Check out this GREAT analysis of #50ShadesofGrey by @SmashestheP which describes how harmful it is in so many ways!
[RadicalHub.com] “Freedom is slavery. Submissiveness is empowering. BDSM erotica is feminist.” The above are just a few of the lies that patriarchal culture has served up for women in the best selling BDSM novel 50 Shades of Grey.
First-time female novelist E L James began the
3.11.12
Oh My God, Paul, They're Onto Us!! Run for Your Life!!
The following comment has appeared on the previous post:
Is there gas in the car???
Anonymous said...Uh oh, looks like we're in deep shit now. Dang!
You and Elam are both a couple of fucking disinfo agents. Why don't you just be honest and tell us all what fucking government agency's payroll you are on, you scumbag motherfucker?
I hope you are one of the people who are killed off when the big earthquakes hit America, you fucking demoniac useless eater motherfucking piece of shit.
JUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there gas in the car???
At The Sahara Forest - Funny Joke
A Canadian lumber camp advertises for a lumberjack. A skinny little guy shows up at the camp the next day carrying an axe.
The head lumberjack takes one look at the puny little guy and tells him to get lost.
"Give me a chance to show you what I can do," says the skinny guy.
"Okay, see that giant redwood over there?" says the head lumberjack. "Take your axe and cut it down."
The guy heads for the tree, and in five minutes he's knocking on the lumberjack's door. "I cut the tree down," says the guy.
The lumberjack can't believe his eyes and says, "Where did you learn to chop down trees like that?"
"In the Sahara Forest," says the puny man.
"You mean the Sahara Desert," says the lumberjack.
"Sure......That's what they call it now!"
The head lumberjack takes one look at the puny little guy and tells him to get lost.
"Give me a chance to show you what I can do," says the skinny guy.
"Okay, see that giant redwood over there?" says the head lumberjack. "Take your axe and cut it down."
The guy heads for the tree, and in five minutes he's knocking on the lumberjack's door. "I cut the tree down," says the guy.
The lumberjack can't believe his eyes and says, "Where did you learn to chop down trees like that?"
"In the Sahara Forest," says the puny man.
"You mean the Sahara Desert," says the lumberjack.
"Sure......That's what they call it now!"
2.11.12
Download Internet Download Manager ( IDM ) 6.12 Build 23 Full Version
Internet download manager ( IDM ). Kali ini haramain software akan berbagi software lagi untuk sahabat haramain software yaitu internet download manager atau yang lebih sering kita sapa dengan nama IDM.
Internet ddownload manager sudah menerbitkan versi terbarunya yaitu nternet download manager 6.12 build 23 dan sekarang saya juga akan bagikan versi terbarunya ini kepada sahabat haramain software dan tentunya sudah saya lengkapi dengan patch dan serialnya yang akan membuat IDM 6.12 build 23 ini menjadi full version.
Untuk cara install juga sudah saya siapkan didalam file yang akan di download agar sahabat haramain software lebih mudah menginstallnya dan didalamnya juga sudah saya sertakan tutorial menghadapi fake serial nomber.
Pada versi terbarunya ini, sudah diperbaiki masalah-masalah yang sering terjadi pada versi sebelumnya.
Screenshoot :
Bagi yang ingin mendownload internet download manager 6.12 build 23 ini, silahkan download pada link dibawah ini
Semoga bermanfaat.
Download Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation ( RTM ) 32 Bit Dan 64 Bit Full Activation
Windows 8. Kali ini haramain software akan membagikan windows 8 Enterprise evaluation 32 bit dan 64 bit kepada sahabat haramain software.
Windows 8 yang finalnya terbit pada tanggal 26 oktober 2012 memang sudah terbit namun tidak semua mampu mendapatkannya karena bisa dibilang dari segi harga lumayan mahal.
Windows 8 yang saya bagikan ini adalah windows 8 yang digunakan untuk mengetes aplikasi pada windows 8 final dan bisa dibilang windows 8 yang haramain software bagikan ini hanya berbeda sedikit dengan windows 8 final.
Windows 8 Enterprise evaluation ( RTM ) yang saya bagikan ini aktif selama 90 hari dan akan saya lengkapi dengan activationnya dilengkapi dengan reseternya juga.
Screenshoot :
Kalau gambar diatas kurang jelas, cukup klik gambar diatas untuk memperbesar gambarnya agar gambar bisa terlihat dengan jelas. Bagi sahabat haramain software yang ingin mendownload, silahkan download pada link dibawah ini.
Selamat mendownload dan semoga bermanfaat.
New Video -- Becoming Ambient
It seems that a bunch of people got their panties in a pretzel over an off-the-cuff remark I made on AVfM radio recently. It was almost as if I had attacked their religion.
In fact, some of them were behaving strangely like feminists. ;)
Anyhow, I explained my position to Barbarosssaaa in a private message, and he understood perfectly. Hopefully, a few others will "get it" as well as he does.
1.11.12
The Growth of the Movement and the Differentiation of Signals
Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!
In today's talk, I would like to address a recent video by Barbarosssaaa in which he talks about hypergamy. Barbarosssaaa's video was prompted by certain remarks I made during my guest appearance on AVfM radio.
I make my present statement not simply to clear up misunderstandings, but because the topic in question has importance in its own right. It is a conversation that needs to be had, and right now seems a likely time.
My remarks on AVfM triggered a flurry of reaction, generally negative, among MGTOW types in particular. My words evidently touched a nerve -- a nerve I didn't rightly know was there. And it caught me by surprise.
At a certain point in the interview, hypergamy cropped up as an offshoot of a larger topic. And I briefly mused that hypergamy should go onto the back burner in terms of what the general public hears people like us talking about. This was an off-the-cuff remark, a passing remark, and the conversation quickly moved right along.
For me, it was an off-the-cuff remark. But for some people, it was a matter of weighty import. It appears that I touched upon something mighty close to the center of their discourse, that my speech was loaded in a way I didn't realize.
So I reckon the best plan is to hit the reset button. Therefore, to all concerned, I say this: Talk about hypergamy, talk about Briffault's law, talk about evolutionary psychology, talk about reproductive strategies, talk about the mercenary nature of women, and all that sort of thing, to your heart's content. Go to town! Talk a blue streak! Knock yourselves out! And don't let me stand in your way for one split second!
All right?
All right, I think we cleared that one up, didn't we? So let's move right along.
My statement at AVfM was a policy recommendation, directed first and foremost to myself, and secondarily to anybody who might share my way of thinking. There's no way in hell that the whole wide world will act upon Fidelbogen's recommendations, but there is at least a chance that a meaningful fraction will do so. And that's enough for me.
All right, now let's talk about hypergamy, Briffault's law, evolutionary psychology and so on.
In the end, this all boils down to a very simple question:
What is the primordial nature of woman?
Are women fundamentally mercenary creatures, governed by the imperatives of reproductive strategy? ARE they? Well, some would say they are and others would say otherwise. Yes, I grant you it's an important question, and if the truth can be found, we ought to find it. Intellectual honesty, and the spirit of science, demands no less.
And yet, for political purposes, this question DOES NOT INTEREST ME. My approach to all of this is ethical and philosophical. To me, hypergamy theory would have the value of a predictive model, something to filter and forestall female behaviors that might prove harmful. That indeed would be its purpose, if it has any purpose at all.
Now, I too wish to filter and forestall harmful human behaviors -- which, needless to say, includes the female kind. However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know.
That's agnosticism for you!
So, when it comes time to filter out harmful female behaviors, I use a simpler method. Simply stated, I hold women morally accountable. And if they don't measure up, I filter them out. So, any harmful behavior that might arise from the dark workings of primitive programming, would be "cut off at the pass" by my system of ethical standards and security clearances. There is a word for this sort of thing: "civilization".
I should add that this would work for anybody -- even if they secretly do believe in hypergamy et al. Just calibrate your tests and standards according to your theoretical model, without talking about your theoretical model.
But as for me, I'm agnostic. Hypergamy theory might or mightn't be true, but either way my bases are covered. I know exactly what I don't want in my life, so I make my calculations and set my filters accordingly. And once again, I do this simply by holding women morally accountable -- just as I would hold MEN morally accountable. Equality, anybody?
And that is why I don't publicly talk about hypergamy and such. Because I don't need to. Nor do I need to self-censor. Every word out of my keyboard (or my mouth) is precisely what I honestly do think. At no point do I ever feel like I am biting my tongue. Nor do I walk on eggshells. I stomp them consistently, thank you very much, but I do insist that it's an art.
Now, there are considered politic reasons why a person might choose not to speak publicly about hypergamy and such. For starters, you are making it easy for people to call you a "misogynist" or whatnot. And do I personally give a snap if somebody calls me that? No, not personally. I've been called a misogynist plenty of times for no clear reason, and I've got a mighty thick skin for it.
But look, here's my game: I make it hard for them. I make them WORK for it. For the plain truth is that I never make anti-woman statements. I attack feminism savagely, ferociously. I call it a social cancer and all manner of bloody awful things, but I never say bad things about women.
That puts the feminists in a moral bind. "Misogynist" is the worst thing they can call anybody, and they want to call me that too, but in order to get away with it they must dig deep into their brains and be highly creative -- which puts them in a mentally strained position. I force them to rationalize their words both to themselves and others, but I give them precious little raw material to work with, which taxes their sanity even as it erodes their credibility.
So in this way, little by little, I draw them onto thin ice. It becomes ever more difficult for them to justify their position, both outwardly to the world, and inwardly to themselves. And this drives them to increasingly desperate and silly outward behavior. In this way, they discredit themselves by making a public spectacle.
Now just picture such operations multiplied by the power of numbers and the strength of organization. I am constantly imagining such a thing; the thought almost never leaves me.
And is the juice worth the squeeze? Oh yes. The juice we can squeeze from them in this way is worth every precious drop. So that is why they mostly stay away from me -- because they'd rather stay out of the wringer.
And what is more, any juice they could squeeze from me would not be worth their trouble. So the only ones who attack me are the fly-by commenters, the crap-and-run commandos, the ones who know they'll never sit in the cross-examination chair.
And yes, I am famous for getting onto the SPLC hate list, but the people who posted that list are a tiny clique of intellectual cowards. They are NOT the general public, for the general public would never throw a second glance at somebody like me. Furthermore, the general public has no idea what the SPLC is up to, and the SPLC knows this, which is why it has the gumption to do what it does.
So in summary, I am not a hypergamy theorist because I want to focus on other issues, because I want to take a philosophical-ethical approach to the problem, because I want to take a political-pragmatic approach to the problem, and because I want to project a separate identity and a separate brand. I would like to discuss the final item on that list.
I think it would be good for us if we were not monolithically branded as hypergamy theorists. That was the spirit in which I made my controversial remarks on AVfM, and if I'd had more time I would have delved into it.
If we are to be monolithically branded at all, let this be only in the sense that we are pro-male and not feminist. That's it. These two things will group us as a political community just as far as we need to be grouped, but no farther. Beyond that, we should split into separate groups that will register separately on the world's awareness.
What's killing us right now is our lack of message clarity, arising from our lack of signal differentiation. Two or three months ago, I compared us to an untuned orchestra with no conductor and no common music. I suggested that we are transmitting a bloody lot of dreadful noise which the general public cannot be expected to understand. And so I concluded that the general public has "understood" us in a false, chaotic way which sets us back.
We are transmitting so many signals from a confined space, that the result is nothing but noise. I propose therefore that the orchestra must break up into many different quartets and combos. These new groups must leave the narrow concert hall and disperse through the big broad city where each can set up on its own corner, play its own music, and attract its own crowd.
That doesn't mean we are quarreling with each other. It means that we want to establish the purity of our separate messages, with enough distance so they don't run together into a slurry. That is why we spread out into the big broad city. In this way we become not a "movement" in the customary sense, but a social organism, or if you will, a social environment. That is what it means to "go ambient". Rather than being a point on the terrain which the public can point a finger at, we become the terrain itself by spreading ourselves all over it -- and you cannot point your finger at a terrain because you cannot point it everywhere at once.
Speaking for myself, I know I don't want to be stuffed into the same bag with a bunch of people who talk about things which I, myself, don't talk about. It's not that I oppose what they are saying. Maybe I do, or maybe I don't, but the point is that I am SILENT about those things -- or nearly so -- for reasons of strategy.
So I'd rather my own message didn't get lost in the general buzzcloud of other messages, and I know that other messengers would feel likewise if they gave it some thought. Yes, I believe it is in the interest of all to establish signal differentiation -- because different people with different strategies should attack the problem from different directions.
So in the end, we must force the general public to recognize our diversity, and stop thinking of us as a point source or a target. In this way we spread out and merge with their world. That is, we go ambient. And we make clear that separation between us and them is artificial -- that we ARE them, and they ARE us -- flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood -- and that feminism is something radically separate from all of us. And so the binary of non-feminist v. feminist will settle into place as a foundational pattern of life, and feminism will be isolated and pushed to the margins.
To encourage that future, I would make many pathways available to the many publics. Since a lot of people, men and women both, don't wish to hear that they are driven by primitive biology, I will indulge their sense of lofty morality or appeal to their fear of consequences. Meanwhile, Barbaarosssaaa and others of his school will administer their blunt medicine to all with the hardihood to listen. In the end nobody self-censors, and all roads lead to Rome.
As a parting thought, I note with interest that Barbarosssaaa declines to call himself a non-feminist. Well, since I am pretty sure that he would also decline to call himself a feminist, what does that leave? Yes Barbarosssaaa, it looks like you are a non-feminist whether you like it or not. Unless you prefer to be a feminist? Well no, I didn't think so.
But fear not. Non-feminism is a wide open frontier territory with room to spare for any non-feminist man or woman who wants to carve out a homestead. We are all non-feminists, after all. Or do we prefer to be feminists? Well no, I didn't think so.
In today's talk, I would like to address a recent video by Barbarosssaaa in which he talks about hypergamy. Barbarosssaaa's video was prompted by certain remarks I made during my guest appearance on AVfM radio.
I make my present statement not simply to clear up misunderstandings, but because the topic in question has importance in its own right. It is a conversation that needs to be had, and right now seems a likely time.
My remarks on AVfM triggered a flurry of reaction, generally negative, among MGTOW types in particular. My words evidently touched a nerve -- a nerve I didn't rightly know was there. And it caught me by surprise.
At a certain point in the interview, hypergamy cropped up as an offshoot of a larger topic. And I briefly mused that hypergamy should go onto the back burner in terms of what the general public hears people like us talking about. This was an off-the-cuff remark, a passing remark, and the conversation quickly moved right along.
For me, it was an off-the-cuff remark. But for some people, it was a matter of weighty import. It appears that I touched upon something mighty close to the center of their discourse, that my speech was loaded in a way I didn't realize.
So I reckon the best plan is to hit the reset button. Therefore, to all concerned, I say this: Talk about hypergamy, talk about Briffault's law, talk about evolutionary psychology, talk about reproductive strategies, talk about the mercenary nature of women, and all that sort of thing, to your heart's content. Go to town! Talk a blue streak! Knock yourselves out! And don't let me stand in your way for one split second!
All right?
All right, I think we cleared that one up, didn't we? So let's move right along.
My statement at AVfM was a policy recommendation, directed first and foremost to myself, and secondarily to anybody who might share my way of thinking. There's no way in hell that the whole wide world will act upon Fidelbogen's recommendations, but there is at least a chance that a meaningful fraction will do so. And that's enough for me.
All right, now let's talk about hypergamy, Briffault's law, evolutionary psychology and so on.
In the end, this all boils down to a very simple question:
What is the primordial nature of woman?
Are women fundamentally mercenary creatures, governed by the imperatives of reproductive strategy? ARE they? Well, some would say they are and others would say otherwise. Yes, I grant you it's an important question, and if the truth can be found, we ought to find it. Intellectual honesty, and the spirit of science, demands no less.
And yet, for political purposes, this question DOES NOT INTEREST ME. My approach to all of this is ethical and philosophical. To me, hypergamy theory would have the value of a predictive model, something to filter and forestall female behaviors that might prove harmful. That indeed would be its purpose, if it has any purpose at all.
Now, I too wish to filter and forestall harmful human behaviors -- which, needless to say, includes the female kind. However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know.
That's agnosticism for you!
So, when it comes time to filter out harmful female behaviors, I use a simpler method. Simply stated, I hold women morally accountable. And if they don't measure up, I filter them out. So, any harmful behavior that might arise from the dark workings of primitive programming, would be "cut off at the pass" by my system of ethical standards and security clearances. There is a word for this sort of thing: "civilization".
I should add that this would work for anybody -- even if they secretly do believe in hypergamy et al. Just calibrate your tests and standards according to your theoretical model, without talking about your theoretical model.
But as for me, I'm agnostic. Hypergamy theory might or mightn't be true, but either way my bases are covered. I know exactly what I don't want in my life, so I make my calculations and set my filters accordingly. And once again, I do this simply by holding women morally accountable -- just as I would hold MEN morally accountable. Equality, anybody?
And that is why I don't publicly talk about hypergamy and such. Because I don't need to. Nor do I need to self-censor. Every word out of my keyboard (or my mouth) is precisely what I honestly do think. At no point do I ever feel like I am biting my tongue. Nor do I walk on eggshells. I stomp them consistently, thank you very much, but I do insist that it's an art.
Now, there are considered politic reasons why a person might choose not to speak publicly about hypergamy and such. For starters, you are making it easy for people to call you a "misogynist" or whatnot. And do I personally give a snap if somebody calls me that? No, not personally. I've been called a misogynist plenty of times for no clear reason, and I've got a mighty thick skin for it.
But look, here's my game: I make it hard for them. I make them WORK for it. For the plain truth is that I never make anti-woman statements. I attack feminism savagely, ferociously. I call it a social cancer and all manner of bloody awful things, but I never say bad things about women.
That puts the feminists in a moral bind. "Misogynist" is the worst thing they can call anybody, and they want to call me that too, but in order to get away with it they must dig deep into their brains and be highly creative -- which puts them in a mentally strained position. I force them to rationalize their words both to themselves and others, but I give them precious little raw material to work with, which taxes their sanity even as it erodes their credibility.
So in this way, little by little, I draw them onto thin ice. It becomes ever more difficult for them to justify their position, both outwardly to the world, and inwardly to themselves. And this drives them to increasingly desperate and silly outward behavior. In this way, they discredit themselves by making a public spectacle.
Now just picture such operations multiplied by the power of numbers and the strength of organization. I am constantly imagining such a thing; the thought almost never leaves me.
And is the juice worth the squeeze? Oh yes. The juice we can squeeze from them in this way is worth every precious drop. So that is why they mostly stay away from me -- because they'd rather stay out of the wringer.
And what is more, any juice they could squeeze from me would not be worth their trouble. So the only ones who attack me are the fly-by commenters, the crap-and-run commandos, the ones who know they'll never sit in the cross-examination chair.
And yes, I am famous for getting onto the SPLC hate list, but the people who posted that list are a tiny clique of intellectual cowards. They are NOT the general public, for the general public would never throw a second glance at somebody like me. Furthermore, the general public has no idea what the SPLC is up to, and the SPLC knows this, which is why it has the gumption to do what it does.
So in summary, I am not a hypergamy theorist because I want to focus on other issues, because I want to take a philosophical-ethical approach to the problem, because I want to take a political-pragmatic approach to the problem, and because I want to project a separate identity and a separate brand. I would like to discuss the final item on that list.
I think it would be good for us if we were not monolithically branded as hypergamy theorists. That was the spirit in which I made my controversial remarks on AVfM, and if I'd had more time I would have delved into it.
If we are to be monolithically branded at all, let this be only in the sense that we are pro-male and not feminist. That's it. These two things will group us as a political community just as far as we need to be grouped, but no farther. Beyond that, we should split into separate groups that will register separately on the world's awareness.
What's killing us right now is our lack of message clarity, arising from our lack of signal differentiation. Two or three months ago, I compared us to an untuned orchestra with no conductor and no common music. I suggested that we are transmitting a bloody lot of dreadful noise which the general public cannot be expected to understand. And so I concluded that the general public has "understood" us in a false, chaotic way which sets us back.
We are transmitting so many signals from a confined space, that the result is nothing but noise. I propose therefore that the orchestra must break up into many different quartets and combos. These new groups must leave the narrow concert hall and disperse through the big broad city where each can set up on its own corner, play its own music, and attract its own crowd.
That doesn't mean we are quarreling with each other. It means that we want to establish the purity of our separate messages, with enough distance so they don't run together into a slurry. That is why we spread out into the big broad city. In this way we become not a "movement" in the customary sense, but a social organism, or if you will, a social environment. That is what it means to "go ambient". Rather than being a point on the terrain which the public can point a finger at, we become the terrain itself by spreading ourselves all over it -- and you cannot point your finger at a terrain because you cannot point it everywhere at once.
Speaking for myself, I know I don't want to be stuffed into the same bag with a bunch of people who talk about things which I, myself, don't talk about. It's not that I oppose what they are saying. Maybe I do, or maybe I don't, but the point is that I am SILENT about those things -- or nearly so -- for reasons of strategy.
So I'd rather my own message didn't get lost in the general buzzcloud of other messages, and I know that other messengers would feel likewise if they gave it some thought. Yes, I believe it is in the interest of all to establish signal differentiation -- because different people with different strategies should attack the problem from different directions.
So in the end, we must force the general public to recognize our diversity, and stop thinking of us as a point source or a target. In this way we spread out and merge with their world. That is, we go ambient. And we make clear that separation between us and them is artificial -- that we ARE them, and they ARE us -- flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood -- and that feminism is something radically separate from all of us. And so the binary of non-feminist v. feminist will settle into place as a foundational pattern of life, and feminism will be isolated and pushed to the margins.
To encourage that future, I would make many pathways available to the many publics. Since a lot of people, men and women both, don't wish to hear that they are driven by primitive biology, I will indulge their sense of lofty morality or appeal to their fear of consequences. Meanwhile, Barbaarosssaaa and others of his school will administer their blunt medicine to all with the hardihood to listen. In the end nobody self-censors, and all roads lead to Rome.
As a parting thought, I note with interest that Barbarosssaaa declines to call himself a non-feminist. Well, since I am pretty sure that he would also decline to call himself a feminist, what does that leave? Yes Barbarosssaaa, it looks like you are a non-feminist whether you like it or not. Unless you prefer to be a feminist? Well no, I didn't think so.
But fear not. Non-feminism is a wide open frontier territory with room to spare for any non-feminist man or woman who wants to carve out a homestead. We are all non-feminists, after all. Or do we prefer to be feminists? Well no, I didn't think so.
I Have a Confession to Make
I, your humble preceptor-general, have a confession to make. I am sick and tired and bored spitless by most of the nomenclatures and categories which the so-called "MRM" has spawned for its use over the years. And you know what else? I've a mind to fling the lot of it into the scrapyard and start afresh with something radically new.
I would begin by crunching and chucking the word "MRM" itself, with "MRA" and "MGTOW" following close behind. Then "masculinist" and "masculist" would need to go. And thereafter we would undoubtedly think of other items to throw away as well.
I realize it would be difficult for most people to re-imagine and re-conceptualize EVERYTHING in the way I am suggesting here. And so I don't realistically expect that of them. But then, they are not the intended audience here. . . are they?
Al right, here's what I recommend. When you settle into a philosophical tête-à -tête with your political cohorts, make it a rule to outright banish all labels (MRA, MRM, MGTOW, etc..etc.) from the talk, and discipline yourself to get along entirely without them.
I expect you'll find this like throwing away intellectual crutches and learning to walk on your own legs for the first time ever. I think we all need to undertake this exercise. I really, really do. I think we have gotten intellectually paralytic and sclerotic, and it is killing us. We need to think outside the box and see the game in a MUCH bigger way. In other words, we need to go for the mountain-top view. Don't you agree?
I would begin by crunching and chucking the word "MRM" itself, with "MRA" and "MGTOW" following close behind. Then "masculinist" and "masculist" would need to go. And thereafter we would undoubtedly think of other items to throw away as well.
I realize it would be difficult for most people to re-imagine and re-conceptualize EVERYTHING in the way I am suggesting here. And so I don't realistically expect that of them. But then, they are not the intended audience here. . . are they?
Al right, here's what I recommend. When you settle into a philosophical tête-à -tête with your political cohorts, make it a rule to outright banish all labels (MRA, MRM, MGTOW, etc..etc.) from the talk, and discipline yourself to get along entirely without them.
I expect you'll find this like throwing away intellectual crutches and learning to walk on your own legs for the first time ever. I think we all need to undertake this exercise. I really, really do. I think we have gotten intellectually paralytic and sclerotic, and it is killing us. We need to think outside the box and see the game in a MUCH bigger way. In other words, we need to go for the mountain-top view. Don't you agree?
31.10.12
Lawyer @MarcoRandazza Goes To War Against #RevengePorn Site Over ‘Takedown Lawyer’ Business Model
Read this disturbing story on how one man is unethically profiting off of “revenge #porn” – by extorting the victims. Please note that the most common victims of this scam are people who allowed someone like their ex boyfriend or girlfriend to take naked photos of them. (Or who took the photos themselves and shared them privately with their partner.)
So the takeaway lesson of this story is…
So the takeaway lesson of this story is…
It's Official: The Genie is Out of the Bottle
The development of non-feminist political awareness is ramping up quite nicely. At the same time, it is spreading into the world beyond publicly visible cyberspace. The world of websites and YouTube channels is increasingly NOT "where the action is". And so, if your knowledge of things pro-male and non-feminist is garnered chiefly from that realm, then I'm afraid you don't really know what's going on. The significant conversations and decisions are happening backstage now, and what you see on the web -- if that is ALL you see -- will give you the same level of information as if you were overhearing just one half of a telephone conversation.
Yes, the numbers are growing, and quickly. And there is a bit of a communication gap between the "new blood", and the old-timers who have been on the scene for years. The new ones are coming in so speedily it is difficult to get them up to speed, and their understanding of various discourses is sometimes half-baked, or embedded with bizarre novelties. One sighs, and chalks it up to "growing pains". A good kind of pain, to be sure, given that it signalizes growth.
Clubs, cells, committees, think-tanks, networks and activism groups are sprouting up like delicious mushrooms all across the landscape. These entities are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. And while they certainly do make use of cyberspace, they are also moving into boots-on-the-ground mode. They are meeting up, face to face, in taverns and coffee-houses. They are hashing out ideas; they are drafting proposals; they are writing position papers. And in some cases, they are even making plans.
Yes, a social organism is under formation. Or call it a "voltron", if that metaphor suits your fancy. Whatever helps you to visualize and conceptualize things. The takeaway item of understanding here, is that this social organism is going ambient. It is all around, on every side. It is no longer a targetable point.
Oh, and male bonding. Let's not forget about the male bonding. That, too, is happening.
Peace.
Yes, the numbers are growing, and quickly. And there is a bit of a communication gap between the "new blood", and the old-timers who have been on the scene for years. The new ones are coming in so speedily it is difficult to get them up to speed, and their understanding of various discourses is sometimes half-baked, or embedded with bizarre novelties. One sighs, and chalks it up to "growing pains". A good kind of pain, to be sure, given that it signalizes growth.
Clubs, cells, committees, think-tanks, networks and activism groups are sprouting up like delicious mushrooms all across the landscape. These entities are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. And while they certainly do make use of cyberspace, they are also moving into boots-on-the-ground mode. They are meeting up, face to face, in taverns and coffee-houses. They are hashing out ideas; they are drafting proposals; they are writing position papers. And in some cases, they are even making plans.
Yes, a social organism is under formation. Or call it a "voltron", if that metaphor suits your fancy. Whatever helps you to visualize and conceptualize things. The takeaway item of understanding here, is that this social organism is going ambient. It is all around, on every side. It is no longer a targetable point.
Oh, and male bonding. Let's not forget about the male bonding. That, too, is happening.
Peace.
30.10.12
Not All Chambers in the Revolver are Loaded
The following political statement was recently posted online by a pro-male activist from India:
All right, many of you presently reading this are feminists, aren't you? And you are emotional reasoners, aren't you? And so you want to tell me that the statement quoted above is "misogynistic", don't you?
Very well . . . so why don't you? Go on feminist, log into comments right this instant and explain to me why the statement quoted above is "woman-hating". You know you want to say this, so god damn you, speak up! Get in here right now and defend your position! Just do it!
But feminist, you will never do this, will you? And that is because you are a chickenshit intellectual coward, and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. Cluck-cluck-cluck!
---------------------------------------
P.S. I have learned that the statement quoted above was originally published on the Spearhead, and only re-posted by the activist in question. Not that this is critically important, but I have updated the post to reflect that information. The sentiment expressed remains valid as ever, and the challenge stands, as per any demonstrated "woman-hating" in the words cited. Protip: personal feelings about the alleged author's alleged character are not in question here, or in any similar case. Words alone are what matters.
"NAWALTThis statement, in its entirety, gets the Fidelbogen stamp of approval. These words are not my own, but they might as well be. I find nothing irrational or morally amiss in these words. I find nothing in them but plain truth manfully spoken.
"So, to men who have been through the wringer, when a woman says “not all women are like that,” what we hear sounds like “not all chambers in that revolver are loaded.” The suggestion, of course, is that because not all women are like that, we might as well give it another try.
"If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.
"NAWALT – Not All Women Are Like That – is in fact true, so what’s the real reason this argument has been forcefully rejected by so many men? We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?
"What it really comes down to is risk. The problem is not that all women are horrible — it’s simply that a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. The reality today is that a woman does have that power, just like a round in a revolver’s chamber."
All right, many of you presently reading this are feminists, aren't you? And you are emotional reasoners, aren't you? And so you want to tell me that the statement quoted above is "misogynistic", don't you?
Very well . . . so why don't you? Go on feminist, log into comments right this instant and explain to me why the statement quoted above is "woman-hating". You know you want to say this, so god damn you, speak up! Get in here right now and defend your position! Just do it!
But feminist, you will never do this, will you? And that is because you are a chickenshit intellectual coward, and you know you haven't got a leg to stand on. Cluck-cluck-cluck!
---------------------------------------
P.S. I have learned that the statement quoted above was originally published on the Spearhead, and only re-posted by the activist in question. Not that this is critically important, but I have updated the post to reflect that information. The sentiment expressed remains valid as ever, and the challenge stands, as per any demonstrated "woman-hating" in the words cited. Protip: personal feelings about the alleged author's alleged character are not in question here, or in any similar case. Words alone are what matters.
"Misogyny"? Meh!
When such trends occur in advertising and popular entertainment media, you can be sure it is happening for a reason. The reason is, that the media people who create this stuff have done their homework and know exactly what the market will bear. In the present case, they are appealing to. . . a certain demographic, let us say. These media people have concluded that a certain demographic will not only not object to what is being portrayed, but will in many cases enjoy it and applaud it. Time will tell whether these media people are right or wrong in their assessment. I suppose it all hinges upon a certain demographic, and its capacity to process certain realities at a collective mind level, and finally, to transmit the collective message that they "get it."
As I say, time will tell.
P.S. This puts me in mind of a rich and mellow old joke: Q: Why are feminists obsessed with popular culture? A: Because they are too dense to appreciate the classics!
But seriously, I do understand why feminists are obsessed with popular culture. Indeed, pop culture offers as good a core sample of the collective psyche as you'll find anywhere at all. And it's a pity that the feminists are not obsessed enough with it, that their obsession is "blind in one eye" and therefore does not see the kind of stuff that is portrayed in the video shared above. So I think I may be forgiven if I, for my own part, do not see the kind of stuff that the feminists are caterwauling about. That sounds fair enough, don't you think so? Goosey-goosey-gander!
Scary Cat| My Halloween Look| FOTD & OOTD
I don’t know about you, but I have never been a huge fan of fancy dress. I do love Halloween, but find that it is a little bit too Americanised now, and preferred it when the point of a Halloween costume was firstly for it to be Halloween related and secondly it was to scare someone. I’m all about the pumpkins, trick or treating, scary masks, claws, cobwebs and cloaks! This year I was invited to a Halloween party last Saturday night by my manger at work. I was a little unsure to begin with, but when she said that you had to dress up, and your costume had to be scary I was all for it. Now, I am a little unoriginal with my Halloween outfits, as I normally go as I cat as I can’t help but love the irony. I love when drunk people find it hilarious that I’m called Cat and I am a cat!
I decided to stick with what I know but wanted to scare my outfit up and make it a bit more dramatic. I had originally bought face paint and face crayons to decorate my face, but after practicing with them I found them very waxy and not very pigmented; consequently not creating the dramatic look I was after. I changed tactics and decided to buy the above makeup items to create my look. The Lipstick I have talked about here, and the eyeliner I already had. The lip liner was used to draw on cuts and scratches all over my body, and it was the perfect blood red. The eye-shadow is Boujois and was part of their Halloween collection and it’s amazing! I don’t know if I will wear it again soon, as it is a very pigmented and a very matte black. But it creates the perfect dramatic cat eye, and stayed in place all night! The Boujois nail varnish was again very dramatic; it needed a few layers to build up colour, but once you did it looked great.
For my outfit I wore a black cocktail dress and tights which I ripped up. My hair I backcombed to the max and used a whole can of dry shampoo to turn it grey. Unfortunately you can’t see it too much in the pictures but believe me my hair was very tatty and grey! I actually woke up on Sunday morning and was rather confused by all the white dust all over the surfaces in my bedroom, it took me a while to realise the white dust was in fact the residue of my dry shampoo.
I admit my look isn’t the scariest ever, but I think I did a pretty good job. At the party and in town there was some great scary costumes, lots of very convincing zombies and vampires, along with Goth brides, Bettlejuice and Jimmy Saville (a little bit of bad taste, but we all knew someone would dress up as him).
What do you think of my look? What did/ are you dressing up as for Halloween?
*Apologies for the poor quality iPhone pictures, still in need of a camera*
Download Theme Keren EvE For Widows 7
Theme windows 7.Sudah lama rasanya haramain software tidak berbagi theme windows untuk para sahabat haramain software. theme yang akan haramain software bagikan ini adalah theme EvE for windows 7 bukan untuk windows xp apalagi windows 8.Didalam file theme ini sudah sayav sediakan 2 versi yaitu intaller yang cukup diinstall dan otomatis theme bisa digunakan dan yang ke2 yitu file theme yang di install manual dengan cara mengcopy paste file kedalam folder tempat penginstalan theme. didalamnya jugaq sudah saya sertakan start orb dan software untuk mengganti start orbnya.
Screenshoot :
Gambar diatas adalah hasil dari theme EvE for windows 7 ini. Bagi yang ingin mendownload, silahkan download pada link dibawah ini.
Untuk cara install tidak jauh beda dengan theme-theme yang sudah saya share sebelumnya. Semoga bermanfaat dan selamat mencoba
29.10.12
Documentary on Family Court Corruption
Fidelbogen's first commandment: Thou Shalt Watch This!
And while you are watching, note the greasy thumbprints of feminism all over the human calamity that is being propagated. Anti-male bias, instilled and encouraged by feminist propaganda, pops up at every bend in the trail. Yes, I grant you that the slimey profiteering behavior among court personnel is not feminism per se, but feminism played a critically important role in getting this whole mess started. And feminist lobbying groups such as NOW are among the most vociferous obstructionists to reform. Anything that sucks the blood out of men is good and dandy so far as they're concerned. (But as you will see, the system sometimes gives women the dirty end of the stick too!)
Download Game Battle Realms For PC 100% Working
Game Battle Realms For PC. Kali ini haramain software akan bagikan game strategy yang menurut saya sangat seru untuk dimainkan. Game ini sudah saya uji sebelumnya karena kebetulan saya juga suka dengan game ini.
Game yang akan saya bagikan ini adalah game battle realms. Sahabat haramain software pasti sudah tau dengan game ini karena game ini bisa dibilang sudah sangat populer karena memang game battle realms ini sangat seru untuk dimainkan.
Mungkin sahabat haramain software sering mencari game ini namun kapasitasnya yang begitu besar membuat sahabat haramain software susah untuk mendownload. Sekarang sahabat haramain software tidak perlu khawatir karena saya akan bagikan versi RIP nya yang kapasitasnya hanya 143 Mb namun nanti setelah di install kapasitasnya menjadi 490 Mb.
Screenshoot :
Minimum PC Requirements :
- Minimum 64 Mb RAM
- DirectX 8 or higher
- 600MB hard drive space
- Intel Pentium or higher
Cara install :
- Extract Battle_Realms Full RIP_software-word.blogspot.com
- Jalankan Battle Realms - Class Rip.exe kemudian tunggu sampai selesai
- Setelah selesai, Jalankan RegSetup.exe kemudian klik Ok
- Untuk memainkan, untuk windows 7 klik kanan pada Battle_Realms_F.exe kemudian run as administrator.
- Selamat bermain.
Sekarang, bagi sahabat haramain software yang ingin mendownload, silahkan download pada link di bawah ini.
Atau bisa download pada link dibawah ini ( Link Update 1 January 2013 )
Game ini sudah saya coba dan dijamin 100% working seperti judulnya. Selamat bermain dan semoga menghibur.
Japan’s child porn addiction – Related crimes up 5x in last decade
Check out this informative article about the tragic #childporn epidemic in Japan and what police are doing about it.
“A nation that openly sexualises youngsters has become the world hub for a dark, booming industry. Now police have decided to tackle the culture of abuse”
[Independent] It was a shocking find: crudely made DVDs with images of grown men having sex with children as young as 12. Until
“A nation that openly sexualises youngsters has become the world hub for a dark, booming industry. Now police have decided to tackle the culture of abuse”
[Independent] It was a shocking find: crudely made DVDs with images of grown men having sex with children as young as 12. Until
28.10.12
A Couple of Things You'd Do Well to Read
The feminist narrative of male violence in intimate relations is without doubt the crown jewel of feminism's anti-male talking points. If we could somehow arrange a dramatic Watergate-style exposé of the truth which they've covered up for almost 40 years, feminism would suffer a massive credibility hemorrhage. In this connection, the following links are a worthy investment of your reading time. You'll want to go slow and savor the material drop by drop:
www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/12/30/ampersands-criticism-of-the-idvs-findings-on-sexual-violence-part-2-rp/
linearthinker.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weighing-in-on-the-domestic-violence-debate-a-response-to-david-manboobz-futrelle/
www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/12/30/ampersands-criticism-of-the-idvs-findings-on-sexual-violence-part-2-rp/
linearthinker.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weighing-in-on-the-domestic-violence-debate-a-response-to-david-manboobz-futrelle/
Why do you wear makeup? | Tag
*Combination of my own images and those from We Heart It*
I have seen this tag floating around on peoples blogs over the past few weeks and it seems to be spreading like wild fire. Now I’m not normally one for tags; I don’t know why, I just never found one that inspired me and if they did, they were quite lengthy. However this tag is short and sweet and gives a little insight into the blogger. So here goes my answers.
When did you begin to love makeup?
Like many others I have forever been a girly girl. When I was a little girl I was obsessed with princesses, pink, glitter, Barbie's and spent my time dressing up, putting on fashion shows and baking mud pies. With this girliness came the love of makeup. I remember I used to have a big pink makeup case at my Nanas house and would stand in front of her mirror applying glitter, stick-on tattoos, peel off nail varnish and sickly sweet perfumes. I have always been gifted numerous makeup palettes for birthdays and Christmas, and as I grew so did my make up case. Obviously as I got older the quality of the product improved.
I first started wearing “proper” makeup aged 12… yes it is a little early, however when I was a younger I wore glasses, which unfortunately made my eyes appear smaller than what they were. I was obviously very self conscious of this and used to (still do) layer on the mascara to make my eyes look bigger. I probably started wearing a full face of makeup when I was 14, again to mask my insecurities, which at the time was my bad skin. When I started wearing a full face my confidence with my makeup improved and so did my experimentation, cue lots of black eyeliner and bright eye shadow… baby pink was one of my favourites for a while. Thankfully my taste has changed and matured, but I still like to have fun with it.
How do you feel without makeup?
A bug! I have a bit of a complex whereby I think my eyes look very small when I’m not wearing mascara, I call them my little bug eyes! As a result I almost never leave the house without mascara, the only time I do is when I’m out running. I know they probably don’t but I just don’t feel very confident when not wearing mascara. I will quite gladly leave the house without other makeup; I choose not to though. When my skin is looking good I will happily just wear mascara and a bit of bronzer and blush, especially during the weekends.
What do you like about makeup?
Quite a difficult question I think as sometimes I love makeup (like 70% of the time) and other times I feel like its an evil necessity and more like war paint than makeup. The days when I love it are obviously days when I’m feeling on top of the world. I love that makeup allows me to look and feel more human. I like that it can help enhance anyone’s natural beauty, and draw out a persons individual and beautiful features that they may not have been aware of before. I also love how colourful and pretty makeup is, the colour combinations and collections are never ending… it’s always great finding a new favourite lippy.
The days when I don’t love makeup are obviously days when I’m not feeling quite my normally self, perhaps a little blue. On days such as this I tire of applying my makeup but I would never leave the house without it. Like I mentioned, I feel like it’s a necessary evil; war paint; a mask that myself and many others apply to hide behind. I wish there was a national day where us girl don’t wear our makeup and show and (try to) embrace our natural beauty, as no matter how much we fight it, we all have something unique and beautiful about out face.
Three “Holy Grail” Items:
Mascara- I’m not fussed on which brand, however I do love L'Oreal Telescopic False Lash Mascara and Maybelline Colossal Mascara
Urban Decay NAKED Palette- A god send for eyeshadow lovers! I use mine all the time, perfect for both day to day looks and for dramatic night out looks. The pigmentation is great and the colours all compliment each other perfectly.
Rimmel Blush Pink Rose- A bargain high street product, but one that is very pigmented, lasts forever and is a great match for my skin tone. Great at giving me some colour on these dull days and a daily wear for me.
I hope you enjoyed reading my answers and learnt a little more about me. I look forward to reading some of your answers, if you do write your own be sure to Tweet me or comment below so I can give them a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)