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.

Intermezzo

Another polished gem from G.P. Telemann, musical god and avatar of the Light Masculine.

Mystery Link

What's in the surprise PDF? Try your luck!

Mystery Link: Clink if You Dare

All Non-Feminists are Misogynists!

This one deserves to make the rounds.

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:

"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!"). ..

"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?"

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.

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