New Video -- Thinking the Unthinkable and Unthinking the Thinkable

Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!

Today's talk is callled "Thinking the Unthinkable, and Unthinking the Thinkable."

My friends, we live in a socio-political pecking order which systemically deprecates male life to the value of garbage. Why do you think we call it "male disposability"?

 Disposable means . . . .  "you can throw it away".

But male life hasn't always been rated quite so low. Relatively low, I grant you that. But not quite so low as the case now is.

The transformation has come about due to an evolutionary change in thinking. Men have always shouldered the greater burdens in society, and braved the buffeting storms, and endured the sacrifice of their very lives when that was necessary. So in a way male life has always been "valued" less, but only in the sense of being more expendable. In the past, however, men enjoyed certain emoluments on account of all this -- and a certain respect, even awe, was sometimes accorded them.

But feminist innovation has introduced a number of mutations, particularly to the status of men within the social order. The evolutionary change in thinking has followed in the wake of female supremacist policy, which has sought to justify its general power-grab for women (what they call "empowering" women)  by downgrading the value of men altogether, in order to pave the way for such machinations. It was needful to introduce ideas that would have been considered "unthinkable" if they had been too abruptly or too openly stated. So the task was to turn the unthinkable into the thinkable, but in a manner that would pass unremarked owing to the guile, gradualness and stealth of its execution.

So how do we turn the unthinkable into the thinkable? Simple: we promote the unthinkable to the category of the thinkable.

And how do we accomplish THAT?

Simple again: we erode, little by little, the entire thought-foundation which constituted the unthinkable's unthinkableness in the first place.

And then..... we bootstrap the identical process through repeated cycles to the next level, and the next and the next. And at each loop in this iterative spiral, not only does the formerly unthinkable become thinkable, the formerly thinkable becomes unthinkable because . . . .

. . .because you literally cannot think it! You no longer have the intellectual equipment to do so! You have nothing to think it WITH.

Think . .  about . . . this.

What I have just described applies to a lot of things, not merely to the topic of present discussion. So stash it in your brain -- you'll find use for it!

Moving along now, let us consider, as a case in point, the example of false rape accusation, or simply feminist rape hysteria at large.

Here, we have seen a progressive movement toward the culturally embedded "unthinkable" conviction that male life is worth considerably less than female life. This has been rendered more and more thinkable . . .  owing to a steady, orchestrated campaign of character assassination, over many years, directed toward the male population as a whole.

In other words, it is now "thinkable" that men do not deserve equal protection under law in (for example) such matters as rules of evidence, and the reason this is now "thinkable" is because "everybody knows" that "men are violent", or that rape is an expression of "patriarchal violence", and so on. Briefly then, argumentum ad populum.

And how does "everybody" supposedly "know this"?

Because the anti-male talking points of the feminist worldview have, due to a never-ending ambient drizzle of reiteration and virtual carpet-bombing of the collective mind, installed themselves to the point of permanence and untouchability -- at which point every path of so-called discovery or "research"  becomes an exercise in confirmation bias.

 Accordingly, "everybody knows" that women are better people than men, and that men are the problem, and that male life therefore has less value than female life, and that men don't deserve equal protection under the law because "everybody knows" that men are oppressors and more likely than women to be liars. Because of course "everybody knows" that men are the problem!.

And women, as "everybody knows", never lie about rape! And how do we know THAT? Simple: because Susan Brownmiller as good as told us so, and hundreds of other people took their cue from Two-Percent Sue and repeated in their various books and factsheets the unsubstantiated "fact" that only 2% of rape allegations are false, which clearly "proves" that when a woman says "he raped me", it's odds-on that she is telling the truth and that he is lying -- because of course, "everybody knows" that men are violent, and that men are the problem, and besides. . . why WOULD she lie about something like rape? So who cares about some silly old thing like "evidence", anyway?

http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/rape/greer.pdf

To summarize: It is now "thinkable" (or at least not unthinkable) that a male citizen should be convicted of rape and sent to prison upon a standard of evidence that would formerly have been considered risible -- and still is, for many other crimes.

This state of affairs has been rendered conscionable because men have been methodically smeared and denigrated through deliberately orchestrated propaganda which has aimed (consciously or otherwise) to lower the value of male life to that of garbage, so that equal protection under the law may be taken away from men with no sense that any wrong has been done to them. Such a thing is now thinkable, and indeed certain people "think nothing of it".

Very well, I proffer, by way of comfort to all my friends in the politically activated pro-male community, a simple plan to foil such impudence on the part of the enemy:

 Just say no. . . and walk away!

Just say "I disagree." What can they do, kill you? Throw you in jail? All you must do, is make it clear that you don't share the feminist world-view. State this boldly. It has the powerful effect of "compiling" all your separate objections or criticisms into a global re-format. You are no longer slogging along in the "interpreter" mode of line-by-line fisking, or tit-for-tat arguing. Oh certainly, if that sort of thing is your gig, then by all means do what you do best! But the way I see it, that's like mowing your lawn with scissors when I have just offered you a shiny new rider-mower!

Think about it. The biggest mistake that non-feminist partisans make, is to argue from within the feminist world-view! They do this all the time without even knowing it, and I wish they would knock it off!! It puts them perpetually on the defensive and squanders their energy in a task not unlike shovelling mud uphill! But if they would categorically and forthrightly proclaim the autonomy of their paradigm as a preamble to ANY form of parlay, it would reverse the whole balance of power and turn the tables on the enemy! It would leave the feminists with only two options: to either engage non-feminist men and women within the non-feminist paradigm . . . or to meet them in some kind of limbo space between the opposing paradigms and "negotiate from the ground up." But neither position would serve feminism to advantage.

It would force them to THINK about what they think, and to weigh the ultimate thinkability of it.

And THAT, my fellow workers in the vineyard, is the whole idea.


Fidelbogen. . . . out.