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.
Which is why I don’t get how MRAs just twist it around and make it that women and feminists somehow benefit from war. It hurts everyone. Why cant we all just rally against selective service or war instead of arguing all the time?
Then again I have seen MRAs romanticize the masculinity of war and how it turns men into “real men” and all that. Again I have no idea what they want anymore. Make women enroll in selective service? sure. But then they’ll bitch about women distracting all the men by looking all sexy in their mud covered army fatigues.
NWOslave, you are confusing words again. You are thinking of the word sex, not gender. The word sex relates to the biological difference you are always so focused on, the word gender relates to a sociological and cultural understanding of sex. Do you understand the difference? I feel that I have explained this to you before, but I can go into further detail if you need more help understanding.
@little ducky
I do not know of this Roissy you speak of! He sounds a terrible man…..
In any case I would like to clarify that we are not feminists but women tired of of men and thier noncompliant ways!! So until the betas the alphas and yes even the little omegas bow down before us we shall not be happy!!!
Even though you deny our cause that is alright you shall recieve your twenty beta boyfriends in no time!
NWOslave makes a point of not understanding things that challenge his worldview.
@Dracula
“NWOslave makes a point of not understanding things” seems more accurate
I’ve never understood why people insist that the ones who die are the ones who suffer. I’ve always thought it was the living that had to suffer through the deaths and try and pick up their lives from that.
NWO has been pretending not to understand gender neutral pronouns practically since they were invented. He practically invented gender neutral pronouns just so he could claim to not understand them.
I have to disagree with you there Roissa because as everyone knows feminists and women are actually interchangeable words.
Oh, bless their little hearts. They’re trying so hard.
Roissa, are you sure you haven’t heard of Monsieur Heartiste? L. Roissy seems to have very similar religious beliefs, he’s like a legend… in his own mind.
oh for fuck’s sake -_-
Emma associates with this:
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2009/05/rape-is-equality.html
It says so on her first and last post on her blog.
Emma you can fuck right off. You’ve just lost all credibility and I don’t for one second believe that you actually care about learning anything about feminism when you associate yourself with someone who condones rape as a form of equality.
Where’s alphalady to deliver a lecture about low self esteem and how it leads women into bad relationships when one is actually appropriate?
I don’t even know if I’d call it bad self esteem rather than she’s just a self hating woman. Even someone with low self esteem would be able to recognize filth like him from a mile away.
There’s something very odd about women who hate other women. I’m not sure what to call it, psychologically speaking, but it’s certainly peculiar.
It is peculiar. and sad.
The more I come across people like this, these blogs etc it suddenly doesn’t seem very extreme to say that our underlying society just hates women.
I was trying to find actual legitimate studies on hypergamy (found nothing) but I did find a lovely comment literally justifying oppressing women so betas can have a chance at spreading their genes. We are not human to these people.
“Women who hate other women”, sadly, I don’t find odd. It seems pretty common; I dislike it, but it doesn’t strike me as somehow against the order of the universe. What weirds me out is “Women who hate women” or “Women who accept a fundamentally pejorative characterization of women”, where the key bit is the absence of “other”. It’s the distinction between spitting vitirol at “those whores” vs. woefully handwringing at what I, as a woman, might do to partially restrain my inherent tendency to do bad things for no good reason.
I’m not a complete stranger to self-hatred, but somehow I can’t quite wrap my head around the worm-crawling low degree of self-regard that could produce a female adherent to unmodified PUA ideas.
That’s exactly it. Not low self esteem so much as self-loathing. What could happen to a woman or girl to cause her to view herself and other people like herself as fundamentally malignant?
@CassandraSays
“Where’s alphalady to deliver a lecture about low self esteem and how it leads women into bad relationships when one is actually appropriate?”
Thinking, always thinking that one.
“There’s something very odd about women who hate other women. I’m not sure what to call it, psychologically speaking, but it’s certainly peculiar.”
I think it’s a matter of in-group/out-group dynamics mixed with a hateful personality. See racist women’s complete lack of empathy towards (or outright reveling in the misery of) women of other ethnicities.
Actually, he is against rape fundamentally, and his arguments don’t justify it. I know what his thoughts are, and I found no real evil in him (same for people who actually know him personally, unlike you). Not sure why people suggest I hate women or myself, as I don’t. All I care about is truth and justice. I have no moral attachment to any of my conclusions so far, and if I do, they are not hard to overcome in the face of evidence. And I’m with someone who treats me right, how could it mean that I hate myself? My self-esteem is proportional to my abilities and accomplishments, nothing more or less. Whoever says I don’t want to learn about feminism is wrong. I got books about it, written by feminists, so yes, the topic really does interest me.
JohhnyBB,
since you know stuff about history of how women worked, could you perhaps recommend something? You never know which history books are true and which are not anymore. You don’t have to, but i thought i might as well ask.
We’re not over this “boys and girls have totally different brains” evo-psych crap? I thought the MRA-types were into facts. Let’s have some facts, shall we?
Individual people have different brains, sure. Ask anyone who’s been an educator, or who’s written an IEP. We can recite “statistical facts” like, “More women than men go into nursing” or “more boys than girls are diagnosed with ADHD in childhood” until we’re blue in the face, but statistics can be manipulated any way we want them to be. And reciting them doesn’t give us any tools to diagnose and assess individuals’ learning strengths and weaknesses.
I happen to be a visual learner. Tested so high on spatial and rotation tests, they could test me no higher. Listening? What’s that? I don’t do that very well. My handwriting and fine motor skills aren’t great. I can slay a math problem no sweat. But I’ll probably use Cliff’s Notes for my book report. And if you ask me to really understand history the way people who are good at it do, you can forget it. But give me a design problem and I’ll solve it faster than most anyone else.
Sure, boys are falling behind girls in school. But people (some MRAs, some plain regular folks) are acting like the issue lies in the school environment. Because in the 70s and 80s and even 90s, we ran in circles through the soccer field and hollered our times tables. (Now kids sit at desks.) In the rural schools, we did tractor pulls while we diagrammed sentences. (Now, kids have to work quietly in groups.) Back then, “in the good old days,” everything was so active and hands-on, “like boys learn.” Now, everything’s at a desk, “like girls learn.” Yeah. No.
What’s changed is how learning is measured. Classrooms are overcrowded. The student-to-teacher ratio is higher than ever before, so the chance that any child gets individualized attention is lower, because they’re firing teachers at increasing rates (or not hiring them at all) to save money for the wars. And perhaps most importantly, pretty much everything a child learns has to conform to the (No Child Left Behind) assessment tests. (Thank you Bush, for creating – and thank you Obama, for enforcing!)
So if you MRA types (and regular old folks) are concerned about boys falling behind – or hell, any child with a learning style that doesn’t revolve around memorizing facts and barking them on cue (like me) – you have a couple of options:
1. You can ignore them, in which case, a few will turn out like me (and my school years pre-date NCLB!) and wind up truant, cutting, plain-old leaving school grounds, and getting into all kinds of trouble. Most will just get Cs and Ds. Many, like me, will also grow to hate school and view it as prison. But it doesn’t matter, because this option requires the least amount of effort.
2. You can put them in a private or magnet school. This requires that either a) you are rich or b) they can get into the private or magnet school. Good luck.
3. You can lobby for change. Go to parent-teacher conferences. Demand testing for your child if he or she is falling behind (or is gifted – because a lot of these kids who are falling behind are actually like I was, and are gifted and very, very bored). Don’t stop there.
Vote for your local school board. Vote for funding for education at all levels. Stop supporting Tea Party senators and governors, and other Shorters who shortchange kids.
And above all, stop flogging the idea of the “scarcity economy” being good for everyone. It’s not good for everyone. It hurts your kids first and it hurts your kids forever.
sounds like he condones it just fine.
A troll alert is in affect! I repeat, a troll alert is in effect!
You never know which history books are true and which are not anymore. You don’t have to, but i thought i might as well ask.
You are aware that history is not like calculus or trig, right? There is often no objective truth. Aside from key events and dates, much of the study of history is not “if a, then b.” History is a series of events, dates, statistics, anecdotes, and above all, perspectives and interpretations that have been compiled, studied, and translated throughout time. Individual historians frequently bring their own perspectives and interpretations to the material they present and write about.
“True history” and “false history” is political spin. If you only want that, seek your nearest cable news channel. If you are just looking for a historical book of feminist philosophy with a particular slant – or the Cliffs Notes of same – that’s another matter.
In all seriousness, Emma, how stupid do you think people are that they would actually believe that your buddy in Norway doesn’t condone rape?
Unless of course you’re simply trolling, in which case, bored now.
He condoned it, but didn’t justify it. The whole argument was that if we will have forced equality, we will have it in every way, both in favor or men and women. That is, if there is legal affirmative action for women, there should be legal affirmative action for men, which happens to be sex. Fundamentally he’s against all forced equality, both affirmative action and legal rape. The condoning part comes from a different angle. In his view, stopping various injusticed against men couldn’t be solved in a peaceful democratic manner, violence should be used. I don’t really agree with that, and I think he moved on from that idea since then, although as an argument against forced equality, it still works. So he never justified rape, which is wrong, even if you’re “pressured” into it by society.