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.
@Nobinayamu
Excellent! Now it’s not so bad they were castrated. And of course the poor women in power were slaves as well. What’s next? The castrated boys were oppressing the women in power?
I’m gonna be a hipster feminist and say I was totally using Kyriarchy before it was cool as soon as I read my first Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza book back in the DAY, man. Recently arrived! Sure! If you’re one of those posers! *dances to vinyl feminist records*
Hey NWO: ANSWER MY QUESTION, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.
Goddamn, the time it takes me to drive there and back and read the whole damn comic, and and he can’t even come up with some bullshit response?
NWO – HOW WERE CONCUBINES WOMEN IN POWER. EXPLAIN THIS.
Why not just say those women in power were vile swine?
If ya can’t do that, you’re no better, in many ways worse than those women.
I’m outta here.
I know, I know. Stick the flounce.
PS. if you want a crazy ass woman in power who used her seductiving to stir up some shit, look at the sadly neglected tale of Franks and Brunhilda. God damn, Brunhilda! You a crazy female! :p
She was initially spurred to action by a murdered sister, but the sister probably did something to get it…
Zhinxy, while castration for musical purposes was horribly inhumane (especially considering the rates of success for young singers were just as bad as they are now – imagine having your balls cut off, then never making it), but on the bright side the prevelance of castrati in heroic opera roles lead to some delightful queer juxtapositions now that women play castrati roles. You get an audience full of opera fans, who tend to be oldish and conservative, watching two women fight over the love of a third woman in drag (like in Alcina). I kind of love it.
But before NWO steps in and accuses me of….something based on my appreciation of this bit of irony, let me confirm once and for all that I hate men and want them all to be castrated. Yep, I’m just like Katherine Heigl in that video about neutering pets.
Also I’m convinced they were giving Justin Bieber Lupron to delay puberty and keep his voice from breaking.
Actually, they were. Women in harems were economically privileged, but they were not by any means “in power”. They did not have authority over eunuchs — quite the opposite, eunuchs had authority over them. Eunuchs were usually allowed to beat concubines for misbehavior, withhold food, separate them from their children, confine them to their quarters, etc. Concubines had no right to do this to eunuchs. Eunuchs also acted as liaisons between the harem and the male power world. There are many instances in which eunuchs held official positions of power within governments that were extremely high. Women enjoyed no such privilege.
Zhinxy, while castration for musical purposes was horribly inhumane (especially considering the rates of success for young singers were just as bad as they are now – imagine having your balls cut off, then never making it), but on the bright side the prevelance of castrati in heroic opera roles lead to some delightful queer juxtapositions now that women play castrati roles. You get an audience full of opera fans, who tend to be oldish and conservative, watching two women fight over the love of a third woman in drag (like in Alcina). I kind of love it.
…
Very true. Silk purse! Shiny silk purse! With sequins!
People are arguing about the gender of Nutella? This I want to see!
MollyRen – “People are arguing about the gender of Nutella? This I want to see!”
ME TOO ME TOO!
NWOslave, perhaps you missed my last post, and my previous posts on this subject, because you still seem to be confusing the words gender and sex. The word sex refers to biological difference, the word gender relates to the sociological and cultural understanding of sex. A person is a sex, a person preforms a gender. Gender is part of society and culture, sex is biologically determined. Examining your reproductive system can tell you what you sex is. If you wish to be understood you can help achieve that goal by using the correct terminology to express your thoughts. You keep using the word gender but describing characteristics that are covered by the word sex.
I have noted your reluctance to do research suggested by the commenters here, so I offer to get further information on this subject for you if you still do not understand. Do you need further information to understand this distinction, or have you grasped the difference between the words sex and gender at last?
“Why not just say those women in power were vile swine?
If ya can’t do that, you’re no better, in many ways worse than those women”
YOU NEED TO PROVE THOSE WOMEN WERE IN POWER. RIGHT NOW YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. BASICALLY, IMAGINARY WOMEN.
I may or may not be better than imaginary women. FIRST PROVIDE PROOF THEY EXIST.
No, don’t stick the flounce. Come back with some fucking evidence.
Well, there’s a letdown I saw coming from a mile away.
…And the comic wasn’t even that good either.
NWO’s picking up his ball and going home.
Yesterday I made the appt to neuter my male cat. We shall also, perhaps, find out the dominant sex for surgery purposes, if necessary, of what genuinely appears to be my Intersex cat. Who we love and appreciate, just as zie is. ;). Hopefully, my male cat’s castration and my intersex (?) cats existence can both combine to piss NWO off in some fashion.
I can’t believe I missed something this deliciously ironic!
“@Quackers
“and men do not lose from affirmative action. This was discussed earlier on holy fuck.”
Yes they do. I already debunked that load of crap. Two feminists yammering citing nothing but their own yammerings. The proof was words falling from their mouths.”
NWO tried to pull a Citation Needed!!! I can’t stop laughing!
No, you fucking moron, it was terrible that they were castrated. But both the eunuchs and the concubines were servants/slaves and subjects to the nobleman in charge. Concubines weren’t “in power” any more than…
Forget it. It’s been explained already by zhinxy and Amused. Countless others would explain it and it won’t matter because you’re a fucking imbecile and too lazy to do the two minutes of research it would take to understand how harems actually worked.
You’re a moron, NWO. Congratulations.
@zhinxy
“Yeah, that had nothign to do with the elite men and their property. But go on, tell us more about China! (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!)”
This is your response.
Elite men and their property are to blame. Women are blameless.
LOL.
…
Yes, that IS my response. But it just doesn’t mean what you say it does, and you can’t make it mean that by repeating it back to me.
I said “yeah, that had nothing to do with elite men and their property” (And by property, I meant both the women and the eunuchs, who both suffered, so that would be men’s suffering too…). Nothing to do with, even sarcastically, (especially successful) doesn’t mean ALL to do with. And again, context matters. I didn’t say that out of the blue. I said it as a response to you putting the blame on women castrating men to be playthings.
Context matters, words mean things, and you can’t just declare what a person said, even if it’s what you think they meant. I simply didn’t say what you’re saying I said. Quoting me doesn’t prove anything, but that you have serious issues with the English language. (Much less history).
Seriously, you need to go back and get a grip on some major concepts in a lot of areas.
, (especially successful)
especially sarcastically, I meant. Duh.
I looked up the Russian world war 2 casualties, it seems about 20 million men died, compared to 6 million women. Deaths of women are no joke, but so far the information is consistent with reports of man shortage right after the war. It takes into account famine and disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
I AM doing my own research. But it can only get me that far. There are millions of books out there and sometimes it’s not obvious where to start on history, for example. I don’t know any feminists in real life, but I have to communicate with some. Reading books is not really enough to understand people. You don’t have to give me any links or recommend anything, but I never viewed it as a hard task and do it when I’m asked. I’m not asking you to retell the whole history here. You know, when asked for directions on the street, I don’t tell people to go to hell, I give them directions. If you want to bet that I won’t look into any of this, name the amount of money. I save everything I’m given.
Ithiliana,
You want me to summarize what I read about feminism? It will be too long, so I will just say some of them are for equality of result, some are for equality of opportunity; some put more emphasis on differences between the sexes and some put more emphasis on the sameness. There are many types of feminism out there (liberal, radical, socialistic, care feminism), but the main tendency seems to be that patriarchy is when women are oppressed because they are women and men got to exploit them. Marx’s ideas had a large role to play in the development of feminism. As for names, I can name a few. Wollstonecraft (liberal feminism, my favorite), John Rawls (not too bad either), Alexandra Kollontai (feminist/communist with fun free love ideas), Judith Butler (haven’t really gotten her, poststructuralists appear to be divorced from reality so far). I guess I can say that feminism started out good, gave women rights they didn’t have before, but some directions of it are too crazy for me.
And what’s the objection to me using thesaurus? I was asked to look into it by another commenter.
I’m not racist. Norwegian people are kinda racist (for a reason or not, I don’t really know), and ageist. I don’t think Russians are too popular here, neither are people over 35 (my mom happens to be both, and she didn’t get a job here, despite how good she was in Russia). I’m just not for affirmative action for anyone.
About alimony. If you decided to marry (no threats, violence, lies or lack of rights), and then marriage “went to hell”, then the husband, IMO, should only pay if the marriage went to hell due to something he did (something like being abusive, bullying, cheating, not fulfilling his marriage duties that are expected of him). If she chose to marry and be a housewife, and then chose to leave, why should he pay for her choices? Why should he continue fulfilling some of his marriage duties after she no longer does any of hers? If she DID do some, I would understand.
And I see someone took issue with me saying that putting out on demand is being nice and caring. Damn right, it is! It’s about making your partner happy. And if you’re with the right partner, you won’t have to worry about them being demanding jerks. Sex is rather important in a relationship, so refusing it too often indeed means you are not nice and caring (unless you have valid reasons like illness).
@Fatman to NWO: Do you need further information to understand this distinction, or have you grasped the difference between the words sex and gender at last?
Ooh, I know the answer *waving hands in air*.
NWO will NOT grasp the difference; he has never grasped it; he is incapable of grasping it; he will DIE not grasping it.
But it’s not the fault of your presentation of information! Look how he manages to NOTGRASP points made by Pecunium, Zhinxy, Amused and others!
At this point, I’d begin worrying about ME if he seemed to grasp anything I’d said…..
I’m going to get sick of saying “NWOS is right”, because I am, but he’s right. In languages which are more heavily inflected than English (which is very lightly inflected and which is going the way of Chinese) nouns (light “lightbulb” or “table”) can have gender. This is recognized by means of the definite article and often in other ways. In Spanish, nouns have gender (either masculine or feminine), which is why the definite article in Spanish is twofold (either “el” or “la”). El libro, la reata. In English, nouns have no gender, so the definite article in English is just “the”. This is not complicated, nor is it all that interesting, and I have no idea why NWOS has chosen to make an issue of it, let alone a mystery. But this is one of the ways in which NWOS is like the Almighty: his ways are beyond human ken.
This is merely a linguistic convention (which doesn’t apply to all languages, only some) and it has nothing to do with anything other than itself. Nobody anywhere thinks otherwise. There’s no real way in which a book is male or a rope female. German nouns have three genders, not just two (the German definite article is “der”, “die”, or “das”) and the German word which signifies “the girl” (“das Mädchen”) is neuter. Well, there’s no real way in which a German girl is a neuter, and I defy the most politically tetchy among us to make the case that there is. As a matter of fact I defy NWOS…never mind.
So, still having no notion why NWOS brought this bit of trivia up, I prepare to sign off. The best motivation I can come up with on his part is that it’s more NWOS obscurantism, an effort to muddy the waters so as to escape under cover of darkness (as an octopus will squirt ink when confronted with danger). This is my attempt to clear a cloudy pool. Everybody have a super day, and ciao.
Emma, if you’re still around, sex is an activity. It’s not a resource. Suggesting that women “own” or “control” sex is like saying other people “own” and “control” pick-up basketball games, and I’m owed pick-up basketball games at a certain rate and with a certain quality of basketball player, but other basketball players have inflated senses of their own worth and thus choose to play basketball with people out of their basketball league instead of playing it with me, and affirmative action for pick-up basketball enthusiasts should be forcing other people to play with them. Not that I would justify that. I just condone it.