Latest Posts
Showing posts with label scum manifesto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scum manifesto. Show all posts

It's a real bugger when it fails to work. Obviously oblivious of the irony..

Ah yes, Tory Shepherd..

Tory Shepherd, The Punch: Hypocrite and Sexist Bigot..

 Once again this nasty piece of feminism appears across my horizon but not as a journalist for the Punch, but as a direct link to radical feminists as well as being involved with one of the "White Ribbon Campaign" ambassadors. We have already clearly demonstrated that the current advisers to the Gillard government is saturated with radical feminists who stand the most to gain by redesigning the legislation on families and women specifically. Their endless efforts at maligning all men and boys as being potential rapists and domestic violence abusers goes without saying. They claim "equality" but that lie has already been soundly and roundly exposed for the lie it is..

I have been forwarded some information by an anonymous tipster who has supplied me with some rather interesting information. In this case, some information about Shepherd and the White Ribbon crowd, more about them in a minute. First we have Shepherd..

Shepherd

 Anon - She (*Tory Shepherd) also knows Browyn Winter, Susan Hawthorne, Abrigrail Bray and Gail Dines fairly well too. Bray, Dines and Hawthorne were all SCUM speakers.

Tory Shepherd, an associate of the radical feminist cadre in Australia , decided to "expose" the men's movement through it's usual un-distempered purview, which ofcourse carried with it the usual hysterical claims that we have come to expect from those sexist, discriminatory nonentities. Their relentless attacks only demonstrates their inbuilt sexism and bias, more than arguing the opposite..

 More from our Anon - Tory is a staunch feminist, but not a radical, even
though she is friends with some of them. Andrew O'Keefe apparently
went ape shit when he was forwarded the last couple of posts on
Australia.  They were really freaked out that it might
harm the National Plan. The White Ribbon Foundation is looking at
receiving almost $100 million in funding from the passage of this
Plan, so other people involved with WRF also got very worried. 
 

So we will have ongoing attacks from Shepherd against the Men's Movement. Cannot wait. We will keep you posted on that as soon as it happens. We will also did up some more information on Shepherd if she gets a little too nasty. I wonder what dark secrets are hidden in her background?..

More from Anon - Tory is/was involved with a guy who is a White Ribbon Ambassador. 

O'Keefe, Shepherd and Plibersek all talked
about how to do damage control until this blew over. They were pissed
about the info of McLellan's 2004 visit to Canberra got released. But
they think no one will care as long as people think the info came from
some fringe hate site, (which is why she keeps calling AVFM a hate
site) and it will blow over before May or June.

We have also seen that the feminist cadre were taken aback when the "A Voice for Men" site exposed those hypocrites at their own game and demonstrated precisely what they were in the process of doing. We also showed what their connection is with radical feminists, the same people who attended the SCUM Manifesto Conference organised by radical Feminists, in Perth Western Australia in Sept.2011. SCUM stand for "The Society for Cutting up Men", which is probably not the best way to disprove that you are a rabid male hater and pretend to stand for equality, well not in my books..

It would appear that Shepherd has direct links to Tanya Plibersek and Tankard-Reist (Tankard-Reist who was one of the invited speakers at the Feminist Futures Conference)..

 In May of 2011, Melbourne was the host of the Feminist Futures Conference, which billed itself as an “active space for discussing different strategies to create a feminist future.”[3] Before the conference even got underway, a very nasty split erupted between two different factions of the feminist groups. The event sponsors first nixed the anti-porn feminist author Melinda Tankard-Reist for her speaking slot because of her stance on abortion.

 Link..

Both Plibersek and Tankard-Reist are now contributors to "The Punch" site which was instigated by Shepherd to get them on board..  

http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/tanya-plibersek/

http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/melinda-tankard-reist/

Tankard-Reist's claim to being a christian which diametrically opposed to feminism and it's doctrine. Work that out the next time you meet someone belonging to the Nazi movement and claiming they know nothing about the holocaust or a member of the WKKK (Women's KuKluxKlan) and ask what they knew about needlessly murdering human beings for their colour. Tankard-Reist also uses the feminist printer and publisher Spinifex Press. It's all about association..

Here is some more information regarding this cadre of male haters..

The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists
One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes,Diane BellSusan Hawthorne, Sheila JeffreysRenate KleinJocelynne A. ScuttMary Lucille SullivanDenise ThompsonBronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]

 
Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]
Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Day for the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.

 Link..

More information to follow as we trawl the bottom  of the scrapheap, of those feminasties and their actions.. 

Might want to add this to a list of illegal activities whilst driving..


I find it amazing that we have heard very little regarding the request by radical feminists to kick all male feminists to the kerb. As I have no particular fondness of those male traitors, It appears to be a reasonable request. I mean, when you are addicted to a philosophy that demands that all men are scum, in the Scum Manifesto sense. Where it demands that all males on this planet be regarded as vermin, in that context, radical feminists are really only acting according to their inner enlightenment. In reality, what else could they possibly say. One decision obviously encourages the next, it's simple really. It's akin to Garbage Collectors or should that be Garbioligists (that job description went south as it was indeed a  bit like, you know , too trashy, ahem!) a name introduced by those politically correct infidels determined to rename all and sundry.Those same infidels then failed to comprehend that there would   be a backlog of rubbish piling up but then commence complaining about that rubbish..

It was that same mentality the radfem's faced and it was simple to just foist that same mentality onto all men and the elimination of all men, including male feminists ofcourse. But the problem with that request was that they would in return have no breeding stock to ensure only females(murder the males) were incubated in order to grow their Utopia, that also meant,  in order to fulfill their version, the complete and total razing of everything, buildings and all (I am not quite sure where they will house the 3.9Bil yet). Their total hypocrisy and it demonstrates exactly how their mentality works, is the fact they would have to have some sperm donors. Now in their moment of brilliance, they decide that "Alpha Males" would have to be preserved for that privilege, tamed by force and indoctrinated ofcourse, kept around as they actually realised that Alpha Males are the preferred sperm donors option, female  intuition at work again. I have explained that level of cognitive dissonance before I think, that mentality that feminists generally rely on to justify their lunacy..

So we have on one side of their much thought out argument, that all men need to be removed from the planet but on the other side of that same coin, they would require to keep Alpha Males around to be able to breed with the remaining women. Yes I know. But apparently it makes sense to them, we the unbleached, unwashed and rational members of the human race just don't get it. They do not consider themselves to be the end product of several conditions that one would find on the Psychology Today website, their severe conditions requires treatment, but that's another study. Again, that is not obvious to radical feminists..

On my travels on this planet among the myriad of people whom I have met, been involved with, in conversation and worked with. I have yet to meet an Alpha Male who would consider their wish as a viable option. Most, if not the majority of Alpha Males are self reliant, solid and no-nonsense individuals, who would not even spare a minutiae of thought on this triviality, yet entertain any idea of being dominated by any female, let alone a radical feminist version, as in the majority of cases, the women they automatically attract, line up at their door just for some attention and in return offer whatever they want. They pick and choose whoever they want and are not limited in any way. They have no time to accommodate the wet dreams of radical feminists, let alone be held prisoner by them just to be used as breeding stock. They would take over in no time at all and have them so wound around their finger that they would not have time to breathe, let alone carry out their "female superiority/majority fetish"..

It is just so laughable and impracticable, one can only glance at this type of dreaming as being the ludicrous nonsense that it really is..

I had the fortunate experience of working with one fine example a few years ago on a one year contract as a consultant. This Alpha was a millionaire in his own right, an individual focused and fixated on doing everything right and in order, which is where I came in. He had a string of customers of which quite a few were women, who would fawn over him and practice their well honed flirting procedures with abandon even though the majority were married. It was a sheer joy watching him operate. He had a huge selection of females in his little black book who were always on call, regardless of the notice and would erase any who did not comply. He would go out on about three nights a week with a different female, so let's do some sums --

Those radicals want to dispose of 70% of all males and keep 30% Alphas as breeding stock. So in today's figures we are looking at about 900 Million (3Bil Men @ 30%, Simplified 10% @ 3Bil=300Mil x 3).

One Alpha @ 3 females per week = 144 per year, means 6,250,000 Alphas would complete their quota in one year. Now try and convince me those girls would not be eating out of their hands in no time at all, lead the revolt and eliminate those radfems for screwing up their pleasure, and totally eliminate the rafems's Utopian dream. Easily..

It's back to the drawing board..

Which leads me to male feminists and their assumption at being the possible future breeding stock and I ask if you can identify one single male feminist who could be regarded as being within a bulls roar of being an alpha. Show me one who is above the whiny, self absorbed, female worshipping, self delusional stage and wonder if they stand, even a remote possibility of being included as breeding stock. Male feminists are party to, and promoters of, that radical feminist outcome and heartily agree that it should be the outcome. They promote feminism's Utopian concept with all their heart and whining, promoting a male hating doctrine that will eventually, if they get their wish, destroy the majority of males but at the same time demand by their actions, that they should also be part of that  Utopia. They actually stand no chance whatsoever. The writing is on the wall for their own destruction and yet they continue to promote a doctrine that will eventually eliminate themselves..

What does that tell about the mindset of male feminists. Better still, why have they totally ignored the claims made by radical feminists and thereby the general cadre of feminists, concerning their own sex and why have they ignored the wishes of the radical women they so heartily promote..

They have been told to get out, mind their own damn business and told to stop interfering in the serious female feminist business of abuse and annihilation, it's their "female only" hegemony, but yet they persist, ignore their own doctrinal leader's commands and continue their actions like nothing has be stated. They do so at their own risk. I wonder if the radfems will commence their actions against them first by eliminating them from the planet, now there is a thought and it should be something they should consider. Being eliminated by the same members of the doctrine they fawn over has a certain level of justice as well as immense irony attached, does it not..

It should also indicate how serious those radical feminists really are..

Spread the word and make it go viral..


Helping the Agent Orange Files Go Viral

I have gathered, for your convenience, some contact information that will help in spreading the word about the Radgate Wikileaks. First, here are the top ten newspapers in the USA, by circulation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States_by_circulation


Before discovering the resource linked above, I had gotten specific addresses, firstly for the New York Times. . .
executive-editor@nytimes.com
nytnews@nytimes.com
publisher@nytimes.com

. . . and secondly for the Washington Post:
postnow@washpost.com


All right, here is a list of hundreds of newspapers in Australia:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/australi.htm

And some Newspapers in New Zealand:
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/nz.htm

Newspapers in Canada:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/canada.html

Newspapers in the U.K.:
http://www.world-newspapers.com/uk.html

Newspapers in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India#English_language


I guess it doesn't hurt to let politicians hear about this. That way, they can't pretend they don't know. First how to get ahold ofgovernment critters in the USA:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

And now, MPs in the UK:
http://www.parliament.uk/

MPs in Canada:
http://www.canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html

MPs in Australia:
http://australia.gov.au/directories/contact-parliament

MPs in New Zealand:
www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/GetInvolved/Contact/2/9/d/00PlibHvYrSayContact1-Contact-an-MP.htm

MPs in India:
http://www.indiademocracy.org/index.php/electedofficials/stateList/type/MP


Now, here are some well-known journalistic entities that I looked up -- and I was not over-particular about political orientation, in case anybody is wondering. What counted was, that I thought these individuals were potential megaphones. Yes...publicity is good!


Matt Drudge:

http://drudgereport.com/
(Use the contact form at lower right, where it says "send news tips...".)


Phyllis Schlafly:

eagle@eagleforum.org


Michelle Malkin: 

writemalkin@gmail.com
(Note: Michelle says, "if you have a news tip, put TIP in the subject line".)


Rush Limbaugh: 

ElRushbo@EIBnet.com


Glenn Beck:
me@glennbeck.com
Glenn Beck himself.

stu@glennbeck.com
Exec producer and head writer for Glenn Beck.


All right, remember that publicity is good, and also that redundancy is the meat of the matter. So if these entities get plenty of mail on the same subject, it will boost the odds of them taking it seriously.

The complete download of Agent Orange files are now available. This download is about 160MG + of files and it's a complete set of screen dumps that were lifted off the public and private RADFEM Hub website and forum, with all their recommendations about eugenics, genocide, child murdering, men killing, terrorism comments..

So be warned..

Just bear this in mind. Being exposed to this obnoxious, nasty poison will stay with you once it's read as it cannot be removed. These comments are beyond disgusting and as vile as you may or could barely imagine. Just bear that in mind..

Also bear in mind that some of these women on this hate site are also involved with introducing laws and affecting legislation at government levels. We have already traced quite a few to government departments as well as professionals making submissions to governments for inclusion into law..

Their effectiveness can already be witnessed in the Family Courts system, Education Deartment preferences for women, Government promotions of VAWA as well as sexist male bashing advertising in regards to domestic violence which seeks to solely blame men..

Agent Orange file download..

UPDATE..

Megaupload available for RADFEM Hub File Download..

There are quite a few different ways to be sickened by what you read and this is definitely one of those times. It has always been claimed that feminism is a hate movement but to have it actually clearly demonstrated just confirms that that statement has always been 100% correct..

 The deep seated and psychotic loathing that those mentally imbalanced women are suffering from and seek to promote is not only mind chilling but we can see it clearly demonstrated in our lives today. Sweden would be the worst example of a country deeply encased in it's tolerance of this psychotic behaviour and the RADFEM Hub site an example of deluded and mentally unbalanced women proudly promoting it..

 So much for "hate speech" laws that obviously do not apply to feminists but is permitted to fester and grow. Other mentally deranged individuals have been jailed for saying less but here we have a group of protected women, stating that genocide is the magic answer, the best formula and they are permitted to go about their murderous ways as if there is nothing wrong with it..

 Why is this tolerated and worse still, ignored..



Rotten

SCUM Manifested

The Hate-Filled Legacy of Valerie Solanas

Radical feminism can be traced more or less back to Valerie Solanas, author of theSCUM Manifesto. It was first published in 1967, though Solanas began drafting it in about 1959 or 60. In the Manifesto, Solanas calls on women to rise up against men who she sees as biologically inferior and responsible for all of the world’s problems. However, she doesn’t end there. She refers to the male as “a biological accident” and the Y-chromosome as being an incomplete X-chromosome, making the male an incomplete female. She further calls for men to be exterminated and to assist in eliminating themselves by eliminating each other.
There are those who have stated that this Manifesto is little more than a parody of “patriarchy” or a work of satire. They claim to view it as an anti-patriarchal statement, but state that the calls for the elimination of men should not be taken seriously. However, while the work may contain elements of parody and satire, these devices are used to emphasize the message, not to indicate that the author wasn’t serious. Solanas’ own history would indicate this as she shot pop artist Andy Warhol, art critic Mario Amaya, and attempted to shoot Warhol’s manager Fred Hughes on June 3, 1968, attempting to kill them. In 1977, she claimed that her views had not changed since the Manifesto was published, indicating that she believed what she had written.
Further evidence that the SCUM Manifesto was to be taken seriously is found in the reaction of feminist leaders and organizations to Solanas’ Manifesto and shooting of Andy Warhol. Ti-Grace Atkinson, radical feminist and president of the New York chapter of NOW, called Solanas “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” and heralded her as “a ‘heroine’ of the women’s movement.” Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms Magazine, included excerpts in her book, Sisterhood is Powerful. Other feminist authors such as Amanda Third and Catherine Lord have credited her with creating radical feminism and have stated that the feminist movement would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for Valerie Solanas. There have also been several books, plays, and movies glorifying Solanas and her actions.
There are also those who would dispute the acronym that SCUM stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. While this is not spelled out within the document itself, It was stated on the cover of her self-published version in 1967. Later, Solanas would deny that she intended the acronym. Instead she stated that there was no such organization, nor would there ever be. SCUM was a state of mind. It was meant as a reference to empowered women who considered themselves fit to rule.
The legacy of the SCUM Manifesto has continued. It was published as late as 2004 (perhaps since then, though I don’t have a record of it) and has been translated into several languages. Currently there are organizations based on SCUM existing in Sweden (producing materials for high school students) and on the internet (RadfemHub) It has impacted society in many ways which will be outlined below.
In New York in 1967 at about the same time Solanas was publishing the SCUM Manifesto, Shulamith Firestone, Pam Allen, Carol Hanish, and Robin Morgan founded a group called New York Radical Women. This short-lived organization adopted a radical feminist ideology that emphasized the patriarchal oppression of women by men similar to that outlined in the SCUM Manifesto. They claimed that men exercised social dominance over women by creating social roles that divided privilege and power by gender. This group is often credited with the first bra burning at the 1968 Miss America Pageant. However, rather than burn them, they tossed bras and other artifacts of patriarchal oppression into a garbage can.  Firestone would move on to found Redstockings and New York Radical Feminists while Morgan would become more involved in feminist activism and writing. Hanish would help found Redstockings and would later edit a journal called Meeting Ground in which she would publish an essay called The Personal is Political and is sometimes incorrectly credited with coining that phrase, although she undoubtedly helped popularize it.
In 1969, the radical feminist organization Redstockings published its Redstocking Manifesto. The influence of SCUM is unmistakable. It is considerably less violent, but no less hateful. It characterizes “all men” as oppressors of women. It characterizes individual male-female relationships as “class relationship(s)” and provides that all individual male-female conflicts are political, not personal and “can only be solved collectively.” Men are identified as the agents of oppression and the users of physical force to subjugate women. “All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force.” In SCUM, Solanas outlines a similar concept:
“Authority and Government: Having no sense of right and wrong … the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities — priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc — and government… he sees to it that all authorities are male.”
Redstockings states: “We call on all men to give up their male privilege and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own… In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is “revolutionary” or “reformist,” only what is good for women.”
This is quite similar to Solanas’ call for men to assist in their own extermination and /or work towards women’s goals:
“SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men’s Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall[sic] with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men’s Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM’s goals…”
Redstockings did not take the ideology to the same extreme as Solanas, but the hatred that Solanas felt towards men was obviously present as was Solanas’ influence. The prevailing attitude of the SCUM Manifesto is that men are to blame for everything wrong in the world and that ridding the world of men will automatically result in improvement. The first portion of this was outlined by Carol Hanish in The Personal is Political in 1969. Hanish states:
“The most important is getting rid of self-blame. Can you imagine what would happen if women, blacks, and workers (my definition of worker is anyone who has to work for a living as opposed to those who don’t. All women are workers) would-stop blaming ourselves for our sad situations? …We are only starting to stop blaming ourselves.”
She later adds: “Women, like blacks, workers, must stop blaming ourselves for our “failures.”” Of course if women aren’t to blame for their own condition or their own failures, who is? The Redstocking Manifesto provides the answer: men. “Women’s submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from men. We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men.” The result of this “blame shifting” is that women can deny responsibility for their actions. Any wrong committed by women (or a woman) can be blamed on men or “The Patriarchy.” This “blame shift” has led to disastrous legal consequences for men; most notably in Family Law, domestic violence, rape and sexual assault laws.
But while Redstockings was not as extreme as SCUM (at least publically), some of its organizers were. Robin Morgan would attack marriage as the basis for all sexism “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” She would also help lead the charge to define all sex as rape “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” Her hatred for men was nearly as intense as that of Solanas “I feel that “man-hating” is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
In her Manifesto, Solanas spends a great deal of time demeaning and demonizing men. She begins:
“The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.”
She then continues:
“Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he’s lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he’ll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there’ll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He’ll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn’t the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It’s not ego satisfaction; that doesn’t explain screwing corpses and babies.”
“Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what’s best for her kids; Daddy only wants what’s best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect’), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he’s an `enlightened’ father, to `give guidance’. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually — he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him.”
The demonizing of men, turning them into something sub-human and obsessed with sex would be a recurring theme of radical feminism. The obsession with sex would evolve into “all men are rapists” or “all men use rape to control all women.” The desire to “control and manipulate” would become the “power and control” of the domestic violence industry. The concept of the male as a biological accident sets the stage for concepts of “testosterone poisoning” and “toxic masculinity.” Both are concepts claiming that being male is by its very nature, a disease.
“If men were wise they would seek to become really female, would do intensive biological research that would lead to me, by means of operations on the brain and nervous system, being able t to be transformed in psyche, as well as body, into women.”
This lays the foundation for the Redstocking Manifesto’s claim that women need not change, but men must be changed. The feminist call for masculinity and manhood to be “redefined” stems from this concept as well. The “redefinition” is the changing of men.
“Eliminate men and women will shape up. Women are improvable; men are no[t].”
Here we have the antecedent of “the personal is political,” a statement that relieves women from any personal responsibility for their actions and places the blame on “patriarchy,” the elimination of which will result (by default) in a better world and an improved woman.
Susan Brownmiller was another product of New York Radical Women and New York Radical Feminists, both associated with Redstockings. She would later write Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape in which she would proclaim that all men use rape and the fear of rape to keep all women in a state of fear in order to perpetuate male dominance. This position would be the logical next step to Solanas’ assertion that men are sex-crazed animals that “[screw] corpses and babies” and desire their daughters (sexually).
Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist crusader against pornography, may have also been influenced indirectly by Solanas and SCUM. While living in Europe in the late 60’s, she was introduced to the writings of Shulamith Firestone and Robin Morgan, both members of Redstockings. Dworkin also worked closely with Gloria Steinem and Catharine MacKinnon in her opposition to pornography as a form of sexual discrimination that reinforces male dominance over women and as such promotes violence against women. Steinem had also worked with former Redstocking Robin Morgan to found the Women’s Media Center.
Other radical feminists who appear to be under the influence of Solanas, but are not easily connected are Mary Daly, a radical feminist professor at Boston College who was removed from her position after refusing to admit male students to her advance courses in feminism, may also have been influenced by Solanas and her Manifesto. Daly was once quoted as stating “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” This was apparently a response to a statement by Sally Miller Gearhart who advocated reducing and maintaining the male population at 10% of the human population. Gearhart helped establish on of the first women’s studies programs in the US while teaching at San Francisco State. There could be little doubt that she was aware of Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto. Although it is unclear as to when Solanas moved to San Francisco, that is where she was residing when she died in 1988.
The legacy of Valerie Solanas is found in the writings of Morgan, Dworkin, Firestone, Hanish, Brownmiller, Daly, Gearhart, MacKinnon, Steinem et al. But it doesn’t stop there. Many of these women have led the charge on domestic violence and rape law reforms that have done away with basic rights to due process and fair, impartial trials. MacKinnon pioneered sexual harassment law and may have been the one to invent the term. The child abuse hysteria of the 80’s may have been a direct result of the anti-porn crusade of Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Steinem.
The next generation of misandrists is already here. These are women like Sharon Osborne and the other women of “The Talk” who joked on national television when Catherine Becker sexually mutilated her husband after drugging him. They are the gender feminists of Sweden who open state-sponsored schools that portend to teach equality by emphasizing homosexual relationships and nearly excluding heteronormative relationships from the curriculum. They are the Swedish members of SCUM who produce videos depicting the brutal and senseless murder of men, then call upon women to “do their part.” They are Swedish feminists such as  Ireen von Wachenfeldt, chairwomen of the National Organization for Women’s Shelters who have professed adherence to the SCUM Manifesto as have other prominent Swedish government officials such as former Minister of Gender Equality Margareta Winberg, Professor Eva Lungren, and journalist Evin Rubar. Wachenfeldt publically stated “‘All men are animals…All men are emotional parasites… The male of the species is a biological disaster… To call a man an animal is to pay him a compliment.” They are the women of RadFemHub; Danielle Pynnonen, Kat Pinder, Isabelle Moreira, Mary Syrett, Julie LeComte, Lorraine Allen, Laila Namdarkhan, Pam O’Shaughnesey who are authors, teachers, childcare workers, and government officials from around the globe plotting and planning the destruction of the male sex via eugenics, murder, selective abortion, etc. They are Hugo Schwyzer, Michael Kimmel, Tom Matlack, The Conscious Men and many other men who might be considered the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM as they support and defend the hate movement known as feminism. Solanas has indeed left a legacy. It’s a legacy of misandrous hatred and violence that by its own admission can only result in the destruction of the entire human race, men and women alike.
“Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we’re dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us.” – Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto.

Here is a follow up post on the erratic, obnoxious behavior of feminists and their goals that includes the actualisation of the SCUM Manifesto. Feminists have never been about equality but rather all about female superiority and the elimination of men, either by reducing and discounting our rights or if that did not work, they have a backup response which you will find chilling, in it's brazen and deliberate application..

Feminism is a hate movement, as we have always stated and here we have more proof..

From the Counter Feminist..

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011


Shining a Torch Beam on Feminism's Diseased Underbelly

The non-feminist revolution has eyes and ears everywhere -- especially in enemy territory -- and there is no telling what we will turn up next! In keeping with this, one of our people has recently done stellar work in opening the rotten core of the female supremacist hate movement to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze. Our man behind the scene goes by the name Agent Orange. He has seen much indeed, behind the scene, and his summary of the scenery gets to the point: "When you see what feminism really is, you cannot unsee."

As you might recall, AVfM recently ran some articles exposing a radical feminist writer, Vliet Tiptree, and a very disturbing post which she published on a radical feminist blog called Radfem Hub. In her blog post, Vliet Tiptree muses elliptically upon the worthlessness and ultimate disposability of the male sex, and seems to insinuate that male genocide, or at least a radical eugenic engineering program, might be in the cards.

Various pro-male partisans then conducted a search of the public record, and found out that "Vliet Tiptree" was in fact Pamela O'Shaughnessy, a prominent California lawyer and bestselling novelist who has been published by Simon & Schuster and reviewed by the New York Times. Yes -- a person living a double life; a public figure with a valuable reputation to lose!

Pamela O., being a lawyer by profession, knows very well how to choose her words. And in her article she lays out her theme in such circumspect language that we cannot pin her down conclusively as recommending male genocide. Still, it seems clear that she wants to plant this idea, in the minds of her readers, as something worth thinking about. In the comment thread that follows the article, readers are quick to oblige, and their manner of expression is considerably less guarded.

All of this is old news, but it sets the stage for our present story. Briefly, the story is this, that the enterprising Agent Orange has accessed a members-only discussion forum attached to the Radfem Hub website. (Yes, this is a war, and in war, espionnage happens. Deal!) The name of the forum is "Women's Lives Matter/Women's Life Matters", and it is populated by the most extreme radical lesbian separatists you can imagine. We shall abbreviate the cumbersome title as WLM. Agent Orange, in his investigation, has read the forum encyclopedically from end to end, made notation of significant matters, and downloaded the entire content for the perusal of other pro-male partisans -- including myself.

Agent Orange has made available, so far, 245 megabytes of computer files from the WLM forum. And in the near future, this material will be posted on the internet so that anybody on earth can download it, study it, and discover at first hand what kind of people radical feminists are. Pamela O. enters into this, as you may have surmised, and in due course I will address that. But first things first.

The soon-to-be-revealed material is what you get when you boil down feminism to its dark, unadulterated essence. It is the hard, sticky, ill-smelling residue at the bottom of the pan. Contrary to what so many feminists will tell you, it is indeed "really" feminism -- as real as feminism gets, as real as you will ever find anywhere. And whoever informs you otherwise, is redirecting your attention away from "the little womyn behind the curtain."

All right. What we have here is a group of women who hate men so intensely that they must talk in secret amongst themselves -- they cannot let the outside world hear. Even other feminists, who perhaps hate men only one half or one quarter as much as these ones do, cannot be admitted to the inner sanctum.

Huddled in a self-referential intellectual masturbation circle, out of the sight of non-feminist men and women, their sickness is plainly apparent. They go through life looking for validation, seeing only what they need to see, ignoring all evidence or dismissing all theories that might guide their understanding toward a different conclusion. In sum, they are blocking, filtering, maneuvering and cherry-picking, or in a word, rationalizing. And why? Because they do not wish to learn the truth about themselves.

Their frustration is that of spoiled children who cannot always get their way. The world -- or as these radfems would say, the patriarchy -- somehow always outmaneuvers and defeats the poor little brats. And why wouldn't it? The world is so much bigger than they are. In the end, that word "patriarchy" seems little else than a placeholder for "anything of a plausibly male origin which frustrates me".

In classic feminist form, they cannot separate the personal from the political. Men have hurt them?? My goodness, haven't they figured out yet that people hurt each other all the time in this hurtful world? They must learn to deal with this -- it's called GROWING UP. Yes, it is true that men have hurt women. It is also true that women have hurt men. Oh, and men have hurt other men, and women have hurt other women. So the traffic runs in four different channels. As I say, people hurt each other all the time -- they do this every which-way from Friday. So if the radfems are hell bent upon revenge, why don't they just hunt down all the men who have hurt them -- one at a time! -- and hurt them right back? That seems like the way to do it, if you want my opinion. But I should be very, very careful of what I say here, or they will be hunting for me too! Poor dears.

These feminists make no bones about stating that "men are the problem". They are not bashful upon that subject; they lay it on the line just as pretty as you please:

Mangetout says:
" Males are the problem. They refuse to see
that they are the problem."
 
Maggie H.
 says:
"Womyn, having to put up with men's shit, place the onus onto themselves to
stop a bad situation from happening, while it is men who need a thorough
discipline forced upon them."
 
White Tiger
 says:
"..men have the same designation, in my view, of annoying rodents."
 
Journey Mistress
 says:". .men are assholes. That last part bears repeating; men are assholes."
 
rjeenah
 says:
". . men are self-centered assholes who expect you to cater to their every whim . ."
 
Dawnsister
 says:
"I'll take any revolution I can get. Any revolution that removes most of the males will do just fine."
I could go on and on with these samples, but you get the idea. And no, putting them back in their context will not improve them. They are every bit as bad as they sound, and the people who wrote them are ten times worse. For it is a mark of narcissism when you cannot admit that you are wrong at least some of the time. And it is a mark of female narcissism in particular, when you cannot admit that women are wrong at least some of the time. And the people cited above are guilty on both counts. How quickly the personal becomes the political, yes?

My own observation has been, that the stereotypically destructive qualities which certain folklore ascribes to women in general, clustermore thickly around feminist women. For indeed there is a stratum of women which has always given the female population a bad name, and these people have been called different things at different times. In recent times, they've gotten politically organized, and yes, "feminism" is the name they have given to their gig.

The hatred of men and all things male, so patently displayed in the WLM forum, is also seen among mainstream feminists when they converse or otherwise express themselves. However, you will not often find it so concentrated; normally, the misandry will appear in subtle flashes and fleeting innuendos. It will be heavily watered down, as a pervading moral undertow, seeping through the culture like tainted outflow from a sewage treatment plant. Almost never is it so crudely vitriolic and sustained as what we are now revealing to the world. Here, we learn what feminists say to each other when they think the world isn't listening.

We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only "fringe radicals" or "extremists", and that we mustn't judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn't we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the milder feminists really amount to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by grooviness and mellowness -- by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?

Well? Do you reckon the earnest feminists with their philanthropic "gynergy" got this big thing rolling fifty years ago, and have been the central driving force ever since? And do you suppose that a few disaffected souls gravitated after the fact to this upbeat, positive social movement, and decided to lurk around the fringe just to confuse us about the truly wholesome nature of it all?

Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don't make history. And which is more, I've got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: "Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem."

The complexly braided radfem "story" about men, patriarchy, and all the rest, is the core of the entire feminist narrative. As such, it is the core of the entire feminist enterprise. And these radicals represent the frontier toward which feminism as a whole, by the law of its nature, is forever trending. True, these ones are ahead of the curve -- and yet they point the way. The future of liberal feminism is always radical, and if it is not, then it has no future at all.

Speaking of the future, the WLM feminists are forthcoming about how they'd like to address the man problem, and have floated a number of lively proposals:



Daughter of the Stars says:
"Actually, they [men] should be put on a leash, put in a cage, or put to sleep, just like they do to any animal which causes them any problem."
 
yba wife says:
"...we have a [similar idiot] group here in the UK Fathers for Justice . . . who love nothing better that telling womon they 'have too much power' and they have had enough . . . . even swift bullets are too good for this wankering lot."
 
Maggie H.
 says:
"Men can all fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned."
 
WhiteTiger
 says:
"I think it's a great idea to produce sperm in a la-BOR-a-tory. That way, men will be completely redundant."   


MGO says: "That is how we
will win. Not birthing males. Convincing vast numbers of females not to birth males. We have the absolute power over reproduction (and teh menz know it). So that is our weapon."
 
Bonobobabe
 says:
"Actually, now that I think about it, a better source of animal glue (and leather, for that matter) would be from the bodies of men who have committed any crime against a woman. They should be put to death, skinned, and then their carcasses can be boiled for glue."

Bonobobabe continues:
"Although, I think we would be overrun and probably wouldn't have
the resources to deal with all the bodies."
 
Luckynkl
 says:
"A 12" cast iron skillet to the back of the head speaks far louder than words and allows him to take your point with crystal clarity. Men don't
want women taking up their valuable time, so clarity is appreciated."
 
Mangetout says:
"....kill off all the alpha-males, all the aggressive males, and retrain the
remaining more compliant males."
 
Bonobobabe
 says:
Ah, Lorena Bobbitt. That takes me back. I remember the reactions were distinctly split by sex. ...and even if the women expressed sympathy for Mr. Bobbitt. . . when they were in mixed company, as soon as no men were around, the women admitted they thought it was cool what she did.
   
Radfem "attitude" is a spiritual aquifer that feminist-leaning women can dip into whenever the mood strikes them. We too have lowered a bucket into this deep, dark well -- and behold the sample we have hauled up. We do this because we wish to show what is hidden from the world's gaze. Certain women haul this spirit up because they wish to fortify themselves.

And that goes double for the radical feminists. Whoever carries this radfem ideology as a mental backdrop can go almost anywhere and arbitrarily stir up trouble. They will be equipped with a bag of tricks and a way of working, and can work their game independently of right or wrong, of true or false. For almost any human scenario has a grain of ambiguity somewhere about it, and a skilled manipulator can make this grow and turn it to unethical advantage. In the end, feminism is all about stirring up trouble in this way and blaming it on others, especially if those others are male.

Let me be very, very clear. I do not doubt that many of these radfem women have endured genuinely bad, even traumatic experience at the hands of one man or another, and that these male actors were indeed the malefactors. But I believe that such experience, in many cases, warped their keels so that these women could no longer navigate correctly, and that subsequent experience suffered from this warpage, which in turn compounded it. The warpage is what concerns me -- I don't want it to spread to the rest of the world. But the radfem project, seemingly, is to make that very thing happen.

Radical feminism -- and especially the brand we see here -- is a kind of think-tank or test laboratory for ideas that will be gradually drip-fed into the general culture. Almost everything you hear such womyn talking about eventually percolates into the collective mind, melds with the zeitgeist, and makes itself familiar. However, you will sense only the broad flavor of it, as it ripples around the buzz-o-sphere. It will have no evident point-source; it will seem to precipitate from everywhere like a fog and you will not be able to nail it down. Another way of expressing this would be to say, that pieces of a conceptual jigsaw puzzle had been strewn randomly into the world, each transmitting its particular message and resonating uncannily with the others. In time, people would naturally fit the pieces together and draw the ordained conclusion, likely believing that they had thought of it themselves, and unaware that their understanding had been primed and seeded. And in this way, the world at large crystallizes more and more along a feminist pattern.

Consider a mainstream feminist such as Jessica Valenti. I doubt if she would fit in with the WLM crew and its "way-out" ideas. Jessica markets herself mainly to teenaged girls and hip, twenty-something yupsters, and she once admitted having no interest in "herstory" and suchlike concepts. And yet, Jessica Valenti harbors a seething core of hateful anti-male bigotry which her glossy, pop-feminist personna only barely holds in check -- and not always. She sees nothing wrong about informing the world, on no particular authority, that Gerald Loughner's murderous rampage was a problem stemming from masculinity. Yes, you heard that right: Gerald Loughner was "expressing masculinity". But wait, it gets worse. On another occasion, Jessica Valenti strongly implied that men accused of rape should forfeit the presumption of innocence and bear the burden of proof when they go on trial. In other words, Jessica does not believe in equal protection of the law for men. As far as Jessica Valenti is concerned, all men are second-class citizens and innocent men can jolly well get their lives destroyed and suck it up. Jessica figures that's okay. That's the kind of history she wants to be making.

So who the hell is Jessica Valenti anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Jessica Valenti not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Jessica Valenti . . but only a bit. So Jessica Valenti, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Next consider Amanda Marcotte, another mainstream feminist who is Jessica Valenti's spiritual twin sister. I constantly get those two mixed up; I can hardly tell them apart. Amanda shares Jessica's hatred of men as reflected in her stance toward false rape allegation. She has made it clear that she doesn't think women lie about rape, and she will brook no disagreement on this subject. Consider the following:



Think about what Amanda Marcotte is saying here. She is saying that if you are a man who cares about the lives of innocent men and cares about living in a just and free world, then you are motivated by a desire to commit rape. Yes, that is truly what Amanda Marcotte appears to be saying. I took Amanda severely to task for this, here. Some time afterward, as I was informed, Amanda's commment (which I had preserved in the screen capture) disappeared from the comment thread in question. Too late Amanda, it will haunt you forever!

In a separate incident, Amanda Marcotte made it clear that, in her opinion, people who defend falsely rape-accused men are "rape-loving scum." Those are Amanda Marcotte's very words. If you think there is something horribly wrong about accusing innocent men of rape, then according to Amanda Marcotte you are "rape-loving scum." I wish I was making this up.

So who the hell is Amanda Marcotte anyway, and what the hell gives her the moral license to say such unspeakably vile, vulgar, filthy things? And why the hell is Amanda Marcotte not getting morally bitch-slapped, within an inch of her psychological life, from every press room and pulpit in the land? Eh? Bonobobabe, Luckynkl, and all that crowd are a bit worse than Amanda Marcotte . . but only a bit. So Amanda Marcotte, consider yourself bitch-slapped, Fidelbogen style! Yes, you DO deserve this.

Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are both popular feminist morons, and they haven't got the name of being radfems at all. In fact, they are considered cute, sassy, classy, photogenic and perfectly respectable. Heaven help us all, but people like Jessica and Amanda can walk around and talk their vulgar trash in broad daylight, and get handsomely paid for it. Dear God, what the hell is this world coming to, anyway?

The radfems at WLM are simply impatient. The full-blown future they wish for isn't happening fast enough for them, and they are champing at the bit. Yet they ought to be dancing a victory jig in their private forum, since the world as a whole is drifting steadily along a path which ought to delight them. The progress of anti-male legislation has been dramatic. Men are being undermined on many fronts. Man-hating is a persistent underlying theme which surfaces everywhere, in more forms than I can begin to describe. Why, the cult of Valerie Solanas is certainly a hardy perennial, with Valerie's fan club going strong nearly a quarter-century after her death. Yes, the Solanas cult is a powerful organ in the worldwide feminist body -- let none tell you otherwise! Still, most of the misandry is subtle, understated, and not always recognized as such either by the people who spread it, or the people who hear it.

All right, I will speak once more of Pamela O'Shaughnessy, or Vliet Tiptree as she calls herself when she wants to be incognito. I said I would come back to this, didn't I?

Pamela O. is a true feminist in that she occupies her mind very deeply on the thought that "men are the problem". This maxim is central to feminism in every way, so much that whoever would allow that men are only HALF the problem cannot possibly be a feminist at all. Mainstream feminists will play word games, and talk around it or past it, but if you "torture-test" their worldview, you will find it consistent with no other precept but that men or maleness are to blame for nearly all of what's wrong with the world. Well isn't it great when the assholes identify themselves forthrightly? I am talking about the WLM crowd here, and although they think they are conversing in secret, they at least admit their true opinion to themselves and to each other -- which is more than some people do.

So we know that Pamela O., in her Radfem Hub article, has tiptoed lead-footedly around the subject of male genocide. Certainly, to reduce male numbers or genetically engineer the evil out of men, would strike the root of the Man Problem very radically indeed, yes?. Pamela O. was keen to talk about this, and sought an audience, and for that reason broached the subject on the affiliated WLM forum where she was certain of a receptive public.

On 2 April, 2011, Pamela O., under the username "Karma", nailed her thesis to the door:
"First, the ground of the Problem (that is, male oppression and coercion of women) is male aggression. And second, male aggression is not limited to human beings. It is biologically-based and not particularly subject to eradication by social engineering. . . . .That seems to lead inescapably to an answer to the Problem: male oppression must be clearly defined and understood to be pathological (one writer calls its manifestations in humans an "encapsulated psychosis"). It needs to be recognized as a deviation from the norm (the aggression levels of females) that may be correctly called a mental illness. Call it the "Y Syndrome", maybe. Then, it must be cured, and we are very close to having the cure: a genetic modification that will cure the deficiencies of the Y Syndrome which lead to over-expression of male hormones (putting it very simplistically ATM). Which leads to the primary objection: there's no way to administer such a cure. Such a cure will never be voluntary, just as treating other severely mentally ill people cannot always be voluntary. People who are dangerous to themselves and others have little insight into their condition and may have to be restrained and treated without their consent in many cases. It is impossible for male humans to have the needed insight.My thought in response to that objection is: due to the historic circumstances, the cure will have to be administered".

Sure enough, other forum members took the bait with gusto -- Pamela knew her public, all right! So. . the talk went on for a while, Pamela pondered this and that, and six months later -- on 4 Oct, 2011 -- she published her now infamous guest post on Radfem Hub. And you know the rest of the story.

Now, I would not have you think there is anything new about the ideology Pamela O. has laid out. This is classic radfem fare which we've known in various shapes for many years -- although it is indeed, if you will, the most radical of radicalisms! But still, stuff like this is not generally known, and to find such a great sample all bunched up in one place is a mighty windfall. In fact, it is a golden opportunity for those (such as the present writer) who want to make the world see what feminism really amounts to at its rotten core.

There is furthermore, the disquieting hint that these radical wimmin are not merely TALKING about these things. That is, they are not just speculating in their armchairs. The passionate seriousness of their tone is not to be mistaken: Pamela O. herself hints at global groups and networks, and our own investigations (spearheaded by Agent Orange) have uncovered an intriguing web of connections -- an international rabbit hole that goes deeper and deeper, with passageways reaching into sites of power and influence that would surprise you.

The release of the Agent Orange files in the near future will throw a shaft of sunlight into places little known, and permit people to form their conclusions.

But I will speak no more of this, since I know that my colleagues will have much to share in the days ahead. It remains to ask, whether I think the implied scenarios ever would or could become real? My answer is, no, probably not. It is seriously to be doubted that radfem male-genocidalists will ever get the future they dream of, or anything close to it. So my present motivation is twofold: firstly, to have a care about the havoc these people might wreak in merely trying to get their way, and secondly, to awaken the general public to the presence of such people on the same planet with themselves, and to make that same public ponder the implications of such a thing.

What is perverse and dangerous about these people -- and really, all feminists -- is that they consider themselves literally more infallible than the patriarchal Pope of Rome himself! What monstrously swollen egos they have! Men are mentally ill, cannot grasp objective reality, and must therefore be engaged by methods of deceit. They know for a lead-pipe fact, at least in their own minds, that they are dead right and the rest of the world is dead wrong. That is disturbing to think about, but if you think carefully, it is a tremendous gift which greatly simplifies our lives. In a nutshell, it means that they will never engage us in good faith, and by not doing so, they release us from any obligation to engage THEM in good faith. That's a head-spinner, don't you think so? It means this is naught but realpolitik, a pure game of power and nothing more. But for some of us, that's old news. We've known it for years.


Scum Manifesto and Agent Orange..

The Men's Shed innovation was a boon for locals alike. It gave an opportunity for men to spend time learning new interests while at the same time, help the local community and individuals who would like to learn a few new tricks. Lately, more sheds have been showing up over Australia, New Zealand and in the UK. Community groups see the value of these sheds as not only being mentoring centres for the younger generation but help others in DIY methods, with a little bit of hands on..

So what about men's sheds..
WHAT IS A MEN’S SHED? The modern Men’s Shed is an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture. Men’s Sheds are springing up all around Australia. If you looked inside one you might see a number of men restoring furniture, perhaps restoring bicycles for a local school, maybe making Mynah bird traps or fixing lawn mowers or making a kids cubby house for Camp Quality to raffle.
 As you can see, they are used for numerous reasons to help the local community and also "show by example", to install a sense of helping others and teach the younger generation all about caring and sharing within their local community. One would imagine that the inclusion of men's sheds locally and in the local community would be a positive and well supported innovation that demonstrates what supporting local communities is all about. Many people have already praised their efforts and how that help is appreciated. It's basically a two way method that has helped both parties..

Why Do Radical Feminists Want to Destroy Men's Sheds ?

To whose benefit would it be to promote their destruction and one must also ask what their motives are. If the Men's Sheds were introduced to encourage community involvement as well as ensuring health benefits for the people participating, one would think that they are great help, but not according to radical feminists..

Here are some comments from the RADFEM HUB forum (Radical Feminist Forum) where radical feminists are promoting the destruction of those Men's Sheds..

Here are a few example -













And some additional comments taken form that same site..
helzeph wrote:
I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow them up and call it "a service to the community".
helzeph 
"Broad-thinking innovation" delphyne.
Allecto thanks for seconding the initiative. You could paint the at night, with slogans about the importance of women's refuges and how men are stealing their funding. Then apply for an arts grant.
Amazon Mancrusher 
Hmmmm what about the women in the community who aspire to live in a community without men?
 ...Im involved in a feminist group 
allecto 
"helzeph wrote:
sheds I wonder if we could lock them in their permanently. Or could we blow
them up and call it "a service to the community". " 
Yea!

Radical feminists obviously see this as an achievable goal, they have put it forward as a proposal, put forward as a motion and seconded it. the option of destroying or defacing Men's Sheds is their latest hate-fest goal..

However, it does become an issue when we have a group of people raging against half of the population on the planet and deliberately planning their destruction and removal.
Copious information has been secured from these Radical Feminists sites to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are past just thinking about that or talking about it. We have already shown you the lunatic ranting of the author Pamela O'Shaughnessy and her wish to eliminate the male population via use of eugenics plus promoting genocide as another option. These radical feminists need to be exposed and we will expose them and tell you who they really are and let society decide what to do with these male-hating fanatics..

We have been given inside information from a net investigator, by the name of "Agent Orange". Agent Orange has infiltrated those sites and exposed their murderous intentions, their identities, the  positions they occupy in public and private. These radicals are part of the community in which they live but secretly meet to discuss and plan the annihilation of millions or men and boys, your Fathers, Sons and Husbands, in order to satisfy their own psychotic tendencies..

These people are radical feminists, they are an active part of the Feminist Movement (the feminist hegemony) that feminists in general refuse to refute, refuse to condemn and also refuse to disassociate themselves from. These murderous, callous, hateful feminists are part of the same organisation and doctrine who claim to be working for "equality". These are the same people who claim that feminism will saves the planet, change everyone's life for the better and increase the equity between the sexes to make it a "fairer" world. They lied about that in the 1960s and they are lying about that right now..

As we have stated all along, feminism is a hate movement and it promotes hate and here we finally witness feminists admitting and confessing their hate, promoting genocide, planning terrorism and encouraging societal chaos..

Here we have a poster from like minded radicals from that same hate movement and their call to anarchy, genocide and terrorism. This Scum Manifesto Conference was held in Western Australia on the 23-25 September where they planned to "Overturn the Government, Eliminate the Money System and Destroy the Male Sex". This conference went for three days and included "guest" feminist speakers attending to encourage the members attending to look at and discuss actions they plan take to fulfil their goals and aims..





Needless to say that they are quite serious about their misandry, their violent intentions and plans to exterminate men as the Scum Manifesto" originally called for. SCUM (The Society for Cutting Up Men) is what it stands for, it is a total hatefest generated by a psychotic female who tried to murder Andy Warhol. Shot him as well as Mario Amaya, causing Warhol major pain and agony for years till his death. He died in 1987..
On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas shot Warhol as well as art critic and curator Mario Amaya at Warhol's studio.[26] Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. Warhol died in New York City at 6:32 a.m. on February 22, 1987
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm


Feminists have never disowned SCUM Manifesto but instead glorified Solanas as a hero for women's rights and they continue to educate other women with this psychotics murderous ramblings and unsurpassed hate against men..