism is a hate-fueled, anti-male, female-supremacist movement, and such a movement couldn’t possibly embrace the view that men and women are BOTH the problem. No, that wouldn’t work – it would bust their gearbox all to hell!

The fruits of feminism bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity…

If in fact men are the problem as feminism supposes, and consequently that women are not, then it would follow that men specifically are under some form of obligation which would translate as a debt owed to women. And such indeed summarizes the general wind that has wafted from the direction of feminism and spread widely into other quarters. That is why I say that the feminists would take issue with the idea that male and female are political parties: because it implies that men and women are equal cutthroat gangs competing equally to cut each other’s throats. The feminists would favor a scenario in which one of those gangs (men) would bare its collective throat voluntarily to the gang wielding the knife.
But what does it mean to say that “men are the problem”? What is this statement really driving at? Which “problem” does it refer to, exactly? I have implied that this idea lies at the root of a world-view. A paradigm. But how can we spot it in action? What signs or tracks does it leave?
Here is what to look for: any time a woman does something notably blameworthy, or any time something goes awry between a man and a woman, a feminist will nearly always search for a way to either get the woman off the hook, or reduce her share of blame to a barebones minimum. Female wrongdoing will always be extenuated in whatever way possible, if not denied altogether.
The bias is persistently male-negative. It is evasionary of any realization, or any frank admission, that women in the depth of their nature are just as rotten as men. You can almost hear the female-justification hamster spinning its little wheel into overdrive in the backs of feminist heads, any time the least shadow of womanly or girlish malfeasance confronts them. They are not a bit concerned to know what actually IS; rather, they fervently wish to know what, according to their template, must be. It is a deeply rooted emotional reflex which transfixes the core of their world like a pivot or an axle or a black-hole singularity.

IN FACT, LET’S GIVE IT A NAME.

Let’s call it the “must-be” maneuver. Yes! This little trick is the alpha and omega, the sum and substance, the necessary precondition for everything that feminism seeks to put about in the world. It must be that a man is to blame in every argument, it must be that he doesn’t listen, it must be that he is insensitive to her needs, it must be that he is using male privilege, it must be that he has control issues, it must be that he has anger management issues, it must be that he is “condescending” her, it must be that he feels threatened by intelligent women, it must be that she was violent in self-defense or if not, it must be that she attacked him pre-emptively. On it goes.
And should it prove impractical to pin the blame on a particular man, it is always possible to fall back upon men or maleness in the abstract: it must be the patriarchy which oppressed her into lying, killing, cheating, stealing or stumbling! It must be male-dominated power structures which drove her to anorexia or smashed her head against a glass ceiling!
Inherent to the must-be maneuver is the exclusion of examination. A commonsense, rough-and-ready calculus might suggest to the layman that male input is to blame in at most half of the suggested cases, and that prior to concluding what must be, we should interrogate the full range of what might be. However, such a proposal is anathema to the feminist paradigm, and if you presume to make it, it must be that something is amiss in your character, your education, or your political leanings.
I cannot overemphasize the formative foundational character of the must-be maneuver. I could even call it theological or cosmological: “In the beginning, Goddess created man and woman. And Goddess said, ‘Let man be the problem – for verily it must be so.’ And behold, it must be so.”

In a compressed way, the must-be maneuever fits the model of Kant’s hypothetical imperative: “If you wish feminism to be viable, then the principle that men are always at fault must be reiterated at every possible opportunity.”

This idea that “men are the problem” is an eternal unsupported premise, and like the god of the infinite regress, prior to everything in every way. It is never a point of arrival but always a point of departure. Feminism did not give birth to this idea – the idea gave birth to feminism! Feminism grew from the idea and not the reverse. At no point did feminism ever not contain this idea, and at no point was feminism not contained by this idea. At no time did feminism ever go in quest of the idea and finally get to it by any chain of reasoning – the idea was always present at the outset! And had it not been present at the outset, feminism would never have set out.
Feminism never studied the world in order to formulate the idea, but rather studied the idea in order to formulate the world, for it is by light of the idea itself that feminism seeks to know what the world ”must be.” Yes, men are the problem – and come hell or high water, the world according to feminism must be shown to reflect this!
Such is the platform on which feminist ideology asserts its political claim against men on behalf of women: that men, being the collective source of a unique and historically-rooted trespass against women, are under a collective moral obligation to make good.
When we scalp the duff down to the bedrock we uncover, in the end, manichean dualism - a cosmology in which good and evil (or light and dark) are separate cosmic principles eternally at war with one another. Further, the principles are said to be perennial and uncreated: they did not come about due to interactions in the ecology of occurrence, but were present from the very foundation of the world. They are not different branches on the same tree, but different trees altogether- and they grow from different roots. As such, they can never coherently exist side by side because they share no genetic mutuality – they will forever bear the stamp of their separate beginnings, and they will harbor mutually irreconcilable systems of logic. Accordingly, their relationship is and must forever remain paradoxical and fraught with tension.
In the manichean cosmology of feminism, male equals darkness or evil, and female equals goodness or light. There are NO zones of gray. There is no spectrum. There is no continuum. For feminism, man equals bad and woman equals good, and if at times woman appears to equal bad then it must be that appearance is not reality in that particular case, and so a contorted explanation must ride to the rescue and set things straight!
In feminism’s paradigm, man equals bad and woman equals good. And in the feminist mind, this correlation can no more be established by any chain of demonstration than the dualism itself can be said to have evolved historically. For just as the manichean duality was prior to all things in the order of creation, so likewise it must be prior to all things in the order of feminist logic. To demand that the truth of it be proven, would decentralize and desacralize it. This in turn would radically deconstruct the entire feminist enterprise.
This has consequences for the two-party model of gender politics. The feminists want to place women on a footing of moral superiority to men, which in turn implies deferentiality or servility by men. Men, being one with the principle of darkness, must in theory be taught to respect their betters – who are one with the principle of light! This indeed postulates a kind of political struggle if you want to call it that, but it is a one-sided struggle: men must be forced to “surrender”.
Stated in such terms, the “political struggle” sounds more like plain and simple warfare.
But in fact political struggle is not quite the same as warfare. Although it is true that political parties are not deferential or servile toward each other, the situation differs from war in that the parties understand they are governed by rules of play which in theory do not include ultimate subjugation of one side by the other. That is to say, the Republicans at least in theory do not have as a goal making the Democrats grovel, or vice-versa.
(Von Clausewitz famously called war “an extension of politics by other means”, and I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon this privately, since it would make too much of a tangent to the present discussion.)
Thus, no feminist who is truly a feminist could accept the two-party model of man-woman relations as a set way of life, for that would imply that good and evil are somehow not subject to a moral comparison – which in turn defeats the purpose of the manichean paradigm as an occult motor of the feminist project. And why? Because if good is not “better” than evil, if light is not “better” than darkness, then there remains no validating metaphysic for female supremacism and man-hating as a whole. And I can assure you that feminism bereft of those things would be like unto a banana which is all peel!
Thus, it is essential to the collective purpose of the women’s movement that the movement be engaged in a manichean struggle with an eternally culpable foe who must be vanquished.
Granted, if you put the question point-blank, most feminists would disavow the manichean paradigm as I have described it. But this is less of a contradiction when you realize that stated individual beliefs and unstated collective intentions can easily go their separate ways. Therefore, as a famous philosopher once put it: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And the fruits of feminism bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity and undertaken with a view toward conquest. Any feminist who tries to talk you out of this critical insight is playing the game of cognitive fragmentation.

Written byFidelbogen

12 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them

Voodoo Acupuncture, Feminism and other Comedy...

A mixed bag for a change. Watched a little of Steven Wright whose comedy does have people wondering but to me he is classic..
Read some interesting commentary as responses to the fatalistic and nonsensical rantings from another feminist enabler and nay-sayer..
Also the claim made by Wikileaks and Assange is under the spotlight as it was never substantiated or confirmed that Wikileaks was the original release site for the AGW email releases..

Voodoo acupuncture - You don't have to go. Steven Wright..

Fidelbogen. This person appears to be a feminist who hasn’t gotten the memo — that feminism does not self-define any more.It is a state of mind known as feminist subjectivism.In the present case, our subject has employed a classic device known as the “talking-point trick.”
Anyhoooooo, these people must be schooled. Gradually. Little by little.
Or else simply brushed aside.

Other comments of interest on the same thread..

“If feminism were to die tomorrow what would replace her?”
Let’s hope some sane, ‘ane’ (as opposed to inane) and humane womanism which loves and respects ‘manism’, which serves the common good and which is genuinely just. Let’s hope for truisms instead of lies, scholarship instead of propaganda, free speech instead of totalitarianism, love instead of hate, beauty instead of ugliness, and respect instead of ridicule. The death of feminism means the death of infantile female entitlements dressed in false female victimhood, the death of gratuitous male oppression and the birth of big women who can handle adult responsibilities, adult reasoning, and adult respect.
According to me, Wikipedia is Maoist pornographer Jimmy Wales’ retarded totalitarian racket. Wikipedia’s feminism page/feminism related pages are an utter insult to anyone who has a brain and knows how to read. As anyone who even glances at the history of the feminism discussion page knows, the feminism page is written by and for fascist feminist partisans…and belongs in the trash can rather than as a reference for further discussion.
Here’s a better definition for the sick secular superstition: Mainstream feminism is a collection of influential but insipid dogmas aimed at falsifying well known sex/gender realities, establishing feebleminded female-centric fantasies as fact, and instituting superior-as-equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities for women. It is also about destroying, demeaning and scorning men as male/masculine people. Mainstream feminism is focused solely on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks female sexual superiority, most feminists also believe that men’s psychic murder/torture/enslavement is therefore a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, or that men should become good little ‘girls’ so that there is no need to murder/torture/enslave men to create the feminist Utopia.

Response to another troll on the AVfM article as feminist gate keeprs and enablers refuse to explain why feminism is a movement that encourages, promotes genocide with the elimination of men and boys..

Their denial or their refusal to raise the topic really explains it all..

Some other comments..

“They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.”
No, they have twisted everything into a victim/perpetrator-merry-go-round, while deliberately hiding statistics that show women to be more violent in the home to every other resident of that home,-have covered up womens sexual harassment in the workplace, -and falsified the statistics showing women to sexually assault children, (especially boys), on a slightly below equal rate.
“In economics, they have advocated for workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.”
No, they have made the workplace conditions unbearable for the male gender by controlling the narrative,-have given men disadvantages in all areas in order to be able to compete, while giving themselves a head start, -and have set up small hairsalons and feel-good stores, claiming those to be businesses and not slander and gossipshops. Nothing in this area has been accomplished without using men as steppingstones in one way or another. Nothing.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights?”
Women would be held accountable for their own actions on a far greater scale than now, first of all. If she chooses to keep the child, she pays for that right herself. If the man chooses to keep the child, she provides the child and he pays for the upbringing of said child. If that doesn’t compute, you should not be allowed to have sex. Sex is a two-way street and that goes for responsibility in relationships too.

“-Would domestic violence increase/decrease?”
It would propably remain static, i.e. women would still be the instigator and perpetrator in the majority of the cases, no matter if the victim is the husband or the children. She would just be held accountable for this.
“-Would the definition of domestic violence change?”
When a growing number of women goes to jail, because they’re held accountable for their violence, there would be no need to change the definition as long as there is made no difference between the genders.
“-Would sexual assaults incease/decrease?”
That depends on whether we’re dealing with the skewed feminist-numbers or the real deal. If we choose to live in the real world and are talking about rape, there will always be a certain percentage of psychos, both males and females, that are proned to do this kind of thing, but no gender-group should ever be held accountable for the actions of one individual.
“-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change?”

Most definitely. You would no longer be able to drink yourself stupid and claim rape, or regret actions done under the influence and claim those to be a sexual assault. Or cheat in a relationship and blame an outsider for rape. Accountability would again be the key word. If that doesn’t compute, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink or have sex.
“-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized?”
See the above as an example. Futhermore, if you dress like a slut/whore, don’t expect to be treated like a princess, and don’t go into areas that even men stay away from, dressed like that. Think a little, once in a while!
“-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk?”
Sting Chameleon answers this question below. Again, do some cognitive thinking once in a while.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?”
Hopefully gender peace, and people getting along and minding their own businesses. Why would you want to replace one ideologue with another, BTW?
“-What would the death of Feminism actually mean?”
Peace? No more whining and victim playing? No more being held at a different level of accountability in courts? No more cheating and lying to take hold of a mans possesions or his rights to his kids? No more FRA’s? No more false DVA’s? No more advantages given to get a head start? No more using sex to manipulate, betray, or retaliate imaginary wrongs? No more legalized hissy fits?
Naaww..-Who am I kidding..?!
All that shit is never going to change, and we all know why.

Slightly OT…
Before I learned about MRA’s, I had to attend a sexual assault briefing and one of the topics was date rape concerning about the usual “women can’t give consent while drunk” guff. I raised my hand and I asked:
“Who would be raping whom in drunken lesbian sex?”
I got the evil eye but I thought it was a valid reductio ad absurdum with the subject at hand.

Assange on Climategate

Jeff Id links to a YouTube video of WikiLeaks’ Assange making a variety of untrue or inflated claims about Climategate and WikiLeaks’ role.

Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments. The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time). The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on Nov 19 and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on Nov 17. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate – that belongs to eastangliaemails.com (originally anelegantchaos.org) which was up on Nov 20 and provided a searchable database.

Getting the MRM House in Order..

This comment which I received today does have a point and should be explored a little more..

Anonymous said...
The most important thing is education and and enlightment. The starting point is reading Villar's book "the manipulated man" and this for boys at the age of 12 or 13.
I live in Europe and sexual education in schools is common, but psychological education about sexes is not found here, well a tool for feminism and manipulation.
But the problem is that we have a generation of spoiled girls and women. What to do with them ? I made some suggestions, but the common tool is to give to the women back what they give to us men. Men should use female weapons:lying, cheating etc.
Either they start to reflect about themselves or they will leave it to play with men, both would be appropiate.
I made some suggestions, but man should kill the white knight in himself and turn over to be a trickster. I hope we could get more suggestions how to deal with those women, because it's proven: Male intelligence surpass female cunnings, male intelligence can contain female cunnings and use it against females.

I am normally a little annoyed about the anon tag but the question is interesting all the same and will make some effort in addressing it. My response was as follows..

Christian J. said...
I think the best tool to use against women is to just ignore them and do not in any anyway offer, support or assist in any fashion, what so ever..
If the majority of men did this the affect would not only be spine chilling and devastating but they would not be able to work their practised craft. They really would be dressing up for each other and to them it would be beyond comprehension..
September 20, 2011

I believe that this course of action would be very affective as it is already beginning to have an affect. One excellent example and probably the most profound was when a restaurant in Glasgow, Scotland (last year or previous) advertised a Valentines day special of setting you up with a date and over 500 girls called in and booked a spot and only 2 guys made the same effort. This was a few years back but it once again demonstrates that something is amiss. The "Valentine's Day" saga has not suffered enough as yet as far as I can tell as all manner of suckers, beg, grovel and bend over backwards to "please" the little woman just to ensure she has some bragging rights on the subject for the next few months while he spends that time restocking his bank account. It does border on the pathetic and grovelling appears part of that process regardless how long you have been attached, regardless how often you do it. It appears to be a fundamental demand now, that you treat her to a grand evening or you ain't getting none..

Anyway, got side tracked slightly as I was going to introduce the new

Compendium of Men’s Issues by TDOM..

This will be a complete and comprehensive list of issues facing all men and boys in society today. Basically what the feminasties have manipulated and forced down everyone's throat regardless of transgressing current laws or freedoms. Those issues apparently make little difference when that hate movement determines their own justification under a plethora of lies and falsely generated claims..

This catalogue is an attempt to identify, classify, and define the issues men face in today’s society. It is intended as a guide to assist those interested in addressing men’s issues and rights. It should assist in clarifying issues and guiding debate and discussion. It currently defines and classifies more than 60 issues into 9 major categories. At this point it is not all-inclusive, nor is it ever likely to be. It is a work in progress and will be edited and expanded over time. Eventually, it should explore each issue in considerable depth.

This compendium will become the main aim and action of the MRM in the future I would imagine as it will comprehensively layout precisely what requires to be changed and fixed with a dose of sanity restored to echo the original lie that feminists made about equality and we will force it to become reality even with them screaming and bitching endlessly in the process. As the MRM travels the road to proper and recognised equality we will also increase our audience and support as the two simply go together..

Another site for further education is Fidelbogen's The Counter Feminist..

The Game and How I Mean to Play It

MY OPERATIVE BLUEPRINT AS A COUNTER-FEMINIST AGENT OF CHANGE -- IN 7 POINTS

Both Fidelbogen and TDOM are two very intelligent men who deserve at least to be noticed and their arguments given some attention and insight into today's issues concerning men and boys. Do yourself a favour and check out both sites..

1. I will not play your game. I will not conduct my agency in a manner that rubberstamps your ideology. I will not do things at your behest merely in order to prove that I am not what you impute me to be.
2. I will forecast the probable course of developments in the current gender crisis. I will admonish you, in token of your good faith, to take visible public measures to forestall such developments, and to do so in a way consistent with the redress of male grievance.
3. I will offer counsel to the men's movement and to all male sympathizers, along the line of what I soberly consider to be the best interest of the movement. Such counsel will be consistent with my forecast of probabilities, and variable with the response that women's movement members have shown to my admonitions, or to similar sentiments expressed by others.
4. Consistently with point 1, I will not agitate for women's advantages in any way since it is not my responsibility to do so and since others better suited than I, have undertaken such things already.
5. I will be openly and often harshly critical of feminism, and will make no apologies for this. I will counsel others to follow my example. Repressive overtures on the part of your movement will be deemed inculpatory of your movement, as militating against the spirit of open debate and free expression of diverse viewpoints.
6. I will make no statement of a facially misogynistic character. However, I cannot be bothered to anticipate every possible construction placed upon my words by those who wish to read misogyny in what I say.
7. These policies are my own, but they are not my personal property. Other men's activists are free to adopt this platform, and I would counsel them to do so.

The Reality Blog