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.
you know NWO its funny, you keep accusing us of being hateful yet wont shut up about how different boys and girls/men and women are. Yet when you look throughout history, focusing on the differences of people has caused a lot of hate, war and death. Some examples include slavery in the US, the holocaust and the conflict between the middle east and the west.
So maybe its the people who keep focusing so much on the differences in everyone who are the ones spreading the hate, not the people who focus on what we have in common.
I’m not even going to concede that civilian deaths are unfortunate unintended consequences. Looking at the whole history of warfare (and I admit I am far from an expert, so people who know more than I do, please correct me), it seems to me that civilian deaths were very often the point, or at the very least not particularly avoided. If you’re bombing a city, you’re killing civilians. If you’re raiding a village, you’re killing civilians.
I wonder, are people in the US more likely to distinguish between the two types of casualties because we don’t have recent experience in what it’s like to be a civilian in a war zone? As far as I can tell, being a civilian just means you’re less protected.
(Also, insert standard stuff about women in the military, women being particularly targeted by enemy soldiers, the massive amounts of violence against women in places where the social order has broken down [post-natural disaster, refugee camps, etc.] There is no benefit to women in encouraging war.)
Hey NWOunoppressedperson, when are you going to tell us about super-dogs?
ozy: I am acquainted with Patri… let’s just say you have a better grasp of the practical economics of it than he does (no matter how much he is trading on his grandfather’s name/rep). The amazing thing is the amount of money he’s gotten to, “research the feasible methods of establishing a functional seasteading community of freeholding citizens”.
The Underpants Gnomes have more sense.
zhinxy: I’ve heard them talking. Minimum wage laws are, so far as I can tell, one of the Evils which the Seasteads will not have. Workers can contract for whatever wage they can get. They won’t, of course, be fully-fledged citizens; that requires buying shares of the seastead.
This, we are told, is “Libertarian”. If they don’t like the way they are treated, they can leave. There is, of course, the question of how they are going to pay their way back to the mainland.
There have been discussions of indentured labor, and someone who wants to quit needing to work an extra chunk of time, dedicated to earning that ticket.
Um yea, because every child needs to learn a basic set of skills to function properly in real life. You need to learn to read, you need to learn math and you need to learn about geography, history and science. After you graduate highschool you’re free to choose what you want to be taught in college/university, if anything. Furthermore why do put so much emphasis on forcing little girls to read stories about celebrities or princesses while boys read stories about monsters? why does it bug you so much what children are reading?
Gee NWO, what do you have against all children getting a basic education and reading books of their choice that may not fit the gender binary?
One. More. Time. Slowly – The point of my saying that boys and girls should “learn the same,” is that all children are individuals with amazing and unpredictable potential, and should be given the tools for learning, which they can make use of in the way that is best for themselves. If boys and girls are different, they will naturally make different use of the tools?
Now. Where’s the hate? XD
@Quackers
Here’s 10 billion for girls education and 10 billion for boys education. If you wanna have girls play with only construction toys and read mechanical magazines, knock yourselves out. If ya wanna have them be rowdy in class or sit quitely, go for it. Any way you want. Total freedom to teach girls anything anyway you want.
Girls mature faster than boys, this is a fact. Boys catch up around puberty and equal out. Let them learn at their respective pace. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Pecunium – Interesting! Which seasteaders are these, or are there not multiple cadres anymore? I know there were some splits, but when I was paying any attention (Round 04?) they seemed much more happy-utopian, even anarcho- syndicalist.
We’ve been over this.
“Yea” is pronounced “Yay” and is a completely different word than the one you’re trying to use: “Yeah”, with an “h”.
When I was a little girl I used to play with barbies and baby dolls and a fake makeup kit. But I also used to play with a toy truck and legos. As I grew up I developed an interest in catching insects, reading/watching movies about dinosaurs (there was even a time I wanted to be a paleontologist) and I had a baseball phase.
Could it be, I dunno, possible that children have an interest in both traditionally boy interests and traditionally girl interests? and that its okay to have both?
I think I grew up fine. I’ve always been a bit of a tomboy, but I do the girly shopping/makeup thing too. I hate to cook, but if I’m in a relationship I’m gonna nurture and respect my partner so long as he is kind and respectful to me. Clearly I’m some sort of alien from some amazonian planet.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go find some snoo snoo so out me way!!!
@NWO
see zhinxy’s comment above the one of yours asking that asinine question.
I’m assuming that English is not ExploreNature’s first language, as all his comments sound like they’ve been run through Babelfish.
Going by his blog, it looks like he’s from Sri Lanka. There’s also a sidebar with a picture of a deer labeled “pictures of deer.” I can respect truth in advertising.
@zhinxy
They shouldn’t learn the “same.” Just because you want to stuff everyone into a genderless box, (we can see how well that little social experiment is working) doesn’t make it so. You’re the same person who wouldn’t allow a pink doll in the classroom lest a girl pick it up and play “mommy.” Oh horror of horrors, a girl actually wanting to do something gendered! That’s a feminist crime. Particularly since it promotes a traditional family.
What would happen if 75% of the girls actually started playing with pink dolls? You’d be seething with anger. Best to just deny all girls the opportunity to play “mommy.”
You know what I did with construction toys as a child, NWOslave? I didn’t move them around or anything. I lined them up in rows according to colour and shape, and just left them there.
People are individuals. They don’t fit into your neat little boxes.
When I was a kid I loved playing with (fake) swords and climbing trees and other tomboyish stuff, AND pretending to be Princess Leia. I’d always been under the impression that this was roughly what most children are like? Apparently in NWOs private universe they’re a bit more…predictable.
AH!, apparently a Friedman got money from the Paypal guy and is trying to make Bioshock a Randian reality! Fun. Still, I think there’s some potential in the idea for anarchists.
@NWO
Why can’t girls play with dolls but also play with boy toys?
See my comment about my awesome childhood!
Oooh I used to play farm in the backyard too 😀
See, this is why when I hear “seasteading” I think “oh, those guys – I hate those guys”. I am all too well acquainted with the Paypal guys, and me no likey.
Symbolic potential, at any rate.
Here’s 10 billion for girls education and 10 billion for boys education.
I can no longer tell what NWO is trying to promote and what he’s trying to refute. That’s exactly that Title IX does.
also why can’t boys play with Nerf guns or GI Joes but also play with dolls if they wanted to?
(my idea of children’s toys are still stuck in the 90s, sorry lol)
@Quackers
Fine and dandy. However, your playing with dolls is frowned upon as being gendered. Your playing with insects is smiled upon. Why is that? Don’t tell me it isn’t true. It’s like an instant reaction from all of you. You want to force boys to play with dolls and deny girls the opportunity to play with dolls. Why?
Nowadays all children mostly play video games as far as I can tell. No wonder NWO is so pissed off – evil gender neutral programming!
@Quackers
And there it is, seconds before my post. Why is it so important to have boys play with dolls?
. You’re the same person who wouldn’t allow a pink doll in the classroom lest a girl pick it up and play “mommy.” Oh horror of horrors, a girl actually wanting to do something gendered! That’s a feminist crime. Particularly since it promotes a traditional family.
What would happen if 75% of the girls actually started playing with pink dolls? You’d be seething with anger. Best to just deny all girls the opportunity to play “mommy.”
….
*sporfle*
MY DAUGHTER played with pink dolls, THAT I PURCHASED AT HER REQUEST. Pink was her favorite color. She loves cooking, loves physics, loves kittens, loves legos, loves nature, loves the Rolling Stones and the Hunger Games Trilogy and… What’s to scream about? She’s a human being!
I mothered her, for fuck’s sakes, what would I have against mothering play? The point is not to FORCE it on her. Jesus Christ, what kind of planet do you think I live on? LOL
the boy can play with the doll too, and nobody should call him a sissy for it!