Feminism is Merely a Tool

How do you know when somebody is lying to you about their intentions?

Sometimes it’s body language; sometimes it’s when their claims are outlandish or sharply contrary to observed reality. Some liars are skilful and quite hard to detect. But with individuals, given time, liars are relatively easy to spot. As a general rule, when a person’s statements and their actions consistently point in different directions, rather than their statements and their actions pointing in the same direction, you can tell that they’re lying.

There’s other ways to tell, consistent reliance on formal logical fallacies, such as ad-hominem, the unstated major premise, or the straw man argument is a pretty clear signal as well, that the person making such arguments is dishonest. Refusal to address an opponent’s argument, while reciting it in a high squeaky voice, or with an added laugh track are simplistic examples of the classic ad hominem.

It becomes more difficult to make such determinations when dealing with organizations. An organization engaging in deceptive practices has the advantage of being able to separate its public statements from its actions by using different groups of people to perform each.

As organizations get bigger, the ability to mask a divergence between stated goals and organizational practices is heightened. We bring good things to life – is the motto of a company selling toasters to the American public, but which makes most of its profits manufacturing the weapons of modern warfare.

General electric invented the mini-gun. This is generally well known in the year 2010, but nobody buying a toaster at wall mart seems to mind as long as the people slaughtered with weapons like the mini-gun are brown people in faraway countries. Now, I’m not saying general electric, or their parent company, general dynamics are evil. They’re filling a need. And if there’s a market demand for the industrial-scale killing of humans, as there clearly is, then somebody’s going to fill that need and make a profit for their shareholders.

But what about humanitarian organizations or a non-profit organization who’s publicly stated goals are obviously humanist, good, and just. One way to spot organizational lying is to examine the organization’s actions, comparing the action’s efficacy in advancing a publicly stated goal, versus simply adding money or political power to that organization, or producing some other outcome.

Much like with individuals, the outcomes produced by the actions of organizations offer a far clearer view of the organizations goals than any public manifesto of purpose. In fact, in dealing with organizations, publicly stated purpose’s likelihood of veracity diminishes relative to the size of the organization.

Organized feminism in its modern form is roughly 50 years old. In 1960, many families consisting of a man and a woman and zero or more children lived in homes they owned with one family member working full time, typically the husband. One of the public goals of feminism was to give women the “right” to enter the workplace, higher education, political office and other areas habituated by mostly men at the time. The public swallowed this declaration of purpose, despite the reality that women’s choices, and not exclusion, was the principal factor in the predominance of men in the fields mentioned.

After 50 years of female favouring initiatives by government, and affirmative action, stay at home wives and mothers are rare to the point of extinction. This is not because women have recently attained the right to enter the workforce, but because they have to. Only the very wealthy can afford home ownership on a single salary now, and that was the planned outcome from the beginning.

By adding women to the workforce, the available pool of labour in society doubled. This means that allowing for inflation, the relative value of labour has been cut in half. We are all, men and women, made poorer and less personally autonomous by this transition. This outcome is not an accident.

If you’re a woman and would prefer not to work, or to work part time at a job that provided you with personal satisfaction but not much money, too bad. Being liberated has reduced your freedom.

This is an illustration of the difference between public statements of intent, such as give women the freedom to join the workforce, and unstated, planned intent, force women to work, and cut in half the relative value of labour within society.

Mainstream feminism is the largest, most successful scams perpetrated on the public since the inception of central banking and fiat currency – and most of the public haven’t caught onto those yet either.

Proponents of mainstream feminism will sometimes call individuals rebuking the supposed legitimacy of feminism by the derisory label “conspiracy theorists”. This is simply shaming language intended to silence discussion and discredit the critic without addressing any argument. However, the term conspiracy theory is apt, because although feminist propagandists like to pretend that feminism is a grass roots social movement, it is anything but that.

Gloria Steinem, feminist icon, founder of Ms. Magazine was funded indirectly through the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation. [1] This information is documented by Dr. Henry Markow in a 2002 article called “How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society” and confirmed in a New York Times article in February 1967[2]

Prior to her public involvement as a major actor for early second wave feminism, Steinem was an employee of the CIA who disrupted student organizations in Europe, and funnelled information to her CIA handlers.  While she was starting Ms. Magazine, she was dating Henry Kissinger – a matter of public record, and amazingly, nobody seems to think this lends a stink to the movement she was an early pillar of.

How is feminism a grass roots movement if it was funded by the Rockefeller foundation and the CIA?

For that matter, how is it that feminist organizations funded by national governments, or which are departments within national governments have any legitimacy in their claims to grass roots.  In 2010 the Canadian commission on the Status of Women (SOW) gave a grant totalling $1,016,400.00 to fund a large feminist conference, called the Women’s Worlds 2011 (WW 2011). Its objective is to draw feminist women together from across Canada and abroad to form a new feminist movement. [3]

Feminism is not a grass roots, bottom up movement. It is top down, elite instigated and funded AstroTurf with real objectives that have no relation to human rights or social equality between men and women. What’s a worse indictment of the gullible public is that this is obvious to the most cursory examination.

The myth of women’s oppression in western society is another screamingly obvious falsehood which can only be maintained by the wilful, active self-delusion of the public, including self-identified and politically active feminists.

There are a number of obvious signals of this, such as lighter sentences

Women are sentenced more leniently than men for equivalent offences in western criminal courts.

In many cases, women on trial for violent crimes are excused by a collective manufacture of imaginary past victimhood by some hypothetical evil man, and the violent crime justified. This is a form of social collective hallucination – because this is not how western law works. An eye for an eye is the brutal, outmoded philosophy of retributive justice of the Old Testament.

In Canada, legal precedent is established that women found guilty of murder should be sentenced, when possible under the lesser crime of infanticide [4]. This is women’s oppression? This is patriarchy?

The United Nations, who operate the World Food Program, does so on the lines of an

ideology of female supremacy. During the Haitian crisis of 2010, the WFP  treated the

humanitarian crisis as an opportunity for social engineering with a female supremacist agenda, giving aid to women only. [5] Reports of men overwhelming guards at food and water distribution points were used to justify this, but denial of aid based on sex in a humanitarian crisis would not have produced such desperate acts from starving and dehydrated men in a country shattered by natural disaster.

Selective Criminalization of Normal Behaviour.

Individuals within the men’s rights community will already be familiar with the selective criminalization of normal human behaviour falling inside the sphere of sexual relations between men and women.

Some examples of this are the criminalization of flirting in Scotland [6], the attempted redefinition of verbal argument as battery in France [7], and continued efforts of feminism to expand the legal definition of rape to encompass normal, nonviolent male behaviour.

What’s less well understood is the increasing criminalization of normal behaviours unrelated to sex.

Dr. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University wrote about this trend in  2009 [8] citing the prosecutions of children for chewing gum, a senior citizen for allowing a hedge to grow over 2 feet, and the use of child protective services to redefine any act of parenting as criminal child abuse.

So the trend towards criminalizing non-criminal behaviour extends considerably farther than the anti-male sexual discrimination understood and discussed within the men’s rights community. The increasing criminalization of normal masculinity is connected to criminalization of other normal human’s behaviours, but understanding the connection is easier from a higher altitude viewpoint.

Primary aggressor laws and mandatory arrest laws are a by-product of the Violence Against Women Act – a set of laws authored by the current vice president of the United States, Joe Biden. Succinctly stated, primary aggressor laws are legally mandated profiling of participants in any situation where a complaint of domestic violence has been made. This is a departure from the police’s traditional role as impartial law enforcers, because regardless of the actions of individuals, arrest based on profile is apartheid, and not how police behave outside of totalitarian regimes.

The fact that arrest based on the physical profile of men as the bigger, stronger parties in a domestic violence complaint superficially benefits women, affording them fiat power over men’s freedom within any romantic relationship is only partially fully explainable by the theory of mainstream feminism as a doctrine of female supremacy and violence. That apparent female supremacy is merely a step in a longer program of social engineering.

The 2010 G-20 Toronto summit was the fourth meeting of the G-20 heads of government, in discussion of the global financial system and the world economy, which took place at the in Toronto, Ontario in July 2010.

During the G20 summit, Canadian citizens engaged in nonviolent objection to the usurpation of representative government by a few secretive banking families were encircled by body armoured and horse-mounted police (in war, these are respectively called armoured infantry and cavalry) then mauled, bludgeoned, and mowed down, captured, and interned by those armoured and mounted representatives of the central banking system.

I replaced conventional terms including “police”, “protesters” and “arrested” in the previous paragraph with more accurate terminology, because conventional labels, as used in the mainstream media serve to obscure the reality of events.

These armed and armoured banking enforcers are the same state employees who enact mandatory arrest laws and profiling (primary aggressor laws) in instances of domestic violence complaint.

Recognition of this is critical, because the established mainstreaming and ongoing incremental escalation of feminist ideology – informing the courts, the family courts, education, government and other areas of society is not an end to itself, only a tool.

Modern feminism has succeeded in creating a state of privilege for western women unmatched by any other demographic in human history.

Female privilege is easily demonstrated in women’s affirmative action programs in education, government and employment.

Female privilege is sharply visible in the discrepancy between male-weighted lifetime earning imbalance and the inconvenient fact that 65% of disposable income is spent by women. [9]

Female privilege is evident in sexually unequal sentencing within western criminal courts.

Female privilege is obvious in the contrast between the preponderance of men victimized by violent crime, and the existence of national and international anti-violence campaigns which focus almost exclusively on women.

Female privilege is illustrated by the overwhelming majority of workplace deaths being male, and the rate of male suicide which quadruples the suicide rate in women, while no mainstream media ever takes their focus off the sustained narrative of women as a class of victims.

Female privilege is demonstrated in the difference between US combat deaths of men and women in Iraq. Between the start of the war in 2003 and September 2010, 110 female service members were killed. In the same period, 4298 male service members were killed. [10] This translates to 97.5% of  killed service personnel being male. This is similar to male versus female ratio of workplace deaths in North America, with 93% of workplace deaths being male.

Feminists arguing the reverse case, that western society elevates male privilege sometimes cite the predominance of men in police work or government as evidence of patriarchal male dominance. These arguments ignore the fact that police work is dirty and dangerous, and that police are the enforcers of the largely feminist ideology dictating policies in government, courts, education and employment. Also ignored in the men-run-the-world argument is the fact that women, and not men are the majority of voters putting those mostly male elected officials into office. The most powerful and longest running monarchy in the world also happens to be governed by a queen, and not a king.

Some feminists actually argue that male soldiers who enjoy the “right” to be killed for the benefit of oil company executives and bankers constitute a demonstration of male privilege.

The reality however, is that although mainstream feminism appears to pursue a long term goal of male subjugation, this is actually just a tactic designed by the founders and funders of organized feminism divide men and women, weaken families, and impoverish the public – allowing trans-national corporations and the bankers behind them to rule without any bothersome resistance from an informed populace.

The political philosophy of neo-conservatism influencing the American Democratic and Republican parties was developed by Leo Strauss and can be summarized as the belief that the elite should use deception, religious fervour and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses. Feminism’s mythology of female oppression and practice of male subjugation has no end point, but rather than elevating women, is intended to divide men and women against each other.

Division, distraction and control.

To the banking families who actually rule this planet, you don’t exist. You are not a person, nor do you have rights, or property. You are only your credit score. You are a unit of debt. That is your purpose, and feminism is only one more tool in service of the cementing of this corrupt reality.

This is the end game facilitated by feminism and its unwitting proponents.

The vast majority of the public, including feminists as well as many who chafe in the increasing dystopia facilitated by public reality denial through the media – have no faint grasp of the depth of deception and manipulation they are subject to. And this would be a very bad, nearly hopeless situation, except for one thing.

Fortunately for us, human beings controlled by a poisonous diet of lies are weak. They make bad decisions, and react slowly and poorly to anything which challenges their constructed reality.

This is actually good news for everybody, including feminists, because under the poisonous ideology, they’re also human beings as trapped in a lie as any prisoner in a cell.

Also, the men’s rights movement is winning.

When the scale and financial resource of organized feminism is considered in contrast to the tiny, un-funded, and totally grass-roots nature of the men’s rights movement; the impact of our tiny movement is staggering. We are just finding our feet, and beginning to fight back, and already we have drawn the derision and mockery of the mainstream media.

The truth, spoken by a tiny handful of men and women is having a profound impact on the mainstream established and well financed institutions of organized feminism. The continuing, unbroken narrative of  feminism must be maintained without interruption, because a tiny dose of reality goes a long way. Attacks against the men’s rights movement have only just begun, and we should expect them to grow louder, more frequent, and more hysterical.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~ M. Ghandi


MSNBC’s Dylan Rattigan show has done something unexpected, on 18 March 2011 the show has produced a segment partially addressing central banking’s ongoing scam, perpetrated on the public, although the MSNBC hasn’t connected central banking to organized feminism yet. In spite on the incomplete story told through the MSM, this is an encouraging sign that some segment of the public is waking up and paying attention.

The financial crisis which appeared to start in October 2008, and led to the federal government transferring billions of dollars of bank debt onto the public through the bail-outs. This debt was created by allowing and encouraging lenders (banks) to issue bad risk loans, then rather than eat those loans when they failed, package them up and sell them to other financial institutions.

The packages of bad mortgages and loans sold back and forth between banks had value only as long as they remained in the trading game played by bankers, but had no real world value. When the trading game finally collapsed, the rather than letting banks pay the price of issuing bad loads, the debt was shifted to the public. The Bailouts.

Billions of dollars of bankers bad gambling debt, transferred onto you. To the elite few families who control the central banks you are not a human with rights, you’re an ATM machine. You exist to service their debt, and your credit score is your only existence in the “real” world of world leaders.

A more complete discussion of the scam perpetrated on you through the federal reserve and privately created fiat currency will be addressed in an upcoming article.

[1] http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

[2] http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html

[3] http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-status-of-women-funds-a-new-canadian-feminist-movement/

[4] http://www.suite101.com/content/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-canadas-infanticide-law-a354869

[5] home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp232415.pdf

[6] http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/18917-sexy-texting-in-scotland-punishable-by-10-year-prison-term

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6938961/France-to-criminalise-shouting-at-your-wife.html

[8] http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=112868.0

[9] http://www.womenwantmorethebook.com/press/august3.aspx

[10] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf

[11] http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/

  • http://theduststorm.blogspot.com Dusty

    This article is not conspiracy theory. It is conspiracy fact.


    • http://theduststorm.blogspot.com Dusty

      Man, I smell some downvotes! I’m getting hungry.

  • Promoman

    The aware, the wise, & the forward thinking catch ridicule because they’re the first to the party and are threats to bust the hustle.

  • Stu

    If you read all of the article above, and digest it, then think that advocating violence against those that do these things, or enable them is unjustified, then your living with rose colored glasses.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam


    • Nergal

      Exactly. If you put a fluffy baby bunny in a cage and poke it with a stick for long enough,it will bite you.

      It isn’t a good thing that it happens, but neither is the violence that provoked the attack in the first place.

      I believe,too, that the only possible outcome of all this is massive worldwide violence. Indeed, this violence has already began in the Middle East and poorer countries.

      Totalitarianism eventually kills the ones who practice it. People hate being ruled by hypocritical tyrants,it is intolerable to the human spirit.

      • Collins

        @Nergal “Totalitarianism eventually kills the ones who practice it.”

        Or, as civil-rights activist James Baldwin put it, “Time catches up with kingdoms & crushes them.”

    • codebuster

      Double-ditto. I predict the possibility that as the situation worsens, some disenfranchised men contemplating suicide just might decide to make their final act “productive”, selecting targets as they do in Muslim countries. I’m sure that all of us here hope that we never come to this. Not only because of the tragedy for all involved, but because of the harm it can do our cause.

      Prediction, again, is not advocacy. Forewarned is forearmed.

      • POD

        Quote :”Not only because of the tragedy for all involved, but because of the harm it can do our cause. ”

        Harm our cause ? Sure I am guilty of it too, but doing nothing is what is harming our cause. Keyboard warriors that we are, we haven’t got enough might to take on real oppressors of men, so we indulge in verbal warfare against feminists and their manginas on the internet, but this doesn’t help the man on the street who’s being beaten and arrested on false DV charges.

        Broken men who fight back harm our cause ? It was inaction on part of men that saw feminism grow into a powerful monster right under our very noses. Because we did NOTHING, they continued to grow and acquire undue amounts of power and zero accountability, hurting more and more men as their powers grew. There is no way non-violent protests will further our cause. A handful of aware men and even fewer supportive women do not constitute sufficient soft power (i.e , vote banks, money) to be paid attention to, and are easily defeated by government goons we call police.

        But what is the ratio of police and such government empowered goons to general population of men ? 5% ? Even 10% of armed civilian men can quell an abusive police force. That is what civil wars are about, methinks. Which government can justify employing the military against its own people ? That’s the kind they pretend to fight in the middle east and Africa …their own F-16s bombing their own people wouldn’t happen – most of them are men too, and chances are many in the military are done in feminazism as well.

        • Adi

          We must try to remember that feminism in itself has only as much power as is given to it by men. That is the only reason it accomplished anything at all. Feminism rides on the backs of men – dead or alive. Chivalry is the motivating force behind the men supporting feminism, and therefore feminism itself. And because chivalry is ‘patriarchal’ (for lack of a better term), feminism is therefore a patriarchal movement. No matter how much feminists would hate to admit it, feminism is patriarchy.

          Such contradiction seems absurd but it is quite possible. I read a fascinating article a while back calling the USA an “empire in denial”. If you can get past the US-critical tone, then by all means read it. At least it reveals a similar denial that we see in feminists concerning the patriarchal and oppressive nature of feminism.

        • Introspectre

          If you choose the wrong time to fight openly you risk giving the elite orders the social ammunition they need to utterly condemn you. Then they will launch into open violence against men with societies blessing. We want to avoid this if possible, for strategic reasons.

          • Collins

            Agreed. In 1968, when civil-rights marches in Memphis, TN, escalated into riots, the press focused on the violence itself, not the grievances that produced it. Dr M.L. King Jr, in his final speech the night before his death, said “We need to keep the issues where they are.” In 2011, the issues we face include divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, paternity fraud, & false accusations of rape & domestic violence. Getting (& keeping) the public’s attention on those issues is the key to our success.

          • Tom M

            And thus “the Internet must have a kill switch…”

            Propaganda relies on the ability to squash truthful voices.

    • Introspectre

      Power is everything to the elites. If there is enough resistance against their agenda they will become violent without a doubt. The G20 summits are a small scale example of this as is the criminalizing of male behaviors.

      If they cross the line into open militant tyranny, then a violent response becomes inevitable. Lets hope the elites aren’t this foolish.Then again the greedy have a bad habit of eventually overstepping reason and trying to take too much don’t they?

  • elvis

    The United states elite are manufacturing large masses of uneducated laborers who do not have the basic language skills to protect themselves. They are manufacturing the perpetual matriarchal underclass.
    Private schools in America have an average 50% male teachers, while public schools have an average 12% male teachers. Why isn’t the ACLU fighting for Americans rights for an education…oh whoops i forgot they got their hands full liberating the upper white middle class who have been sexually oppressed for thousands of years.

    • Fizzy

      What are you saying?

      • Collins

        I think what he’s saying is that the ACLU is on the side of the feminists. As I said in another thread, we can’t rely on the ACLU to fight for us; we must turn instead to the NCFM, if not simply to ourselves.

  • Gender-based violence

    “One of the public goals of feminism was to give women the “right” to enter the workplace, higher education, political office and other areas habituated by mostly men at the time. The public swallowed this declaration of purpose, despite the reality that women’s choices, and not exclusion, was the principal factor in the predominance of men in the fields mentioned.”

    Right-on brother.

    We hear a LOT today about women’s choices being the culprit in women’s lower annual wages in comparison to men’s, and those choices also account for women’s lower representation in the ‘stressful’ jobs such as 80hrs per week executives, board members and the like. All well and good.

    Citing women’s choices as the cause of a gender role division pre 1960s is equally smart and right, but this is the very first time I have seen it spelled out loud.

    Good work John.

    • Tom M

      Women making less only reflects the fact that men are forced to take shit jobs and more risky jobs with lots of overtime (usually not by choice) while women have choice (as in all things, take reproductive rights for one of many, many examples) to choose to work less hours, more comfy jobs and less risky jobs (to hell with being a garbage man, or dragging people out of burning buildings, etc…).

      This is much like looking at conviction stats of abuse to see which gender is most abusive. Which is also the same as saying that Jews are bad since conviction stats in Nazi Germany clearly showed Jews are the worst criminals… The fact that men are about 90% of those convicted for abuse today is only sure proof that women have a pussy pass on abuse too (Yes, there IS and excuse for abuse!) since the vast body of legit studies show women abusing and admitting to abusing partners and children more than men abuse either… Yet who gets arrested and prosecuted? Today’s new “Jews.” Their skewed anti-male stats ARE SURE PROOF of an abusive Nazi-esque system (whine about that comparison, Glenn Sacks…) when coupled with real studies which defy their numbers.

      OK, I apologize, for maligning both feminists and Nazis there, but esp apologize to the Nazis, for comparing them to how awful and similar to each other they really are by giving real examples of their rabidly fascist agendas.

  • Gender-based violence

    PS. I have always thought that womens priviledged bitch sisters were the REAL oppressors of women prior 1950s and now. It is pampered women who lacerate thier tall-poppy sisters who want to work or remain childless.

    How fucking sanctamonious that we men pick up the tab for OTHER WOMEN who do most of the oppressing of women’s initiative.

  • Gender-based violence

    “How is feminism a grass roots movement if it was funded by the Rockefeller foundation and the CIA?”

    It has been a grassroots movement at various times over the last 40 years, times whem women spontaneously organised. However it is also true that those in power have on different occasions exploited the feminist mass as you say.

    International Women’s Day is a good example of the lack of grassroots attention. IWD has almost no grassroots support or organizing from the woman on the street anymore, but is instituted wholly by governments and fist-fulls of $$ which are used to promote and entice women to take part (ie. the $$ pays for advertizing, venue rentals, food, entertainment, cosmetics gift bags, champaign, etc….. which is why women turn up to IWD events). this is all done to persuade women to swallow whatever sneaky political agenda is on offer.

    International Men’s Day on the other hand is driven wholly by grassroots interest and no money. This should tell you a lot about the underlying political forces behind these two events.

  • http://Www.cyclotronmajesty.net CM

    This is one of the best articles ive read on this site. Excellent. Well said and backed with sources. Its a gist of the MRM itself and very succienct, without loss in intelligence of ideas, or complexity of information… Very macrocosmic view without loss of microcosmic details. Well done. Id say this peice could even serve as a good introduction to our cause for those unconverted.

  • POD

    Sure feminism is a tool, but tools don’t act on their own, they are used by people with motives. And as far tools go, feminism is not a physical tool like a Deathstar that can by destroyed ; it is an ideological virus that lives inside of people, and few of those people are cured by peaceful protest (online or on the streets) and rational dialogue about the ethics and morally decadent , rather perverse objectives of the ideology that masquerades as morally superior and ethically pure, all the while doing exactly the opposite.

    No, unlike a physical tool like a gun or bomb, this can’t be disarmed , its destruction necessitates hurting the people who ceaseless advance it. WW2 was also a result of an ideology that grew extremely powerful because it went unchecked and WW2 wasn’t won by sweet-talking Hitler into accepting his ill-will, it was won by bloody fights. Expect this war to be no different.

    • Fizzy

      I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t see the necessity for violence.

      When it comes down to it, these people (feminists) are cowards without a leg to stand on. They have inertia, confidence, and the backing of men … and we all know only one of those items makes a damn bit of difference.

      The instant you start to turn the social tide these people will melt like the Wicked Witch of the east. Their “morally superior” “masquerade” will unravel, their funding will dry up. It may take a little time. But the point is, these people fundamentally have no strength. They have power because it is given to them. As John says we need to “withdraw our protection” and that’ll be the end of it.

      Now… if you want to talk about international bankers and violence in the same sentence… I’m totally down! Those people DO have real power and need to be displayed like the tyrants they are, at the end of a pitchfork.

      • POD

        They have 2 strong legs to stand on : force of government white knights and the numerous social white knights.

        ‘As John says we need to “withdraw our protection” ‘

        They already have abandoned “our protection” and have the above government white knights to protect them.

        I have debated with non-MRA men and come away disappointed, they just don’t want to wake up, government empowered white knights are such men. You can’t reason with them, they’re too brainwashed and pussy-whipped, and have enough wealth/power of their own to disregard the legal dice loaded against men – maybe in some cases they might learn the hard way when they get arse-raped by the same laws they created, but I don’t think they will awaken so easily.

        They may be alphas, but almost all alphas need betas to be productive – very few are true geniuses that gather their power/status from their own work alone (and those are what we know as betas albeit most not as rich/powerful). If betas ditch them collectively, we would win straightaway, but with the alphas having corned the most precious resources away , it’s mighty uphill.

        • Fizzy

          Reading your comment here, I’m starting to think we mostly agree. When I say “they don’t have a leg to stand on” I’m talking about true ideological feminists. Those people are pathetic cowards and are no drect threat.

          There cronies on the other hand… When it comes to the “government empowered white knights” I agree with you. They have actual power.

      • mongo

        Yeah right Fizzy, I get it.

        No violence against Feminists because they’re only as powerful as we let them be, but bankers can wear a pitchfork.

        Reminds me of: ‘child-killers? Hang ‘em high! Mothers who kill their children? It’s a tough job. They need help’.

        It’s this saving up of all your retributive bile for men only that really marks the feminine psyche – and betrays a complete lack of sincere support for men.

        • Fizzy

          I see where you’re coming from, but you’r responding to a position that isn’t mine.

          I’m not trying to give them a pass. I’m just saying they don’t have power. They’re in the pocket of power. There’s a big difference.

          • mongo

            I’m responding to a very general observation that women always look for outs for other women when they would stick the knife in if it were a man.

            You may not personally take this position, but you are no exception to the pattern either.

            Now if you would be ‘totally down’ with sticking a pitchfork through another women, that would be different. It would be so unusual as to be noteworthy. But in a lifetime of listening to women baying for blood – always male blood – I couldn’t possibly expect it of you if it’s too much for everyone else as well.

  • ProleScum

    Thank you for this article John.

    Gonna need several reads to fully digest this.

  • DrComputerGuy

    Anybody who doesn’t understand that feminism was used to rob the very citizens of this country is either a tool, or has their head buried in the sand. Great article.

  • Stu


    Yes, I to think that this will eventually end in violence. It will be distracted and channelled towards something else though. I look at the violence in the middle east as being effectively caused by feminism. There is two reasons I say this. One is because our culture is now a culture of feminism, and feminism effectively means, women do anything they want, no accountability, no responsibility, and pass off the costs of their bad decisions to men, all while owing us nothing. On top of that, they get to hate us and demonise us. You can’t think of a culture more at odds in it’s values and practices with middle eastern values and culture. But we are forcing our culture, our legal system, on to them. It’s feminist emperialism.

    The other thing is, women are the biggest consumers, and wasters in our society. 65% of disposable income is spent by women, or on women. Men produce resources, those resources are used to produce products, and those products are demanded and consumed by women mostly. Every product produced requires energy. Every plastic bottle of junk, every piece of packaging. Not only as petrolium products that are in the actual goods, but in the total energy that is expended to extract those resources, refine them, manufacture them into various goods, transport them etc etc. It’s energy, energy, energy. Not to mention the energy required to dispose of all the crap. This hyper consumerism was created by feminism, and it’s the reason we are in Iraq, and trying to maintian puppet goverments all across the world, especially the middle east.

    Where ever there is huge deposits of oil, gas etc, you will find the US there dabbling in that countries politics in coalition with most other western countries. This is exactly like in old tribal times when the hunters and warriors went out to provide and protect as best they could for the women at home. The thing is that our women don’t just require food, clothing, shelter, medical care and other things like that. Western women as a group have the highest standard of living of any group of human beings ever to walk the earth. And they aren’t going to put up with any government that tells them they have to give up anything, anything at all. We have to continue to provide every creature comfort and luxury as a basic essential or else. When geographic facts and the laws of physics assert themselves and the reality of resource depletion kick in, our spoilt western women will not accept lower standards of living. Our governments will wage all out war on whatever people we have to, to steal the resources required to keep these spoiled princesses in the style they have become accustomed too. They will blame men for it as usual. But lets face it, it’s not men that can’t accept this reality, and it’s not men the government are worried can vote them out if they don’t deliver the goods, no matter what. When the shit hits the fan the female votes will go to whoever stands up and says, I can keep the gravy train running, I can get fuel prices down, I can eleminate power restrictions and carbon taxes and all the other nasties that are stopping yhu carrying on with your wastful consuming shopping lifestyles. And there will be only one way to do that and that is more war.

    • POD

      The violence would be there, but it would be sporadic and not focused, not channeled to the real perpetrators of our problems. Like Marc Lepine and other stray men who lash out – they don’t help much because they are alone and their outburst rather token. Most men would simply drink and shoot at random strangers because the effect of brainwashing ( men must never hurt women) and chivalry hasn’t been countered – they aren’t fully aware. Such men have rage and sense the injustice done to them, but can’t pinpoint their tormentors , the real criminals, so they will perhaps loot and rob , eventually be arrested or shot by police. What is needed is organized payback. What happened in Libya/Egypt was not a fight against feminism, it was a fight against cruel government. Until men connect the dots and realize that government and feminists are in bed together, they won’t realize the true enemy, who will re-emerge some time later, unscathed. Who’s to know feminism won’t be in bed with the new government in Egypt/Libya ? Chances are, they will. Cycle repeats.

      Speaking of government : since the primary power of feminists are manginas occupying government office and corporates, who are their proxy weapons – it is they who need to be either converted to our cause ( looks impossible, given they are mostly alphas and cherish their harems ) and their guard dogs (police and injustice system) ; or they have to be taken out – out of office, out of power , out of the way, any way that they are no longer able to use force agains MRM. Tough call , eh ? 10% armed civilian men united in cause ought to be enough for a civil uprising, but my guesstimate is MRAs and aware (MGTOW) men are merely <1 % of all men. Not critical mass yet, else we would see an Egypt/Libya-like uprising in the west.

      Yes, it's our very own fault to keep women warm, dry, safe and comfortable ( or cool ,dry , safe and comfortable) – so comfortable that they didn't have much to do to kill time, so conspired against the very source of their conveniences and comforts. And this is something feminist admitted to decades ago (perhaps inadvertently, but the truth was spoken).

      But then so have we got used to modern life that it is going to be utter chaos to try to turn back the clock abruptly. We are far too dependent on energy and devices – electricity, gasoline, cars, computers , our modern world would descend to chaos without them. Adaptation to a life of basics has to be slow, and while many men do live a basic life compared to women, compared today's minimalist standards to say 200 years ago – huge difference in energy consumption.

      It would end up a lot like Japan after the tsunami : no drinkable water, no sanitation/drainage because the pumps and pipers are broken , diseases would gain hold on survivors. Human waste and carcasses would add to the spread of disease. We rely a lot on our modern infrastructure for our safety and comfort.

      • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

        I like and agree with most of what POD is saying in this and other posts.

        Lets have a look at the movie The Aviator about Howard Hughes that depicts very well the manipulating power of Government and the extensions thereto. There is corruption to high heaven revolving all about money.

        Feminism is not here by accident nor is it just about women smoking in public, having abortions, no fault divorce, unilateral abortion rights, equal pay and on and on. That is just the packaging of a much bigger hidden plan that was easily sold to greedy women. Feminism was hijacked for a purpose other than what it was originally conceptualized for. How do you control men? Tie them down with heavy burden and jail for those who resist or expose the truth about the establishment. Julian Assange is an excellent example of that.

        Anyone with half a brain knows that feminism is many things, but it is NOT about equality, it’s a deception with ulterior motives. It’s about money, power and greed. Feminism has nothing good to offer to the public as a whole.

        Feminism is about a shift of power, removal of assets including loads of cash and a doubling of the work force which provides more cash to all the establishments while giving up liberty. Every time you turn you lose some of your hard earned cash which is what Government is after. That is, your money to pay for its massive debt and out of control spending. Ever think about who the lender is we are indebted to? And that is what this is all about. Money! The rest is a story to sell the package to the average gullible citizen who is destined to be enslaved from birth.

        I speak from a position of knowledge and personal experience as I have been doing business with governments for some 30 years supplying various wares. Coin blanks to central banks, military, including CF18 fighter jet parts where I uncovered a monumental procurement scam between DND and Northrop in the late 80’s. I take substantial risk in writing this, but am finding it harder and harder to keep it under lid as I get older.

        I was young (in my early 20’s), naive and planned to expose my findings right there and then. My late friend Willard Solderberg who was deeply connected in the military for decades including teaching about handling Cobalt-45 (nuclear warhead material) after WWII, told me to bury the file as deep as I could if I wanted to live. He explained I was messing with the largest corporation in Canada, DND and Northrop, another powerful corporation in the USA. Willard told me that these guys were big boys who played for keeps. I believed him and buried the file to this day.

        To put into perspective I stood to earn and expose a $375k profit scheme in 5 days to make replacement nuts and bolts for the fighter jet which was at 1,000% profit when most corporations are happy to earn 25%! Not bad for 40 hours of work at $9,375 per hour! Have seen things that are shocking where billions of dollars are pissed away at the expense of the hard working citizen who is enslaved to pay for everything including lavish lifestyles for some.

        This is just one example that I personally know of, about corruption and manipulation of tax dollars to the benefit of certain people and corporations at the expense of the hard working tax paying citizen. There is plenty more, but wait. Someone needs to pay for this. You!

        Now back to feminism, anyone and everyone that knowingly or unknowingly is profiting from this scheme is in on it, and that includes all levels of Government, the Judicial System, Law Enforcement etc. Those who get in the way of this titanic machine or attempt to expose it, Lincoln, Kennedy more recently, Bill Bowen, Sen. Nancy Schaefer to name just some, are removed. This is a statement of fact and not a conspiracy theory. The public will only be told the truth once it means nothing to have the knowledge revealed decades later. Agent Orange or the use of LSD in the military is just two such examples of hidden truths that were denied and/or the public misled about, then later the truth revealed.

        As a consequence of this elaborate lavish scheme, men are in heavy bondage with chains attached heavier than those visibly used in slave days gone by. Women have been cleverly duped and some are only beginning to realize how badly they have been fooled and also enslaved while they believe they have been liberated. Frankly, it will be the combined forces of men that can break us free from our entrapment, the establishment knows this.

        So long as we subscribe to play the game we will continue to be trapped by it no matter what you call it to be. It is difficult, but not impossible to break free. Incidently, we should be very careful not to rely solely on the internet as our communication medium that can be turned off at the flip of a switch and thus shutting down MRA’s or it can be taxed so high that the use of it will become prohibitive Remember the establishment is there to control you any way they can so long as we let them. One must always have more than one contingency plan in order to succeed in any battle.

        You want to cut off this feminist dragon’s head? To do so, we must sever its life line and cut off the flow of our cash that keeps it alive.

  • Stu

    I was just watching a current affairs show tonight about the growing number of muslims in western countries that are pushing for sharia law. This is one the biggest and organised and aggressive threats to feminism out there, in fact, it’s the only one. They outlined how they are having much success gettting laws modified or created to further their cause. Now there are many groups forming to oppose them and counter their demands and protests. Most of the members of these groups are men.

    My message to men is, don’t oppose anything that is anti feminism. I am so fucking sick of hearing men saying shit like, the way they treat their women blah blah blah. What they should be concerned about is how our culture and legal system treats us. Send the feminists a message, and that message from me is, I ain’t doing shit to oppose any and all enemies of feminism regardless of how radical and fucked up they are until you lot have ceased to be a political and legal force in our countries and have disbanded your hate mongering organisations completely. In fact, I will fight on the side of any group, or country, or ideology that opposes you. My enemies enemy is my friend. And that’s what I’d like to see all MRA’s do. My message to the feminists is also………I have a hell of a lot less to fear from muslims, even the extreme radical ones, then I have from you. I can avoid all of the horrible things they would do to me by converting to Islam…….but you…..nothing I do will stop you hating me…..not even a sex change. So if you think the muslims are coming for you…..go fight them yourself.

    • POD

      I disagree, an enemy’s enemy is not a friend. I might have a distorted view of Islam but as I see it, feminists oppose Islam because they think it treats women terrible ( veil/burkha , limited education, etc ) , but they conveniently ignore that most Muslim men are treated a lot worse than most Muslim women, and like any social system , a handful of elites or alphas gain power over society/government/business/mosque/church and then exploit the masses – not very different in core formula as socialism , is it ? Like today’s western youth, Islamic men too are brainwashed and twisted into an aberrant reality that makes me quite sure there will be many Muslims who (assuming) after destroying feminism, will proceed with rest of western civilization.

      What was that saying : An idea is recycled in different forms at different times, but it is the same idea with the same philosophy with same results every time, just different time and different name.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      It’s the right wing feminists and chivalrous so-cons that are opposing muslims and attempting to send our men to war in the middle east. They are using left-wing victim feminist sentiments for their own political agenda.

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    Feminism is a disease that infests society with pandemic proportions that has enveloped the globe and continues to spread and ravage everyone in its path. Men are most vulnerable to suffer the most from the effects of this woman made poison.

  • Adi

    In fact, concluding from my comment above:

    Any successful anti-feminist movement must first be an anti-chivalry movement.
    We cannot get rid of feminism without getting rid of chivalry. However, if we get rid of chivalry, then feminism will get rid of itself.

    The MRA’s priority should therefore be to remove chivalry – at least from politics and law – but preferably everywhere.

    • POD

      but it ain’t happening , is it ? We call this a democratically elected government, yet the same gobermint arse-rapes us afterward. Precisely how can we remove chivalry and white knights from government (and corporates?) – I assume it would have been done had we been sufficiently large and united a group so as to exert political clout, that can only mean MRA’s are still minuscule in number to matter politically.

      All said, it sounds like a Faustian deal , to have to bargain with political candidates – votes for legal amendments. Never know if they will deliver, or forget about their promises once elected.

      • Adi

        I don’t think there has been a serious assault on chivalry yet. We’ve been concentrating on attacking feminism instead. I don’t believe that will work because chivalry is the root of the problem.

        A good start would be to expose the harm that it causes, the unjust casting of people into boxes of different values and the contradiction to equality. Most people who are chivalrous or enjoy chivalry don’t believe that it’s sexism. They think they’re doing something good. Well that is just a view and it can be changed.

      • Keyster

        There’s individual or personal chivalry, and then group or mass chivalry. Again, the personal becoming the political.

        When women as a group can be viewed as equal to men, and not a special identifiable “protected class”, chivalry will cease. Unfortunately what informs and perpetuates mass chivalry, is men’s personal experience with women; the approval he seeks and gets, galantry and the hard cold fact that she so often actually needs his help.

        • Adi

          Then men need to be educated better – in school. I mean particularly with regard to women. Young men need to learn about the real world. One example is that seeking a woman’s favor on an individual level is fine but seeking all women’s favor is a lost cause. As obvious as it seems, many men still attempt to do just that every day of their lives.
          We need a school curriculum designed specifically for heterosexual men with a course that could help them survive.

          • POD

            School ? That’s where feminist discourse and brainwashing begins.

            Chivalry at personal level is an individuals choice. By and large I don’t support it, but I wouldn’t beat down upon men who still practise it for reasonable women, but it’s forced chivalry that must go – the draft, the “women first” as in Titanic sinking.

            I don’t remember exactlywho coined the phrase , perhaps it was Zenpriest or Meikyo: “There are no feminists when the life-boats are lowered.” One small sentence, one huge revelation.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      Attacking and removing chivalry is easier to do than attacking and removing feminism. It’s already happening and it should be our first front of attack.

  • Eoghan

    They must be nervous if the mainstream media are doing a story on it. The thing about announcing it like that is that people get the impression something is being done about it and so are less likely to be motivated to revolt, this way the mainstream media can appropriate the out rage and control it.

    The book Liberal Fascism tells the story of how feminism was appropriated by the progressive eugenics movement. The early eugenics movement was also funded by Rockefeller family and we all know that Ms. Mag have been the main lobbyist for planned parenthood.

    The type of eugenics we practice is “voluntary eugenics”, but the word eugenics hasn’t been used since Hitlers excesses, so its now called “pro-choice”, which means exactly the same thing.

  • Eoghan

    Here is another book

    “The Mighty Wurlitzer” published by Harvard University Press

    “What of the patriotic volunteers? Gloria Steinem, the future feminist, has acknowledged that she worked for a CIA front, the amusingly named Independent Service for Information, whose purpose was to undermine a Soviet-bloc youth festival in Vienna. Tom Dooley, the celebrated humanitarian doctor in 1950s Vietnam, had no issues with his CIA cash, Wilford reports.”


  • scatmaster

    I am in agreement with CM this is one of the best articles ever on this site. I am not hesitant to say that it is IMO the best article. A poster above stated that if you poke a bunny with a stick it eventually will bite you. I for one have been poked with a sharp stick repeatedly over the years by the so called “tender gender” and it has taken all of my willpower not to lash out violently. My mother was a feminist before feminism was a word in society’s consciousness. She was born in the twenties and I was a victim of it from the day I was born in the late fifties. I am nearing sixty years of this hate movement poking and prodding so forgive me if one day I snap. I will not apologize for having violent thoughts. If I act upon them I will still not apologize.

  • scatmaster

    My mother was a feminist before feminism was a word in society’s consciousness.

    The word feminism replacing suffragette I believe.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    Top notch post with excellent references. Leo Strauss is actually known as the father of neo-conservatism and is not associated with the left. However, the policies and practices are much the same.

    Speaking of liars whos actions don’t fit their words. I would further elaborate that liar can be identified by selective bias in the topics they discuss and that which they avoid.

    WTF is wrong with Alex Jones? Is he so stupid not to recognize feminism or is he just another dupe?

    • Introspectre

      He could be an example of the art of hiding things in plain sight, with a few strategic obfuscations intended to prevent an effective response.

  • Stu


    Feminists don’t oppose Islam, not in any great number anyway, a few individuals that call themselves feminists is not the movement in general. Feminism is scared shitless of Islam. The practically suck up to them and try to appease them so they will leave them alone. Feminists attack men in the west and make a big hoohaa over every little thing that pisses them off about us men because we won’t do anything back. Muslim men, different story. Piss them off enough and your head will roll.

    For the record, I’m no friend of Islam. I’d be going to the stoning pits the min they took over. I’m such a infidel they probably wouldn’t even accept me converting. But the whole reason the muslims are flooding into our countries is because of feminism too. Western women put off having babies, often until it’s too late. As a result, not enough young people to do the hard work, pay the taxes that pay for the older gens pensions etc, keep the ponzi scheme going. So we import people instead of making our own. The left, which is the feminist and mangina party, is full of feminism, and PC bullshit. They have so much invested in the politically correct multi cultii bullshit, that they can’t attack Islam, they would be going against their own idealistic crap. They are hoping men will deal with the problem, riding to the rescue so they can stay safely in power, with their hands clean. I say fuck em. Islam knows it’s not going to get past a certain point without getting rid of feminism, and feminists know Islam is coming for them. Both sides practicing deception, the feminists hoping they can rely on mans chivalry to kick in, the muslims hoping they can have enough influence and power before that happens that it wont make a difference. I say let the feminists know that as far as we are concerned, the muslims can take over in preference to the feminists continued existence. It’s like….get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, or get your arse stoned to death by the muzzi hordes lol

    There is a boogy man out there, and the feminists are frightened of him, and they can’t fight him even if they had the guts. I say we use that to our advantage. In any case, men shouldn’t get side tracked into spending their time fighting external enemies whether real or not. Our biggest enemy is right here running most of our institutions and oppressing us.

    I suppose you could say my attitude is, I’m not going to do anything to support the current system, the government, the feminist culture, not matter what threats it faces, because it is my enemy, and I don’t help my enemy. Islam is not our friend, but they are our enemies enemy.

  • Patrick Henry

    Are we talking the illuminati here?

    • Introspectre

      Were talking elite orders of the super wealthy and the corporatist thinkers who seem to think of common people as serfs and believe themselves to be the only ones fit to determine humanities path, despite, (or perhaps because of), an apparent group tendency towards sociopathic behavior.

      Those who long fondly for the days of aristocracy, or, the plutocrats. Not that Alex Jones stuff about satanists and reptiles. For an example from history read Machiavelli’s The Prince it sets a precedent for the elite belief that they must coerce and control us.

      • Introspectre

        Yay, can I have some more?

  • Stu


    The MRA’s priority should therefore be to remove chivalry – at least from politics and law – but preferably everywhere.

    Yes, and no amount of talk will get rid of it. POD is right, sooner or later the streets will have to run red with blood. We are going to have to build a culture that is aggressive against men who practice chivalry. We have to make chivalry a dirty word. We need to make the word mangina worst then pedophile. The lowest form of male life, lower then the lowest thing the crawls.

    Geez you’ve got me going now POD. We’re going to have to form an anti chivarly, anti mangina squad. Anyone wan’t to donate for the million brown shirts that we’ll be needing lol

    • POD


      There is some fracture in feminist policy – they claim to stand for diversity so they must support Islam, but they also oppose most Islamic principles. Women’s groups decry the Taliban as cruel towards women (ignoring they are far worse towards men), and oppose their polygamy, divorce practices, burq and segregation policies. Most women in the west don’t want ti live under an Islamic culture, their support for Islam is superficial at best.

      The point of interest is : western white knight government will not let Islam hurt women, so it is useless to expect our one enemy to be injured and weakened by another of our enemy. What we can expect is : more draft to recruit men into the military for compulsory service and to feed the war against Islam , if Islam grows large enough to threaten domestic western populations. It will be men who are put through the war machine, not women.

      PS : what’s a brown shirt ?

      • Pankaj

        Brown shirts is a name for the early Italian Fascists.

        • Nergal

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the fascists wore black shirts and it was the SA whose shirts were brown.

          • Pankaj

            thats correct too. Don’t really know why they are also called Brown shirts, but they are!

            what do you mean by “SA”?

          • Nergal

            The Sturmabteilung,the radical group that assisted Adolf Hitler’s rise to power and was later replaced by the SS.

    • Pankaj

      Do you know that the brownshirts were high chivalrists? I thought you may have missed the irony in your unfortunate remark.

  • ProleScum

    For decades, feminists have successfully used the gender pay gap and the right to vote to evidence Men’s oppression of women and thereby move from the domination of academia to the domination of media and political discourse. These are their two strongest cards.

    The MRM has demonstrated these two axioms to be based on distortions of the truth, and I have yet to see a feminist successfully counter our rebuttal.

    I think that the impact of getting mass exposure of just these two MRM tenets would be enormous.

    Millions of ordinary people plain, straight up, >hate< feminism but know that speaking out is pointless when one or both of those cards will be played in any discussion. Take away those cards and you have a very different game.

    Our arguments are sound, our goals are clear and just. We don't need allusions to violent backlashes or Muslim masters in waiting to effect change.

    Just one man's opinion Brothers.

  • Introspectre

    Fantastic article John, and a discussion we all need to be having on a regular basis.

  • Steve

    I thought this website was ‘A Voice For Men’ not ‘A Voice For Conspiracy Theorists’.

    Try investigating for actual evidence for a change. I don’t trust feminism so I’m not going to trust other leftists like indymedia and alternet. Why do you, Paul Elam? I looked at all the links. Either they end with producing no evidence or they link to more conspiracy sites. I couldn’t even find any evidence (other than claims from conspiracy sites) that Stienem and Kissinger ever dated. Everything you said only leads back to one source, Henry Makow. I took a look at his website and I found a bunch a lunatic trash about how AIDS was created to kill gay people (with no attempt at producing evidence for this claim) and how the GMail logo looks like a Freemason apron and upside down crosses. And don’t forget how whoever is in charge is summoning DEMONS. Don’t believe me? Check it for yourself.

    Paul Elam, is this what a voice for men is all about now? I’m glad I found out now that this place is about conspiracy theory and not real anti-feminism.

    Watch as this comment gets voted down because a bunch a conspiracy theorist sycophants can’t handle the truth.

    • Pankaj

      Irony here is that Feminists and anti-feminists are conspiracy theorist groups too! For now, I do not trust that you are actually an anti-feminist, at all. Seems like another poser trying to shame people here. Good luck with that.

      • Steve

        You don’t trust that I’m anti-feminist? What difference does that make? I not making extraordinary claims unlike this article.

        • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

          WTF are you doing here?

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      A conspiracy is just surreptitious plan by a group of people, it happens all the time and we never know most of the facts. Feminism is a conspiracy, but lets try to deal with facts:

      The fact is that Gloria Steinem admitted her CIA connections in the 1950’s while she worked to destabilize communist student movements. Clay Felker also worked with her at this time but he later denied any knowledge of CIA connections.

      In the early 1960’s, Clay Felker became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women’s lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971.

      Steinem has links to Kissinger, but both of them have denied any romantic involvement. Henry Makow makes these accusations but his links to any evidence are gone.

      Interesting and well documented link:


      • Steve

        Assuming what you’re describing really happened, what does this have to do with feminism? Because the letters C, I, and A are involved? None of that shows a link between the CIA and feminism, and even with what’s left it’s one person’s word against another. It’s nothing but feminist infighting so why should any anti-feminist side with either faction in an internal feminist squabble? I don’t trust feminists so why should I trust feminists about other feminists?

        There are no facts here. There is no evidence. It’s convenient that Henry Makow links to his supposed evidence are gone. He never provides any evidence. This entire blog post could be shortened to “trust Henry Makow even though he has no evidence and believes crazy rubbish like the elite are summoning demons”. The original source for this is Henry Makow. Since he can produce no evidence for anything he says, why should I trust him?

    • Tim

      I liked the article. It is true, as far as I know, that in economics, when the labor force is doubled, the price of labor is reduced, doubly so. If the labor force were tripled, the price of labor would be reduced, triply so. And so on and so forth. Very good. In addition, the price of housing will increase, as the market presumption is a couple is working full time. I’m no economist, but to me, this is sound theory.

      Nonetheless, Henry Makow is a tad weird, and dabbles in outlandish theories. I’m not so sure he can be taken seriously. I do have empathy for him, though. He’s written a book called, ‘A long way to go for a date’. In a nutshell, the man finally moves to the Philippines to find a wife, which he does. Indeed, a very long way to go for a date. He is an interesting guy, though. I think the University of Winnipeg had him removed because he taught a course critical of feminism.

      • Steve

        If Henry Makow can’t be taken seriously, then this entire article is a bust because it hinges completely on him.

        • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

          The only thing that hinges on Makow is the relationship with Kissinger, which really doesn’t detract from the rest of the post.

          Are you disputing that Steinem was a CIA operative?

          • Steve

            I have no clue if Steinem was a CIA operative since it seems to be a case of “yes you were”, “no I wasn’t”. I can’t tell and if assumed everything that was said about it was correct, then there is no explicit or even implied connection to feminism except the idea that no one ever leaves the service of the CIA which is absurd on its face.

            Nearly all of the stuff in the post comes from Henry Makow. Just because his rubbish gets reposted on other websites doesn’t make a difference especially when it gets reposted verbatim.

          • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

            That’s bullshit, the Steinem/CIA link doesn’t come from Makow. Do some research.

        • Steve

          I see that questioning Henry Makow gets me downvoted.

    • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

      Hey Steve. What would you suggest we write as a voice for men about real anti-feminism? Perhaps we all could learn from your perspective wisdom about this subject matter. Give us a sample right here so that we may better understand your frustration. Could you also point us to places where there is real anti-feminism unlike here as you pointed out. Thanks for your help Steve and as an addendum what is your view on feminism as it affects our communities generally and the way it affects men specifically?

      • Steve

        I would suggest sticking to making claims that are backed by real evidence. Making wild claims about conspiracies with no evidence is what feminists do (such as their conspiracy theory about the patriarchy). It seemed like A Voice For Men was doing that until this article.

        Feminism happens because women believe it benefits them, not because a conspiracy of demon conjurers like Makow claims created it.

        • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

          Steinem was a CIA operative, she admitted it.

          • POD

            I’m gonna stand with Steve here. Steinem may have been a CIA operative, she may have used her CIA-endowed skills and contacts to gain influence and power to further feminism, but it doesn’t irrevocably implicate the CIA as an organization that feeds feminism. Furthermore, even if CIA did fuel feminism, what does the CIA have to do with the rise of feminism in countries far removed from CIA’s sphere of influence ?

            It is women’s flawed nature of manipulating, lying and exploiting every bit of goodwill offered to them to further their selfish ends, more than anything else. It doesn’t matter if NAWALT , just 10% of women who stoop to any depth can destroy mankind if even 50% of other 90% offer passive support – it gives them majority vote/voice.
            And many an alpha unwittingly becomes a white knight who succumbs to noisy protests hoping women will quiet down and stop nagging. Except they don’t , they put forward even more extreme demands once some men accede to women’s demands.

          • Adam

            Wait, there are really countries removed from CIA’s sphere of influence?

            They certainly have a presence in Australia between their listening station at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, the military base near Geraldton and the rest around the rest of the country.

            Neverminding the fact they can in/exfiltrate almost anyone from seemingly any country.

    • Steve

      More like they’re tools for Henry Makow.

      • Introspectre

        Being intellectually rigid and unwilling to consider the subject matter, and then castigating anyone who does, gets you downvoted.

        Btw, I don’t like Makow either, but guess what, a freak being the messenger doesn’t disqualify the possibility that conspiratorial behavior still occurs amongst the ruling class and if it were occurring, the intent would certainly be to prevent its discovery.

        Making people like you a wet dream for the elites because you wouldn’t believe or even consider it until it was too late.

        • Introspectre

          Sorry, this was responding to the above statement about being downvoted for questioning Makow. Somehow posted in the wrong spot. Sigh.

          • Introspectre

            Downvoting a simple mistake lol!

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    The idea of feminism has been around for a long, long time. but it is no coincidence that it first began to organize itself in the mid-1800’s at the height of the industrial revolution. It is also no coincidence that as labor unions gained power into the 1950’s that feminism agained popularity. The power elites needed to find cheaper labor. Putting women into the workforce increased supply and reduced cost just as you say it did.

    While femiinism was never really a grassroots movement, it didn’t really need to be manipulated either. the best “conspiracies” never really need manipulation. All the elites needed to do was give it a push forward and sit back and be ready to exploit its advances.


  • Keyster

    This is JTO taking us down the rabbit hole a little bit further. How deep you want to go is up to you. Feminism is a grand collusion of ideologies, capitalism and socio-economic justice. The recent collapse or “great recession” of 2008 is a brief culmination of this. “Fairness in Lending” propped up a booming housing market, home mortgage industry and cash rich investors anxious to park their money after the “dot bomb” bubble deflated. Republicans and Democrats alike were beeming.

    Women are a tempting target as a group because they tend to herd or think as a group. Convince them that they’re oppressed and that men are the enemy, and before you can say “Susan B. Anthony”, they’ll stridently march towards “independence” from the evil patriarchal oppressors. They’ll go to work in droves, and there’s one thing Capitalists like as much as Marxists like workers, and that’s CONSUMERS. Lots and lots of women making money and spending even more. Break up the male/husband/father headed household and you produce a whole other class of consumer; the easily swayed and not always so austere female class of buyer.

    Now that this is reaching its end, because the unintended consequence of women working was the decreased birth rates of yet more little consumers, Capitalism turns to China and anywhere else we can find more people to consume more stuff. And who funds this rising consumerist middle-class in China? WE DO! By employing them to make the stuff we buy…but on credit.

    I don’t dismiss conspiracy theorists completely, but what I’ve found more often than not is that to believe the alleged conspirators were that organized and competent to begin with, is giving most groups of people way too much credit. In other words in a complex world, sometimes shit just happens.

    • thehermit

      Thumbs up, and agree.

    • Introspectre

      True, however there are plenty of historical examples of the ruling class, (and other groups), orchestrating highly organized conspiracies against the populace. So, I wonder why so many people are so loathe to consider the possibility that the old ways continue, when signs of institutional corruption are all around us.

      Conspiracies have helped our leaders maintain power for millenia, why would it be different now. Are we so civilized and organized as to prevent it. If so, I’m not seeing it.

      • Keyster

        There’s a big difference between conspiracy and corruption. The founding fathers of the United States were conspirators. They proposed an treasonous ideology that they thought made the most sense and appealed to people. Feminists conspired to package and sell women’s oppression, in a way that appealed to women. Neither was corrupt, in that they truly believed what they were doing was right, and most people agreed. (Although now that feminism has become an industry in the face of the evidence that women are now equal, you could argue it is entrenched and therefore corrupt.)

        Not all conspiracies are bad and are not necessarily corrupt, although that might be a by-product. They don’t have to sit around a table and secretly plan things out. It’s a compelling ideology that everyone marches to; the propaganda. To see conspiracy in everything misses the fact that people like whatever it is and support it, even if it is a conspiracy, if it benefits them they don’t care.

        • Introspectre

          Agreed, and I don’t see conspiracy in every confluence of events or in every exposure of corruption.

          I would tend however, to call any machination that uses falsehoods or scapegoating to lead a society toward a conclusion not in its best interests, and with the support and assistance of the various extensions of the ruling class to be conspiratorial.

          That being said, conspiracy is neither good nor bad, just as you eluded and sometimes the relative ,”good guy’s”, must conspire as well.

          Life is far too complex for things to be all this or all that, but I think there is wisdom in realizing that, as the Who once alluded to; the new boss is the same is the old boss. Lets not get too comfortable with his games or the excuses given for them.

          • Introspectre

            Also, I still do believe in the elites as sociopaths, determined to prevent the society at large from evolving into anything they can’t control; conspiracy theory.

      • Fizzy

        This is SOOOO true. It drives me crazy: when you point out something current that you don’t trust/seems suspicious/conspiratorial people act like you’re a nut job. And yet, you can point to endless commonly known, genuine, historical conspiracies.

        I liken this situation to “miracles” (although I don’t believe in miracles). Religious people have no problem with historical miracles, but claim you saw a miracle now? Obviously you’re lying! :-)

        • Introspectre

          I don’t know if it’s just me, but I seem to remember a time in my youth, when there was an active emphasis on teaching that the old ways were gone and society is noble now and therefore, anyone who still considers conspiracy theories as having any merit must be crazy.

  • Concerned citizen

    Your analysis is correct. But SO WHAT! Many masculist writers are correct in their analysis because feminism and feminist are so easy to expose.

    You are running this site and doing a radio show. What are the other men who visit here DOING TO STOP FEMINISM?????

    • http://avoiceformen.com Tom

      “You are running this site and doing a radio show. What are the other men who visit here DOING TO STOP FEMINISM?????”

      1) Running their own MRA blogs / radio shows
      2) Publishing books: http://protectionformen.com/
      3) Posting to biased mainstream media articles and videos to provide links and resources for those who are interested in critical thinking and balanced, alternative viewpoints.
      4) Creating counter propaganda (music, video, graphics, advertisements, etc. ) that spreads the word about this site and many others that are dedicated to equal justice and fair treatment of everyone.
      5) Speaking as guests or callers on radio / television shows that are sympathetic to mens’ issues.
      6) Stopping altogether or drastically curtailing our own behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and value systems that directly or indirectly support misandry, chivalry, feminization of men or that aid, support, or enable gender feminist views and goals.
      7) Being reasonable and accountable to everyone, but especially to each other and to those that support our cause through gentlemanly debate, cogent arguments, and respect for the facts and the truth (while at the same time calling out those people who resort to invectives, argumentum ad hominem attacks, poor critical thinking and communications skills and biased viewpoints that lack reason and accountability).
      8) Using every opportunity and teachable moment to bring up mens’ issues in conversations with others to establish “mind share” — to get the general public thinking about mens’ issues and mens’ rights in a way that is distinct from the oft times biased, morally panicked and hysterical coverage in the mainstream media.
      9) Attending to our own mental, physical, and spiritual well-being (which often defies the feminist assertion that “all men are evil and must get sick, be imprisoned, and die”).
      10) Providing Monetary Support (subscribing to A Voice For Men with a monthly donation, setting bounties on posts to news articles, sending money to other worthy mens’ causes)
      11) Voting in elections and referendums where mens’ rights/issues are at stake
      12) Working on innocence projects to free falsely accused and falsely imprisoned men who are statistically most likely to be imprisoned for a false rape claim.
      13) Sometimes, in an effort to stop feminism, it’s enough to be on one’s way, to move on, and to cover ground. To listen, read, and reflect. To work on one’s self.

      … and this is the short list.

  • http://www.stuartbramhall.com Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall

    Hear, hear. I am a woman and a feminist and am really angry that the mainstream media has made Gloria Steinem the poster child for the “feminist” movement. Steinem doesn’t represent me or my issues and has only served to demonize feminism in the eyes of most of the English-speaking world.

    In my mind “women’s liberation” was basically a trick to disguise the fact that corporate employers were no longer paying a “family wage” (allowing women to stay home and focus on the important role of child rearing). The vast majority of women have never had a choice whether to work or to stay home. They have to work to supplement their husband’s wage, if they want to keep paying the rent and medical and grocery bills. The role of the women’s movement was to convince them that it was their choice to go out and work. Working class women have always seen through this – they know that it isn’t a choice – which is why they dropped out of NOW and other feminist groups in droves when Queen Bee feminists (the answer to women’s problems is more women doctors, lawyer and judges) like Steinem started running them.

    Steinem’s recruitment by the CIA (and later by the FBI) was a classic Cointelpro- style operation to create deep divisions between middle and working class women and between feminists and progressive men – a classic divide and conquer strategy.

    What’s really sick is evidence that Steinem also ran a similar strategy in civil rights groups – planting so-called “black feminists” in grassroots African American organizations to break them up (see http://rah.posterous.com/black-feminism-the-cia-and-gloria-steinem-fwd). I ran across some of these nasties in in my work to create an African American Museum in Seattle. I write about it in my recent memoir: THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE (www.stuartbramhall.com). I currently live in exile in New Zealand.

    • Snark

      You’ve posted this (or similar) in a few places in the Men’s Rights sphere. You state that your feminism is different from that of e.g. Gloria Steinem. Would you mind spelling out exactly what your feminism is, then? So that we actually know who we’re talking to.

      • POD

        Eh ? She means “her” feminism is as different from “their” feminism as a bull-shark is from a tiger-shark. Either is dangerous to other organisms, and best avoided. No offense to real sharks, they’re quite decent and harmless in comparison ;)

        • POD

          hey why down-vote me , I like sharks ! Love ‘em ! Seriously ! They’re necessary, even , unlike feminists.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      I want to echo the sentiments of Dr. Snark and reiterate his question.

      You see, the MRM, in my belief, would have a much easier go of things if there were a bridge built between so called “feminists” and MRA’s.

      But it does pose a fundamental problem since feminism is either at the root of, or, at the article states, a “tool” of most of the nefarious plans cited there.

      This is so true, in fact, that I would have to ask, with all due respect, just what makes you a feminist? And does what you call feminism even remotely resemble the ideology recognized by most of the world as such.

      Thanks in advance for your answers.

    • Keyster

      The only thing that will topple feminism is gender equality, to the letter of the law. This generation of women is already discovering from their mother’s experience and their own, that equality ain’t that great. They’d prefer not to be held to the same standards as men, but won’t complain if the standards are lowered (or “gender normalized”).

      Feminists believed weakening, subjugating and disenfranchising men, would make women feel stronger. It hasn’t worked. Women don’t like it and men are starting to reject it. That’s the zeitgeist IMHO.

      The stress of gestation and motherhood is sacrifice enough. Let men do everything else if they want to.

    • Steve

      This is a good reason to avoid conspiracy theory about feminism completely. We anti-feminists should not be a part of feminist infighting and the claims about Steinem and the CIA came from feminist infighting.

      This woman wants us to pick a side in her battle with other feminists. That does not benefit us. This woman is using conspiracy theory to provide cover for the evil that feminists have done for men. Let’s not be taken in by it.

      This woman calls herself a feminist so she should be held responsible as one and not allowed to shift the blame someplace else.

      • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

        Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t take advantage of the existing divisions within feminism? It seems like an excellent opportunity.

        I tend to agree a lot with the equity feminists like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers and Wendy McElroy.

        We should also be fully aware of government influence is past social movements as it may also happen to us.

        • Steve

          Take advantage of existing divisions within feminism? You bet. Join with one of those divisions? Absolutely not.

          To take advantage of this division within feminism you would need to go back to 1976 so that’s a non starter.

          We should also be fully aware of government influence is past social movements as it may also happen to us.

          So we now need to look for CIA operatives in the Mens Rights Movement? Any guesses who might be one (besides making jokes that I’m a CIA operative)? And if there are CIA operatives in the MRM what are they trying to do? Doesn’t this mean that Henry Makow could be one like these people think making this entire post a CIA manipulation?

          • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

            We can take advantage of divisions any time and they can join us on issues that they agree.

          • POD

            Feminists are poisonous breeds. Any who claims to have a benevolent interest in MRM should send your alarm bells ringing.

            Using feminist divisions is one thing, but let’s look back and examine if this is not a trap/sucker punch.

          • Snark

            That’s exactly why I asked her to define ‘her’ feminism.

            If she fails to define it, she is clearly not an ally.

            And if she does define it, we shall scrutinise her response, and anything we find that resembles the feminism we already know shall count against her.

  • Bombay

    A person needs to refer to the definition of feminism as reviewed in this forum. I am sure the person who wrote the article can articulate it much better, but the bottom line is that current feminism is a movement to give advantage to women. There is no denying this. Perhaps women who do not agree with this reality should not call themselves feminists or accept that is what they do….

    • http://avoiceformen.com Tom

      In other forums, such as at False Rape Society, we have talked about “gender feminists” versus “equity feminists.” If we are to make any distinctions at all, we must be able to define what feminism is to the woman who professes that she is a feminist. The power to name things is one of the most valuable and precious capacities that we have as human beings — it is as old as Genesis and Garden of Eden. But in naming, defining and describing things, we must be: clear, accurate, precise, relevant; be sufficiently deep, broad, and significant; while at the same time appeal to logic and fairness. Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about the differences between Gender Feminism and Equity Feminism in her 1992 book Who Stole Feminism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism . It is worth our while here at AVfM to see the distinction between these two branches of feminism because: 1) We won’t ever get all women to stop identifying themselves as feminists (mistakenly or intentionally) even when by our manly definition they are not feminists. 2) By making the distinction between different types of feminism, we have the potential to restore some sanity to our dealings with women (and each other) by avoiding arguments over semantics, and perhaps provide a path to a time and place where the true needs of men, women, and children can met.

      • Keyster

        The majority of western women will unabashedly claim to be a feminist, without even really knowing what a feminist is, because it’s just something you say you are to sound hip and righteous. If you’re a feminist you’re “Pro-women”. Who’d ever be against that?

        This is starting to change though as younger women see it turning-off guys they like and eventually discovering work really sucks. If you want to date cute guys DON’T say you’re a feminist…because feminism is anti-guy. Duh!

  • Stu

    I wish women who don’t beleive in misandry and female supremacy would stop calling themselves feminists. Weather you like it or not, the word feminist is defined by the actions and beliefs of it’s leaders. The people that rise to the top in the movement are feminism. I don’t give a shit what soft and fluffy ideology they claim to adhere to, or what feminism “was” supposed to be originally about. What matters is who are the leaders, icons, representing that movement now, and what actions are they taking, and what results are coming from that.

    That is feminism. Any other version only exists in peoples minds or in the past. Feminism right now is a hate movement. It’s primary means of advancing it’s agenday is hate, lies, corruption.

    There are so many women out there that call themselves feminists that wouldn’t have a clue about it’s history, it’s current agenda, or the vile personalities that are at the top of the heap. Most of these women are what I call single issue feminists. They usually have one thing, or a couple of things in their life that they give credit to feminism for, and so because of that one thing they call themselves feminist. An example of this is a woman who has an abortion. She really really wanted the abortion and felt she had to have it or her life would be miserable. She credits feminists with making abortion available…….so she’s a feminist. She doesn’t think about anything else, or know anything about feminism really. Her logic is, these people are the reason I am able to get what I needed, so they are my sisters. When in actual fact, virtually all the medical technology that makes abortions safe, or even possible, was created by men. Another example is a woman who has any job that would have been as rare as hell for a woman to have 50 years ago……a good job that is. She feels she only has this job because of feminism……..so…..she’s a feminist. When in actual fact, womans march into the workforce has been made possible by mens inventions, mens technology, education systems created by men, etc etc. Women would have been joining the workforce in greater numbers anyway, even without feminism.

    So we have all these women out there that insist on calling themselves feminists and saying that feminism is about this or that or something else. Feminism is about what feminist leaders and organisations are about, and that is mostly lying and hating.

    How about giving up your emotional attachment to the word feminism, and finding another label that describes whatever it is that you believe in.

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    All women have the benefit of feminism by default whether they want it or not. The benefits are there for the taking at the expense of everyone else.

    The social system feminism has created is extremely detrimental to the well being of any man or boy should they get caught in any a feminist web designed to trap then control and potentially destroy any man if the woman so chooses.

    Feminists didn’t create this mess overnight nor will it be corrected overnight. I believe though, the correction is well on it’s way with a lot of hard work ahead of us. There is nothing good about feminist ideology for anyone, not even women save those who are radically twisted in their thinking and have no care for anyone, but themselves.

    Feminism is a means to a lucrative racket that will not be easily given up. You want to kill this cancer, take away its nourishment, take away the money that enables its existence. Next take away all the benefits and perks exclusively designed for the benefit of women. No more privileged special treatment for women.

  • Stu

    Yes, all women can just decide to cash in on the feminist gravy train at any time. That is one hell of a recruitment tool. The ultimate in female vote buying. You can bet your arse that it’s not going to be given up. They will use every card in their stacked deck to keep their privledges. Men will be used for the muscle, it’s already that way now. And that’s the main reason I think violence will have to be used, because it will be used, and is already being used against men. The manginas and alpha thugs are the strongarm of feminism, and they have been using violence against men who don’t tow the line all along. There violence is sanctioned under the law, that’s the only difference.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    Operation Mockingbird

    This CIA operation was the infiltration of corporate media in an effort to take over major news outlets. Deborah Davis’ book, “Katharine the Great : Katharine Graham and Her Washington Post Empire,” shows that the CIA “owned” journalists of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other media outlets. A quote from Ms. Davis’ book:

    “By the early 1950´s, the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all according to a former CIA analyst.”

    The CIA admitted in 1982 that reporters on the CIA payroll had acted as case officers for field agents. Philip Graham, who published the Washington Post, ran the operation until his suicide in 1963. Graham has been quoted as saying, “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month.”

  • Pingback: production values | mainstream media | Nostradamus Future Predictions()

  • BeijaFlor

    Speaking of tools:

    The White Knight as a pawn … “Take Back The Knight!”

    (This is a PNG graphic, all MRA’s and MGTOWs are welcome to use it as you like.)


  • B.R. Merrick

    How much excellent information can be packed into one article? Outstanding.

  • chris

    Is it ok to say that in the end game, its gone so far that for the boat to be righted, there will be necessarily pressing down on women to lift men up? Or is that too mean?

  • http://sorrow-inbn.blogspot.com Anna.S

    “If you’re a woman and would prefer not to work, or to work part time at a job that provided you with personal satisfaction but not much money, too bad. Being liberated has reduced your freedom.”

    When I have kids, I would love to stay home with them until they are of school age. I don’t want them raised outside my family (or by my parents…). But that is unlikely to happen, now that I am “free” to work.

  • Ben

    John, that is an absolutely stunning article of wisdom and truth. I have never heard it put better. I also like what you pointed out last night on the show about human natural selection shaping our current cancerous male-female paradigm. That is so true (I am not really highly educated, but I do like anthropology and am convinced by what you are saying). One problem in particular that you pointed out concerning the masses screaming “CONSPIRACY THEORY” to any free thinker who points out a perceived government problem is absolutely horrifying. If there were to be a real conspiracy, such shaming language will silence nearly everyone.

  • Pingback: (Don’t) Fuck the Police « A Voice for Men()