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.
David, is Emma Alphalady? I honestly got them confused.
Also, two-spirits: Neat! I’d never heard of those before.
Katz, that image is beautiful.
sorry that should be do children sleep with their parents
I know, disgusting analogy but its true. In the past and even still in other places in the world, wives are the only ones who trade sex for shelter, food and “allowance” and it’s regarded as normal.
“I welcome any explanations on what exactly it is that I don’t understand, and how pressure to do something makes your choice unfree. I will listen.”
Well, to start with, there is this whole bit where you seem to think being pressured to do something and being free to do something are the same thing. We might be here a while…
And it’s from the clearly excellent blog “Hitler Getting Punched.”
Taft punk ftw!
“Hitler Getting Punched.”
I have yet to see this blog, but it has already won a special place in my heart.
I’m thinking that we may find many uses for the Freedom Pigeon’s special skills.
Emma: Let’s see, where to start…OK, here’s a scene from Misery. The pertinent bit starts at 2:10.
As you can see, Paul burns the manuscript himself. Would you say that he is choosing freely? After all, Annie doesn’t force him to burn it–she merely pressures him. By dousing him in lighter fluid.
Ashley, is that you???
Holy cow! SHE REALLY IS REAL! :O
random6x7,
That is true. I know I must have sounded mean when I indirectly said that people who can’t make free choices are weak. It wasn’t supposed to be an insult, it was supposed to be an encouragement to be more responsible about your life and capable of making your own decisions. Because in general, you won’t be protected against yourself, nor should you be, unless you want a situation where you aren’t even taken seriously anymore, since nothing you do is of free will anyway. Precisely the patronizing situation you don’t want.
My point was that if you decide to marry and we all decide to scrutinize you, try to decide whether your choice was really free or not, and then try to decide (based on your unfreedom) whether the husband should pay alimony after you divorce him and leave on your own accord, then we put responsibility for YOU onto another adult person, and we can’t have that. Purely academically, it’s true that our choices are not truly free. But how you handle that is something we can decide on. And I just happen to think that people should have responsibility for their decisions, instead of displacing them on other people (who are not any more free).
Plus if you argue no one makes free choices, then we might as well let everyone out of prison.
So where do you draw the line for responsibility?
Ashley, is that you???
I was halfway wondering something along those lines. Emma the Emo seems to have a certain similarity in outlook to Brandon the Bozo.
Jill, you’re brilliant.
“And just a note on this women wanting to be men garbage. Women realized that masculine traits were the key to economic and social freedom, and that they are considered more important.”
And also, yes, some women* want to be men**. So?
* Or, female-assigned-at-birth.
** And/or something that would round to “men” in the eyes of people who are very attached to rigid gender roles.
“As you can see, Paul burns the manuscript himself. Would you say that he is choosing freely? After all, Annie doesn’t force him to burn it–she merely pressures him. By dousing him in lighter fluid”
Of course he is forced! That’s a threat of death or severe maiming. Didn’t you read what I said? I define free choices as those that are made when you have all the needed legal rights, aren’t subjected to violence and aren’t subjected to threats.
Gee, that’s simple! I can’t believe no one has ever thought of that before!
Jill, you’ve made my night.
Jesus, that’s not pressure. Does the typical husband douse his future wife with lighter fluid and thus makes her marry him? I thought you guys had an objection of women feeling pressured into being homemakers by culture and society, not threats of being set on fire.
Okay, then… how DO you define “pressure”? Anything short of maiming?
@Molly: If only she hadn’t doused him with lighter fluid…that was absolutely the only threat on him.
Emma, it’s not necessarily just the husband who would put pressure onto a woman to stay at home. Alimony is not about punishing him for that. Women do face pressures from the society as a whole to be the homemaker, and there is still a persistent idea that women who work instead of taking care of their families are selfish. It’s all very well and good to say that people need to take responsibility for their choices, but I personally think that’s used to deflect criticism of the status quo more often than not.
You ask how far I would take the fact that people cannot make truly free choices: judging an individual and understanding a phenomenon are two separate things. We’re talking about why women as a whole may choose to stay at home and how alimony is or is not fair. Individual decisions have to be understood within the context of a society that retains a certain amount of the old “women belong in the home” idea, but that context does not make every woman’s choice inevitable. It’s like with shaving. I wouldn’t shave my legs if I lived in the vast majority of human history. That I do now is a personal choice, sure, but it’s one made in a society where shaved legs were a) a possibility and b) more desirable in women.
And I don’t know if anyone’s addressed this, but you had said that room and board were adequate pay for housespouses, and that the working person wouldn’t support a nanny or a cook. Actually, the working person, if they hired a nanny or a cook, would in fact support them. If they hired their support staff legally, they would be expected to pay at least minimum wage, and, for highly qualified help, it would certainly be at least a living wage. Room, board, and occasional pocket money is not usually considered adequate pay for people who are past the interning stage of their careers.
I think I’ve missed something. I’d heard of the “My Strength”/”Men Can Stop Rape” campaign before, but I haven’t looked into it super-closely. I’m not sure why people think Grinner is a failed-undercover-MRA for suggesting it? What’s the issue with it? When I checked it out briefly I thought it was quite refreshing to see a rape-prevention program focusing on potential perpetrators instead of the potential victims. What’d I miss? D:
Didn’t really wanna go there, but Emma also claims to be Eivind Berge’s girlfriend. I feel like ignoring is a really great, possibly underexplored policy.
“Why are you here Emma? I do not get the trolls that come here and on other feminists websites. We are NOT going to see eye to eye. I don’t troll MRA/PUA websites telling them why they’re wrong and idiots. They’ll tear you apart with some of the most degrading insults out there (at least people here try to engage in proper debate first) Just go away already.”
Actually, I’m not a troll. I went here because I thought it was possible to talk to feminist-minded people and see if I can find something I can agree with. I’m not a troll and never intended to be one. I’m not here to insult anyone, and I don’t believe I called anyone names yet. I haven’t tried to “tear anyone apart”. I even asked one commenter what exactly he/she experienced that was so pressuring in their life. Because I really want to know new points of view. But if a point of view doesn’t make logical sense, I will ask more questions or point that out. Is it ok to do that here? And I know people on Roissy can be really mean and insulted me greatly with a wide variety of words before (I just wasn’t very insulted, that’s all. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you). But still, I managed to have some great conversations there and even learned a lot. I’m sorry about this “weak” comment, perhaps I shouldn’t have used that. But if we decide that people have responsibility for their actions, we gotta draw the line somewhere.
“Do wives sleep with their husbands for some money AND shelter? yes. It’s DEGRADING”
Yes, if they really don’t like him and they are only doing it for survival. Wouldn’t argue with you there. But if they had other options, then choosing this one out of all the others means they take the consequences of their actions.
@Bee: Well, there’s a Google search I wish I’d never made.