Over on the always repugnant In Mala Fide, a guest blogger by the name of What is To Be Done recently offered his comrades in the “anti-establishment / man/ biorealist / HBD/ reactionary / racist / patriarch / tradcon / whatever blogosphere” what he evidently sees as a revolutionary suggestion: instead of trying to fight the evil feminists with “well-reasoned arguments,” why not simply set up fake feminist blogs, and post shit on them to make feminists looks bad?
WITBD explained:
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a saboteur. We are naturally smarter than the feminists (in fact, objectively better in every conceivable way), and in addition, we are well-trained in deception by our studies of game. In other words, it’ll be a piece of cake for us to mimic their arguments and appear to them as really smart girls who really know their shit.
Really? Because no one I’ve ever run across in the manosphere has managed to pull off a particularly convincing impersonation of a really smart anything. And in order to effectively parody something, you have to actually understand it first. Given some of the truly odd things MRAs and manospherians believe about feminism and feminists – see my post on Operation Alimony yesterday for one recent example — I’m somehow thinking that the only people dumb enough to be fooled by these “false-flag-feminist” blogs will be other, yep, MRAs and manosphereians.
Nonetheless, WITBD claimed that’s he’s already started putting his little plan into action:
I have already begun false flag blogging myself. At this stage, giving the link would ruin the whole thing. But it’s out there. And “false flag blogging” returned only 87 results, of which only a few actually seemed to discuss what I’m talking about, so for the time being it seems nobody is watching out for it. Not that they’d be able to tell anyway.
His fantasies got more and more extravagant:
Think long term. The endgame is to build a big enough presence that coming out as a fake feminist generates buzz in and of itself. Imagine if it came out that the founder of Feministing was actually a men’s rights activist.
And that he could fly, and shoot lasers from his eyes! Imagination is fun!
(Note: The founder of Feministing is not actually an MRA, or a man. Nor can she fly or shoot lasers from her eyes.)
WITBD continued fantasizing:
Eventually, our false flag bloggers will coordinate with our legitimate bloggers and have “debates” where both sides are controlled by us.
And where the only people paying attention are you guys.
If you feel you are getting really good at this, attack some prominent feminists for not being feminist enough. I don’t even know what that would mean, but, hey, this is feminism. Nonsense is our bread and butter.
Wheels within wheels!
Some on In Mala Fide thought this was a dandy idea. Frost wrote:
Fuck yeah. Awesome post. …
[W]e need to get bold and creative with how we fight the war for the best minds in the western world. False flag blogging is a wide-open front. Especially if you’re new to writing and aren’t yet confident in your voice – and unless you have written many thousands of words already, the truth is your writing is probably going to suck – a false-flag blog would be a great way to hone your skills while only having to actually write at the level of typical mid-twenties gender studies grad student.
Here’s a post of mine that sadly didn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s one of my own personal favourites:
http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2011/08/an-open-letter-to-the-manginas-of-the-internet/
I submitted it to The Good Men project, Manboobz, and a few other Mangina sites as a guest post, but sadly no one bit. These people are just so easy to parody, it’s ridiculous.
Regular Man Boobz readers may have a rather different assessment of how effective his parody was.
Others on In Mala Fide were a bit more skeptical of the “false-flag” idea. As out-and-proud racist thwak put it:
It sounds like a good idea, but it won’t work. Its been tried by white people on counter racism forums and they always got busted. We used to call it the “nigger impersonation syndrome”.
A white person would sign up with a name like “Jamal” and speak ebonics… but they always got busted cause at some point they hafta come out of “nigger cloak” to practice racism; i.e, say and/or do something a black person would not say/do.
Sure, they have the option of coming on the discussion board and pretending to be a full time nigger, but how does that advance the racist agenda? …
The “black White Supremacist” stuck out like a nun in a whore house everytime.
And got busted everytime.
Gosh, it’s almost as if black people are actual human beings and not just racist caricatures. And that real black people can somehow magically spot the difference between other real black people and racist assholes posting in “ebonics.”
Huh. Could the same happen with feminists?
In a followup post, WITBD dismissed the critics as uncreative cowards. And it turns out that fake blogs are only the starting point in his grand plan.
The fact is we are not the alt-right. We are the new left. We are the oppressed proles … They are the establishment. We lost “our” country. They control it all now. We have blogs. And a handful of churches and seasteading. Sucks.
Now it’s time to move on. We have to take these pieces of shit down and that means we must use leftist tactics. This kind of blogging operation is the beginning of a long march to infiltrate and undermine their institutions.
Sounds like someone has been reading Mao’s Little Red Book!
Playing around? Real men fight to win, period. We fight feminism specifically because it’s the weak point of liberalism. Read your Sun Tzu. Attacking the entire rainbow coalition at once is madness. You always attack the enemy where he is weakest.
And the weakest links are the ladies, naturally.
[N]ot all women actually benefit from feminism. They may think they win at first, but we know full well that feminist sex and the city-type women lose big time: no kids, no committed alpha, no nothing. Most women don’t benefit, and many women are recognizing this.
Right now among women, feminism is high status and actually being feminine is low status. But all women instinctively want to actually be feminine, and they have better life results when they do. We all know about how to manipulate women’s idea of status. This should be easy to work out.
If we take out or marginally disrupt feminism, and pull lots of white women out of the coalition, it crumbles in short order.
Oh no! Not the white women! Don’t take the white women!
High-IQ thundercunts are major war engines of the regime, and especially the childless ones. They actually run the agencies, corporations, HR departments, universities, etc. Without them, the enemy has a harder time operating. As well, white women are blatantly used as bait to recruit minority men into liberal groups.
Anti-feminism is something that we know well … and it is something that the other elements of the liberal coalition actually somewhat agree with us on because its not like the blacks, Mexicans, Arabs etc. are keen on empowering their women. All men of all races have common ground in dealing with the unique female brand of bullshit and thus are potential sympathizers on this issue.
So this is his grand plan: for racist white dudes like him (and much of In Mala Fide’s readership) to build a sort of antifeminist rainbow coalition with “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc” … in order to take down feminism … in order to weaken liberalism … in order to screw over the “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc.”
Yeah, that’s totally gonna work.
MRA, thought you were taking a vacation. I’m kind of over you and your issues. Stop trying to excuse your crap behavior by saying you were posting in haste.
@Ami: Well, boats are referred to as “she.”
Thing is, MRAL, writing in haste is like speaking while drunk – what you say tends to be what you actually think. And you need to learn that lashing out at women because you feel insecure is not acceptable, and that if you keep doing it there will be negative consequences.
(In this case that would be your losing a lot of the goodwill that people had been extending to you since you decided to stop trolling.)
I’m hugely impressed you know the names of not one, but at least two teams of rugger buggers from Sydney, Ami – many people in Melbourne would be hard pressed to name that many, since rugby is a northern state thing, not a southern state thing. (Our north vs. south thing never ended up involving a civil war.)
Rabbitohs is apparently from a hawker’s cry. And the disparaging (and homophobic) name for the Manly team is to call them the Manly Fairies – since there are harbour ferries which take you up from Sydney Cove out to Manly Beach.
‘White men are sometimes denied a job because of affirmative action, jobs they individually deserved. I think it’s a necessary evil, though.
And hey, these days, white college-bound women can also join the complaining chorus. Hugo certainly has.’
Hugo and those college-bound women have some cause to complain.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/pro-male_affirmative_action.html
‘a growing number of colleges are holding male and female applicants to different standards to inflate the number of male students.’
‘One might expect feminists to be outraged about universities systematically favoring less qualified men over higher-achieving women’
But then I’ve already covered my distaste for affirmative action on this site. Denying more qualified higher achieving candidates spots at universities in order to atificially inflate the number of a chosen social group is as MRAL says evil, I do not think it is necessary.
Going back to the poster who thinks women are protected in war. This is utter bullshit, and always has been although in modern times civilian casualties have been on the rise. For example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rise-un
Those numbers rarely include things like rape and assaults from soldiers. Hell, rape of “enemy women” was been considered a soldier’s perk by many civilizations.
@MRAL: So if a white man loses a job opportunity to another white man, which is what usually happens, then is that wrong?
What “everybody knows” is usually fucking stereotypically wrong: have some Myths about Affirmative Action”>
Ullere, how are we to define “higher achieving?” – Grades? Creativity? Recommendations from others? – Merit is wonderful, but how do we define it, ah, there’s the rub? If you’re going to call something evil, tell me what good would look like first.
“What if the trustees of the university believe they can attract more and/or higher-quality students if they can claim they are more diverse? What if the trustees simply want to help out historically-disadvantaged minorities? What is wrong with wanting to give a leg up to minorities? What is irrational about wanting to work with, employ, or service one’s own kind? Any of these can be reasons for employing affirmative action.
Affirmative action by universities is not irrational. It is simply the exercise of authority over property rights. The problem with public schools is that they exist, not that how they decide to control the property that they have, given that they do exist.”
– http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html
So I’m not sure where to put this, and it’s kinda out of left field, but has anyone seen the new My Strength is Not for Hurting anti-rape ads targeting men?
Here is the link: http://www.mystrength.org/
It’s a really awesome campaign, and seems to be better than most anti-rape campaigns I’ve seen
Another link of how women cheerlead men into war while eating bonbons:
http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml
And yes, not all civilians are women, obviously, but the figures refute the idea that only soldiers (always male in the MRAiverse) are at risk.
@Emma:
Actually, it IS bad arrangement, and I find it a bit baffling that you characterize a homemaker’s loss of employability (and thus, options) as a benefit to her. The more realistic way to characterize this is that this is a benefit to the husband, who gains leverage as leaving becomes more and more difficult for the wife. Becoming less employable, or unemployable, is not a perk; it’s just another handicap a homemaker undergoes, and that too, has monetary value.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. You are saying it’s not fair to make the husband pay alimony to a former housewife, but it’s fair to make the taxpayers pay it? How? At the very least, the ex-husband got something out of the marriage — some sex, a hot meal, an ironed shirt. What did I, the taxpayer, get? How is it more fair to make me bear the cost of someone else’s homemaking than the ex-husband?
You also ignore the fact that a woman staying at home may be a mutual decision or primarily the husband’s decision, made for his convenience. I am sorry, but in a society that still shames women as “selfish” if they don’t eagerly jump to flush their aspirations, dreams and decades of hard work down the toilet in order to make steak, do laundry, and keep the children from being a nuisance to their father, it is quite unfair to characterize a woman’s sacrifice for her family, that will screw her over 30 years hence, as a choice she “freely made”, because, duh, equal rights; that because women have equal legal rights, it is her decision to be a homemaker even when it isn’t.
Right, women don’t go to war — unless they do. My grandmother was drafted to fight in World War II at the age of 16. In combat. She went through three years of absolute hell. Later, she was denied a veteran’s status and pension on the ground that she was drafted underage and her very real military service was treated as a nullity. All of her female friends had been drafted too, and they too, were given a big fuck-you at the end of it all. Her best friend was captured by the Germans and tortured to death; the girl’s family was denied benefits on the ground that their daughter’s drafting was “improper”. But men who were drafted underage all got their benefits and credit. So there — it’s not that women don’t go to war; it’s that women don’t get any credit when they do.
Again — unless they aren’t. Just a few days ago, we had a discussion here about epidurals in child birth and the shocking way in which the medical establishment and to a great extent, the general public, are STILL pushing against women having pain relief in child birth — even when it is perfectly safe for the baby. And as it is unthinkable to deny pain relief to a patient in any other situation, this has everything to do with child birth being an exclusively female “problem” and the popular perception that women must be taught a lesson in responsibility by making the experience as painful and degrading as possible.
And this is just one example of women being “protected” from having a life that doesn’t suck. For all the talk of “protection”, it is either (1) mostly symbolic; or (2) protection that boils down to treating a woman as a child or a mentally handicapped person, safeguarding her from the awful danger of making her own decisions in life. Fuck that kind of protection.
As for the whole slavery bit — so what? If women aren’t formally slaves under the patriarchy, then the dehumanization that women suffer under the patriarchy doesn’t matter? Even if women cannot not be bought and sold quite as easily as formal slaves, the fact remains that many of the narratives used to defend the patriarchy sound eerily similar to the narratives used to defend slavery.
I can think of many ways in which women’s situation would be different if they really were slaves. And I’m not saying their situation is optimal (I wouldn’t go for it), but it’s not pure slavery. Or maybe it is, in the same sense that men’s situation is slavery because they have to go to military and sometimes get killed in wars.en it is
Grinner said:
Huh. Given that this is a thread about MRAs pretending to be feminists, that the only people I’ve ever seen discussing this particular ad campaign have been MRAs, forgive me for being a tad skeptical about your comment.
But, hey, let’s assume for a moment that your comment is sincere. Just why do you think this is an awesome campaign?
Affirmative action for years at high status universities: legacies.
you get in because your parents got in because their parents got in and so on.
Face it, the whining going on because affirmative action for white middle class men is no longer maintained by law and practice is…….downright hilarious.
In fact, married men with children tend to be higher paid (the “marriage premium” for men tends to be something like 10-15%). I’d speculate that it could be societal prejudices (family men are seen as more dependable or more deserving of a raise or a promotion) or the added benefit of a stay-at-home mom who acts as a personal assistant. Either way, men with stay-at-home-wives tend to make more money because of their stay-at-home wives.
Which further confuses the whole men-make-money-but-women-earn-pretty-clothes-so-we’re-cool-right? argument.
from the link I posted
‘Ideally, colleges should be free to set policies as they see fit, and be rewarded or punished in a marketplace that takes into account a wide variety of factors, from prestige to quality of campus life to actual transmission of knowledge and skills. Concerns about taxpayer support being distributed through a process that considers attributes like race and sex (rather than affording true equal treatment) seems a good reason to get government out of the business of funding colleges, rather than limit how colleges make their selections.’
But then I’m pretty into free market economics, I’m not against individual colleges choosing to increase the numbers of men/women/any group in order to do better business. Presumably the business should be either monetary of amount of credited work driven. Either way will encourage the just end result of the people who will do best in life and university getting the spot.
Also this
‘Young men’s inability to compete on a level playing field with women should also invite consideration of other policy reforms. To start, let’s recognize that government programs predicated on the idea of women as “short-changed” by the education system have long since been overtaken by reality. Our government’s obsessive interest in enforcing a de facto quota system in the name of Title IX — but only in areas where men still outnumber women, like sports and math and science programs — is entirely inappropriate.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/pro-male_affirmative_action.html#ixzz1iRxOvoRN
‘
personal anecdote as to why I support alimony in some cases (which does not have to be specific with regard to sex):
My mom quit college when she married my dad. She worked fulltime to put him through graduate school and his doctorate work. SHE invested real money; he didn’t have to work a job (other than when they both went back to HER parents’ farm to work summers on the harvest). (His parents cut him off).
HER parents paid for downpayments on house “they” bought.
The services she provided over their years of marriage would have cost him a mint if he’d had to pay for somebody to do all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, house maintenance, figure the taxes, do the investing, sewing, maintaining cars, and a host of other things–I know because single male faculty then paid women to do a bunch of that (with all the crap of women never worked outside the home, the trolls ignore all the women who did housework for lousy pay for well off families and single men).
He dumps her for grad students; judge does require alimony even though no-fault divorce was in then. And in some later cases, the partner who put a significant amount of money into paying for spouse’s postgraduate or medical degree or whatever is often awarded some portion of income/retirement–and I only wish my mom had been able to get that.
A SHITLOAD of women in my mother’s generation worked crap jobs for husbands to get the professional degrees to make for a better economic foundation for the family, and then were dumped.
Even if I hadn’t decided before then that I wasn’t marrying, that would have done it. That system was built on exploiting women’s labor and services and energy and creativity, and telling them it was their ‘natural’ destiny. Screw that.
Feminism is not for women, it is not based on actual femininity. That is why feminism teaches women to give up their natural femininity. Feminism is based on gender hypocrisy and heterosexual poisoned mindset of the hypocrites and nothing more.
@ithiliana ‘Face it, the whining going on because affirmative action for white middle class men is no longer maintained by law and practice is…….downright hilarious.’
I’m not sure your comment is directed at me, but yes, affirmative action for white middle class men is indeed maintained by both law and practice in the USA according to the link I posted, and yes I do find it to be a terrible pratice, saying so shouldn’t be minimised as whining.
You’re a parody of MRAs, right? Please?
Ullere – But then I’m pretty into free market economics, I’m not against individual colleges choosing to increase the numbers of men/women/any group in order to do better business. Presumably the business should be either monetary of amount of credited work driven. Either way will encourage the just end result of the people who will do best in life and university getting the spot.
…
Well, I’m completely into free market economics, and how do we judge who will do “best in life” and/or a university? (Often. Very. Different. Things, no?) There’s really not a concrete way to tell.
(A larger problem is that too many jobs require “a degree” these days, and the costs of such are astronomical, to say nothing of the horrors that is so-called “public” k-12.) But again, what is the “Evil?” in affirmative action? Why should even a “private” college be profit oriented at all? That’s not demanded in a free market either. If somebody endows in their will to educate ONLY lazy redheads who don’t show much interest, that’s not wrong, is it?
@Explore Nature
Inconceivable!!!!
Explore Nature should explore elsewhere. We’ve heard this before. -10 for originality.
I’m assuming that English is not ExploreNature’s first language, as all his comments sound like they’ve been run through Babelfish.
I hate “heterosexual poisoned mindset of the hypocrites,” that stuff is terrible! It’s a kind of snack food, yes?
Why can’t explore nature go scuba diving? Why is explore nature here?