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.
” That is, if there is legal affirmative action for women, there should be legal affirmative action for men, which happens to be sex. ”
If you wish to associate with people deranged enough to think that way, be my guest, but it can and will affect people’s perceptions of you and willingness to take you seriously.
Your friend is a repulsive excuse for a human being.
I’ll be nice and give Emma the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she didn’t see the link
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2009/05/rape-is-equality.html
Actually I’m so nice that I actually went back to the fuckers blog and in addition to his actual post, a comment where he says it himself that he condones rape:
Deny it now and you’re either a troll, have severe issues or both.
condone and justify mean the same thing, look it up in the thesaurus
“You are aware that history is not like calculus or trig, right? There is often no objective truth.”
Then how exactly do you pick the right one? Do you just pick the one that sounds better, or..? This is all very confusing. I guess I will stick with history with minimal interpretation, just like the way I look at studies.
(sorry about the second comment,forgot to include this)
and men do not lose from affirmative action. This was discussed earlier on holy fuck. Everyone who bitches about it are a bunch of pissy white men who feel like they are ENTITLED TO JOBS OVER EVERYONE ELSE.
I think that “rape is affirmative action for men” may be the best quote yet as far as demonstrating to people who’re not familiar with MRAs just how batshit they are.
Go try it on a conservative sort of dude, your Dad for example, and see how he reacts.
My thesaurus doesn’t say they are the same… When I type in condone, I get: excuse, forgive, pardon, remit. It’s something you realize is morally wrong, but you allow it under the circumstances. Justifying something means saying it’s morally right (thesaurus words: maintain, argue, assert, claim) . Lets not argue about what the thesaurus says though, as I know for sure Eivind doesn’t think of rape as morally right. I talk to him every day, unlike people who skim through his stuff and conclude all sorts of things. Just like you concluded that I hate myself, women, and have low self-esteem.
What does it even matter what the word is, or even if he thinks it’s morally right or not. He condones rape, that’s bad enough doncha think?
Goodnight Trolly the Troll. I hope David bans your ass.
Emma, in a blog post on EB’s site (this one) he says that he was close to going on a killing spree if it weren’t for you becoming his girlfriend. That’s a really scary thing to say. I hope you understand that that’s scary. What would happen if you tried to leave him for whatever reason? Would he become violent? You don’t have to respond to this if you don’t want to, because I am honestly afraid for you and don’t want to get you into trouble, but I hope you think about that some.
This whole thing is starting to remind me of those situations where women write letters to convicted murders and think they’re in love with them. There’s a whole psychological profile behind it, so I know that Emma probably won’t listen, but hey, it’s worth a shot.
Get away from that man, Emma. Someone who contemplated killing sprees and thinks that rape is a valid form of political expression is not mentally or emotionally healthy. At some point he’s going to snap, and you don’t want to be around when that happens. I know you probably think that you’re special and that he would never hurt you, but it’s not a good idea to bet on that.
Whew, got through the whole thread, didn’t follow a word of it. So, here’s some wittering.
Heeler doggie in a hat is cute!
A milko delivers milk, a garbo empties bins, a rabbito sells rabbits for meat, door-to-door, like what Xanthe said.
I’m an accidental fan of Geelong Cats (if they still exist?) ‘cos when we were kids Dad bought us footie jumpers at the markets in Melbourne in whatever colours appealed to him 🙂
And I turn 42 in a few hours time. That’s twice as good as 21!
Emma, your boyfriend hates women and condones violence, you sound young but you need to know that your relationship will end badly.
Oh, and hunting pinks are red.
Happy birthday, Magpie!
I read the whole thing in diagonal (7 pages! Why do people keep talking while I’m away from the computer! Hem.), but Emma is Berge’s girlfriend?
BTW, I do know if anybody noticed, but she also posted here:
http://manboobz.com/2011/12/28/is-reddit-nothing-more-than-a-collection-of-rape-jokes-and-pedophilia-apologias/comment-page-6/#comment-106779
Anyway, it’s really cool that the OP is about MRAs deciding to troll feminists by pretending to be feminist and we suddenly get “roissa” going all “sure we disagree, but I’m a woman, so I can’t be completely wrong, amirite sistaz?” then bullshit about alphas, betas and omegas. Plus the avatar, that show just the breasts. Maybe she wanted to protect her anonymity?
Unless roissa is a parody of a MRA trying to parody us? Then it’s a good one.
MESSAGE TO MRAs: there is no need to create fake extreme feminists. We have that already and you’re only ridiculing yourself a bit more.
Oh, I found the animal to represent MRAs. It’s called the Pigbutt Worm or ‘flying buttocks’. It’s both a worm AND it resembles the rear-end of a pig. It fits on multiple levels!
Wrt Emma’s post on pedophilia in the other thread, maybe she is positioning herself as a possible girlfriend for NWOslave???
How about leeches? I AM ENTITLED TO ALPHA BLOOD!
I’m just thrilled with the idea of traditionally oppressed and marginalized groups having legal rights against employment discrimination being tantamount to “forced equality”. Also, how the fact that I work in a male-dominated profession means men should go out and rape women. By contrast to “forced equality”, when you have voluntary oppression, with perfectly voluntary and legally sanctioned rape, all is right with the world. I also get a kick out of the notion, implied by the whole “forced equality” schtick, that only the feelings of white dudes should ever matter.
When Emma started commenting and said she was the girlfriend of Eivind Berge, many people believed she was not real and that she a sock-puppet of him. But maybe she want to become the Karla Homolka of Norway.
Oh, it’s okay guys, he’s only condoning rape! That’s so much better!
Get out and don’t come back, Emma.
Well, why stop there? People with naturally more confidence probably find it easier to get sex than people lacking such confidence. People without such confidence should be able to rape those with confidence! /so much sarcasm
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.
And the reason those schools you mentioned are trying to engage in gender balancing is just that. They choose to accept money which has strings attached. The people who give them that money have things they want to see done.
If the schools don’t want the strings, they don’t have to take the money, which is the market at work.
Emma: I missed this; mostly because I was skimming what is a tired argument about the value of women’s work, and why something the law values when a non-spouse does it; room and board are limited as to the amount of cash they can replace in the compensation of a domestic employee… but for some reason when it’s a spouse, 100 percent becomes allowed: even when the workload is higher than for someone whom one is paying cash to would tolerate.
But, back to the thing I missed:
I object to women being used as slaves, I just don’t think they are necessarily slaves under the patriarchy. They don’t go to war, for example.
Bullshit. My unit, when we deployed to Iraq, had lots of women in it. About 20 percent women (yes, my specialty has lots of women, no it’s not medical).
And what Amused said, women in war aren’t new; just ignored, e.g. what you did there; dismissing the women who are serving in war zones at this very minute, in uniform, and at risk.
They aren’t any more protected, in fact they are; because they are denied the right to be in combat units, not members of the units with the most firepower, or practice at using it, and so are in units which don’t have the means to give as much back when attacked (Jessica Lynch… who; whatever may have been done to propagandise her situation, was in combat)..
So no, this is, root and branch, nonsense, and evil nonsense. It discounts women’s work, not because it is less worthy, but because they are women, and worse because they are wives.
NWO, you lying sack: There’s difference between civilian deaths and military deaths. Civilians deaths are unintended. Military deaths are men either forced to kill and die, or do so to protect the civilians, (women and children).
One word Dresden
In 1941 Charles Portal of the British Air Staff advocated that entire cities and towns should be bombed. Portal claimed that this would quickly bring about the collapse of civilian morale in Germany. Air Marshall Arthur Harris agreed and when he became head of RAF Bomber Command in February 1942, he introduced a policy of area bombing (known in Germany as terror bombing) where entire cities and towns were targeted.
One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation of firestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.
In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm in the medieval city of Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was now far greater than the normal 650,000 due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army.
On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims.
How about The Rape of Nanking.
My Lai?
What about Falluja, where we told the populace we were going to level the place, and then decided; in advance, that anyone left was therefore a combatant: while refusing to let certain categories of people (any male above a certain age) to leave.
Then again, one could read the Illiad, where a big part of warfare was going to towns, tearing up the place, destroying shit, killing the people; after raping the women. Attacking civilians has never really been off limits; it’s usually been the entire point of the exercise.