1.9.12
This Bears Repeating: Feminism Is Not The World!
This seems a bit apropos in the wake of the previous post.
All right. So what does it mean, to say that feminism is not the world? At a minimum, it means that feminism and the world are not synonymous with each other. Otherwise you would say that wherever feminism ends, the world also ends . . . and that would be the end of it. And you could no sooner get outside of feminism, than you could get outside of the world.
So if we take "the world" to mean "everything there is", then we would understand that feminism is not everything there is. We would understand that there is more beyond feminism.
But to date, the feminist project has treated the space "beyond feminism" as precisely that -- space. A mere nullity waiting to be filled with feminism, or at best a mere chaos waiting to be organized in feminist terms.
Feminism, in short, regards non-feminism as nothing. But the non-feminist revolution proposes that non-feminism must become something -- a positive thing, an active thing, an intricately organic thing, a self-aware thing inhabiting the world on its own terms and able to assert those terms. Non-feminism, made aware of itself, will surround feminism, dismantle it into 1,427 pieces, and finally dissolve it back into the primordial elements from which it sprang.
31.8.12
Download Internet Download Manager ( IDM ) 6.12 Build 12 Final Full Version
Internet download manager tanggal 31 agustus kemarin menerbitkan versi terbarunya yaitu internet download manager 6.12 build 12 final. padahal rasanya baru beberapa hari yang lalu saya terbitkan versi sebelumnya dan ternyata saya tertinggal jauh oleh internet download manager karena ternyata internet download manager sudah menerbitkan internet download manager 6.12 build 12.
kali ini saya akan bagikan internet download manager 6.12 build 12 final full version yang sudah saya sertakan dengan patch yang fungsinya untuk membuat menjadi full version yang pasti versi erbarunya lebih bagus daripada versi yang sebelum-sebelumnya.
bagi yang penasaran dan ingin mencoba bisa mendownload pada link yang saya siapkan dibawah.
Screenshoot :
Jangan lupa jika bermanfaat silahkan di share dimanapun sahabat haramain suka seperti facebook, twitter, google+ atau yang lainnya. Bagi yang ingin mendownload, silahkan download pada link dibawah ini.
Semoga bermanfaat.
30.8.12
Stop Calling Yourself a "Feminist"!
The word "feminism" is tainted, so you really ought to stop calling yourself a "feminist". I don't give a snap what kind of feminist you are; if you call yourself a feminist for ANY reason, I won't even take the time to look into that. I might not say anything, but in my mind I will regard you as a highly suspect person. A fishy person. A "person of interest", as the police would say.
Yes. As far as I'm concerned, if you've seen one feminist, you've seen them all.
But if you stand up and declare loudly "I am not a feminist!", then I will smile, and look kindly upon you. And who knows, I might even decide to be your friend.
Now, that's something to think about. Don't you think so?
Political Spectrum Analysis: The Long and Short of Left and Right
The following video, featuring Walter Block of the Mises Institute, does a useful job of sorting out the accursed Left-Right Paradigm. It accomplishes this by showing that the paradigm only makes sense when you define precisely WHAT that axial continuum is purporting to measure. Economics? Governance? Religion? Foreign Policy? Socialism v. Fascism? Monarchism v. Bourgeois Democracy? Good v. Evil? If it is somehow vaguely intended to measure all these things in the same swoop, then you'll end with a tangled mess that makes no sense at all. Watch the video, and you will begin to understand why popular thinking on the question of Left v. Right, or "liberal" v. "conservative", is such a hopelessly muddled clusterfuck. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled for this video, so I'll need to send you directly to the channel:
http://youtu.be/Oc30eeXZTlg
This is quite relevant, as I'm sure you'll realize, to various tensions and debates that are now brewing within the pro-male community.
Enjoy!
http://youtu.be/Oc30eeXZTlg
This is quite relevant, as I'm sure you'll realize, to various tensions and debates that are now brewing within the pro-male community.
Enjoy!
29.8.12
Barry Nolan Takes the Bait
This is in reference to my immediately prior post, where I share an e-mail I sent to Barry Nolan of Bostonmagazine.com. The tone of my message was civil, as others may judge. Well, Barry Nolan fired back quick as a greased adder. His tone was anything but civil; indeed, I would cite it as an case of emotional reasoning tinged with hysteria. The message was composed in a white heat of reaction, and betrays either intellectual incapacity, or simple unwillingness to engage intellectually -- I'm not sure which. For starters, Mr. Nolan apparently cannot distinguish feminist from female, despite the gaping, canyon-like difference between these words. (Mr. Nolan, here's a hint: the "fem" syllable common to both words does not prove that they mean the same thing. You need to look deeper. )
And Barry Nolan lazily glosses over some other points as well. Likely he feels that respectful attention to political context, and to nuance, is a courtesy which he doesn't owe in the present case. And that, in the long run, is to his misfortune.
Finally, what I find especially amusing, is Mr. Nolan's suggestion that I suggested that I am a journalist. No. I have never remotely suggested that I am a "journalist", nor do I suggest it now. Granted, that to debate who is or isn't a "journalist", is like debating who is or isn't an "artist" or an "intellectual." But in the end, I claim only to do what I do, which is not at all a difficult claim to uphold.
Oh yes, journalistically speaking, I do wonder about Mr. Nolan. And furthermore, what does it say about Boston Magazine that they'd hire one such as he to provide them with copy? But then again, I reckon they know their market, so I won't tell them how to run their business.
For now, I will simply post Mr. Nolan's e-mail in its entirety. Later perhaps, I will come back with further commentary. Or maybe not:
And Barry Nolan lazily glosses over some other points as well. Likely he feels that respectful attention to political context, and to nuance, is a courtesy which he doesn't owe in the present case. And that, in the long run, is to his misfortune.
Finally, what I find especially amusing, is Mr. Nolan's suggestion that I suggested that I am a journalist. No. I have never remotely suggested that I am a "journalist", nor do I suggest it now. Granted, that to debate who is or isn't a "journalist", is like debating who is or isn't an "artist" or an "intellectual." But in the end, I claim only to do what I do, which is not at all a difficult claim to uphold.
Oh yes, journalistically speaking, I do wonder about Mr. Nolan. And furthermore, what does it say about Boston Magazine that they'd hire one such as he to provide them with copy? But then again, I reckon they know their market, so I won't tell them how to run their business.
For now, I will simply post Mr. Nolan's e-mail in its entirety. Later perhaps, I will come back with further commentary. Or maybe not:
"Dear Mr. Fidelbogen,
"Yes indeed I did refer to your post as an example of a far right wing anti-women group. On your front-page for instance, you state: “in the feminist universe women cannot do anything wrong because feminism does not hold women morally accountable.” That is utter rubbish. You link to an article titled: “Feminism Spreads Lies Like a Fly Spreads Germs” where you claim that is a slogan you coined in a “flash of inspiration” – which you characterize it as “brutal”. You claim it is a slogan that will make its way into people’s brains and then never leave. I think that in total and viewed in context - you can reasonably be considered anti-woman,
"And, having spoken to a large number of normal people, I also think that most people would find your views to be both repulsive and pathetic.
"You ask if I would be “willing to address certain questions” that you would pose and then suggest it is because you are somehow a journalist. Mr. Fidelbogen, I know journalists. Journalists are friends of mine. You sir, are nothing remotely resembling a journalist. And what appears to be a veiled attempt to be intimidating by saying you intend to distribute this exchange to your minions around the world, is absolutely fine with me. Have at it. Distribute to your hearts content. Sunlight is indeed an excellent disinfectant.
"Barry Nolan"
Open E-Mail to Barry Nolan at Boston Magazine
I have just sent the following e-mail to Barry Nolan, contributing blogger at BostonMagazine.com. In this text, you will find all the needful explanation of what is presently going on.
Dear Mr. Nolan:
On 8-27-2012, you posted an opinion piece at Bostonmagazine.com titled "Is Mitt Romney Dumber Than He Looks?". Link follows:
http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2012/08/27/mitt-romney-dumber-looks/
In the course of this article, you made a number of interesting statements. For example, that Glenn Sacks is the leader of the False Rape Society.
In the same sentence, you made reference to "far right wing anti-women groups", and as an example of this latter, you linked to a post on my very own blog, the Counter-Feminist:
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2012/02/another-woman-lies-about-sexual-assault.html
Mr. Nolan, I understand that your article was an opinion piece, and therefore not subject to such rigorous journalistic standards as might be practiced elsewhere. Still, it appeared to me that your work was a bit . . . one sided. As such, it left me rather confused, and I suspect that many others will find themselves in a similar state.
So, I wonder if you would be willing to address certain questions I would pose to you, regarding certain points that you have raised in your article? I propose this in a journalistic spirit of well-rounded enquiry, and look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience, to the address given below:
fidelbogen@earthling.net
Additionally, I will post a copy of this mail on my blog, the Counter-Feminist, and circulate it among my various contacts in different parts of the world. I am certain that they, too, will find this to be a matter of lively and engaging interest.
Again, I look forward to your response.
Regards,
~Fidelbogen~
http://counterfem.blogspot.com
Proof? How Much Proof do you Need?
The following item of vile, man-hating propaganda has recently appeared in the New York Times.
//www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=4&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120825
I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing.
Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!
But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.
Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!
It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, but they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say so? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case manifestly eludes them. Don't you think so?
In conclusion: every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all.
Words to the wise.
-----------------------------------
Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it. Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece wherein Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:
agentorangefiles.com
Update No. 2: A commenter has left the following instructions for gaining access to the NYT article being talked about here:
"To read the article, cut and past the link to google, erase all the url info at the end, and lots of hits will come up, some of which will access the article - this always works. notice, lots of links also to lots of sites talking about this pap. hey, do we need to go ahead and make the biology departments of universities a branch of the women's studies department now? maybe the entire university should simply be a place of women's studies, with various branches of academics under the purview of feminist departments? should we go ahead simply embrace this next logical step right now?"
//www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=4&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120825
I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing.
Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!
But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.
Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!
It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, but they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say so? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case manifestly eludes them. Don't you think so?
In conclusion: every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all.
Words to the wise.
-----------------------------------
Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it. Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece wherein Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:
agentorangefiles.com
Update No. 2: A commenter has left the following instructions for gaining access to the NYT article being talked about here:
"To read the article, cut and past the link to google, erase all the url info at the end, and lots of hits will come up, some of which will access the article - this always works. notice, lots of links also to lots of sites talking about this pap. hey, do we need to go ahead and make the biology departments of universities a branch of the women's studies department now? maybe the entire university should simply be a place of women's studies, with various branches of academics under the purview of feminist departments? should we go ahead simply embrace this next logical step right now?"
28.8.12
~~~~ACTION ALERT~~~~~
"The Department of Education’s Sexual Assault Directive radically expands the definition of rape, removes the presumption of innocence, and shifts the burden of proof to the accused. This encourages false accusations and erodes the credibility of true victims."That's the "Dear Colleague" letter they're talking about.
All right, now go here to learn more:
http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/accusing-u/
Then, go here and sign the petition if it seems right to you to do so:
www.change.org/petitions/accused-tell-the-ded-to-repeal-its-outrageous-sex-assault-directive
Hey, It's Just the Way Things Are!
Here I go again, reposting videos on the drumbeat principle.
Yes, due to feminist meddling in the life of the world, a political division between men and women has been created whether we like it or not. It's just the way things are. This talk lays it on the line, yet lays out some of the grim advantages that can be extracted from the situation.
Everything in this video should be taken as descriptive of the state of reality. I'm talking about the way things are, and predicting how they will increasingly become if certain trajectories continue.
The fact that men and women are separate political interest groups is precisely that -- a FACT. I am not calling for it, and certainly, I could wish it otherwise. I mean, it does not bode well for any civil polity that men and women are bidding to outdo each other. A house divided against itself, and all that sort of thing . . .
The blame for this status quo lies chiefly with feminism, although secondarily with those passive supporters and fence-sitters who refuse to speak up about it.
Now, the truly ironic and dicey thing -- which I don't touch upon in the video -- is that in order for matters to be put right, men as a political group must indeed (at least temporarily) follow a course that might resemble separatism. But this is not so much separatism as reality-based politics. For if we are to derail the feminist juggernaut, then men-as-a-group need to mobilize for their group interests in order to be effective as a group. The central initiative against feminism must come from men, because men, being the bullseye of feminist aggression, have a unique expertise and insight that most women can't hope to match.
Yes, the central initiative against feminism must originate from within male territory. But in order for that to happen, there must be a male territory in the first place. So that is why men must galvanize themselves, and begin to exist politically as men. And when I say "exist politically", it is needless to add that I don't mean existing within the feminist narrative. No, that is not existing politically as men.
Feminist women (and their male supporters) will kick like hell, and scream about "misogyny", but women of conscience will understand perfectly what is being preached in the video, and have no problem with it.
27.8.12
26.8.12
Stolen Treasure
I'd like to share something from the "Nice Guy -- MGTOW" forum, which I just now visited, briefly, for the first time in about 2 years. First, the commenter quotes a passage from a feminist book:
This war are in may indeed be a "war of ideas" on some level, but that is not how we play it. You may be aware that I have pretty much given up argument or debate, and learned to view this whole thing as a kind of street fight in which "winner takes all". After all, that is exactly how THEY play it, and will continue to play it, despite all pretensions to the contrary. And we'd be babes-in-the-woods to play it otherwise.
I call my strategy "post-argumentalism". Post-argumentalism does not eschew debate or argument, but simply acknowledges that such methods are not the mainstay of our operations, not the primary manner in which victory will be gained.
Here is a link to the original material on the Mancoat forum:
http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53439
"One of the great insights of second wave feminisms was the recognition that "the personal is political" – a phrase first coined by Carol Hanisch in 1971. We meant by this that all our small, personal, day-to-day activities had political meaning, whether intended or not. Aspects of our lives that had previously been seen as purely "personal" -- housework, sex, relationships with sons and fathers, mothers, sisters and lovers – were shaped by, and influential upon, their broader social context. "The slogan…meant, for example, that when a woman is forced to have sex with her husband it is a political act because it reflects the power dynamics in the relationship: wives are property to which husbands have full access" (Rowland: 1984, p. 5). A feminist understanding of "politics" meant challenging the male definition of the political as something external (to do with governments, laws, banner-waving, and protest marches) towards an understanding of politics as central to our very beings, affecting our thoughts, emotions, and the apparently trivial everyday choices we make about how we live. Feminism meant treating what had been perceived as merely "personal" issues as political concerns."Then he follows up with some thoughts of his own:
"It's clear to me that ... aside from Communism ... feminist theory is influenced heavily by cooking techniques; like improvising your own recipe for tuna casserole. Their argumentation is fraught with lasagna-like mixtures of ideas and concepts that permit them to play bait-and-switch whenever they debate you. Like a salad bar, they can pick and add anything they want to their desired taste, You go personal ("You're full of shit!"); they go global ("That's misogynyistic!). You go global ("That's an obvious canard."); they go personal ("My but someone is threatened about his masculinity!"). ..That is great stuff. Really great stuff. I'll should check out that forum in the future and see what other treasures I can find. But for all you neophytes who are still learning what feminism is, how it works, and why it is bad, the material I've shared here is pure gold. It affords valuable insight, and you can put that insight to work right away as a set of eyeglasses that will bring feminist (and feminist-influenced) behavior into sharper focus.
"Every debate with them is like playing three-card monty with the guys on the street corner or trying to discern under which walnut shell the pea is. .Maybe this is the reason for it - they can switch between personal and political without considering themselves to be making any kind of change at all.
"If "the personal is political", how does that jibe with paying your bills on time or maintaining good personal hygiene, fixing a flat tire or grabbing a quick burger after class? Feminist thinking isn't intellectual at all. That's part of their overall pretense. Deep-down, they are anti-intellectual. So why are so many of them college professors?"
This war are in may indeed be a "war of ideas" on some level, but that is not how we play it. You may be aware that I have pretty much given up argument or debate, and learned to view this whole thing as a kind of street fight in which "winner takes all". After all, that is exactly how THEY play it, and will continue to play it, despite all pretensions to the contrary. And we'd be babes-in-the-woods to play it otherwise.
I call my strategy "post-argumentalism". Post-argumentalism does not eschew debate or argument, but simply acknowledges that such methods are not the mainstay of our operations, not the primary manner in which victory will be gained.
Here is a link to the original material on the Mancoat forum:
http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53439
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)