Sunday, November 25, 2012

The return of Factory

MRM: It is not for the spineless

As the Men’s Movement grows, both in size and in social awareness, there has been a similar growth in the calls for moderation, for a publicly palatable presentation of men’s issues. Nearly universally, these calls come from those who are new to the movement, or of a Socialist ideological bent. And there is good reason for this commonality, the same reason why following this approach is foolhardy.

Men are controlled in society primarily through the use of the stick, rather than the carrot. Anyone with a Y chromosome growing up in the political West is familiar with the concepts, if not particularly aware of them:

  • Get a good job, or you won’t get a quality woman. Break your back every day to ensure she can sit on her ass if she chooses to, and do so while also taking on half of the household responsibilities. Don’t even think about making less than last year. Man Up motherfucker!

  • Your sexual desires are dirty, disgusting, sexist and Patriarchal. You should be ashamed of yourself for being attracted to a woman based on her looks. That’s objectification! Your natural impulses are oppressive, evil, ‘sick’, or even violent, and they should be suppressed at all costs. You should never judge a woman for her sexuality or sexual history. Anything she chose to do was her right to do as a woman. If you ever engage in sexual activity that is not 100% enthusiastically consented to – in the Legal sense – then you are a dirty rapist scumbag. No, you do not get to know what ‘consent in the Legal sense’ actually means. Stop whining about ‘fairness’. No one ever said life was fair. Now get back to twisting yourself in knots trying to live up to these expectations, or you’ll never find True Happiness.

  • Of course we provide extra incentive and help to designated groups. They start from a position of dis-empowerment and need a little more to make up for it. No, we don’t apply this same principle in all cases, because some designated groups are more designated than others, if you know what I mean. Men, for example, and more specifically white men, make up almost all of the world’s richest elite (we only count the elites that have a job title, but don’t bother with that), so while there are some disadvantaged white males, as a group they still have privilege. So we can’t help them – it wouldn’t be fair. What’s that? You think actual need is more important than serving political ends? What are you, some kind of sexist bigot?

    I’m sure you get the picture. One thing that seems to be a common thread among these social narratives is the acceptance of men, by women, for sexual relations. That, in essence, is the stick being used to beat men with. And it’s an obviously powerful one given that all the narratives outlined above, especially the Grand Kahuna narrative (female sex objects, male success objects), which is shamelessly hypocritical, yet widely supported.

    This is cognitive dissonance on a massive scale, and in my view is akin to a deeply held and dogmatic religious belief shared by an overwhelming majority of a society, infecting nearly all of its power structures. So, how does one fight this sort of entity?

    The key to winning this fight is a bit of guerrilla tactics, combined with a multi-pronged approach. And like any tactic designed around using the enemy’s strength against them, our best approach is to make criticism of our goals an open admission of hypocrisy on theirs. In short, as is the case with nearly the best method of attacking them is to use their own projections against them.

  • “Patriarchy Theory” is nothing more than women’s dependency and chosen lack of agency projected onto men. Ditto for women’s “oppression”

  • “Rape Culture” is nothing more than women’s narcissistic fantasy of sexual irresistibility projected onto men;

  • “The Wage Gap” is women’s collective frustration with their inability and/or unwillingness to compete in high paying professions, projected on to men;

  • “The Glass Ceiling” is an imaginary barrier erected by women as an excuse to fail;

  • “Hate Speech,” is the ultimate feminist projection, rooted in their denial and inability to logically counter criticism and dissent;

  • “Feminism” is infantilizing misogyny, an ideology that sees women as incompetent and weak, and assists them in targeting male scapegoats for their failures.

  • Obviously, the minds that swallow feminist bullshit are damaged in some way, are they not? Or perhaps you think they are merely misinformed, and once they learn the truth they will fight for what’s right?

    There’s a problem in this kind of thinking. Actually, two. First, women tend to get their ‘facts’ from what is called ‘Social Proofing’. Basically, a popularity contest for ideas or actions. If a lot of other women like it, then it must be good.

    The other problem is the male compulsion to please females. Rather, the distortion of the compulsion to attract females.

    This leads to a startlingly simple to state strategy, sure to be far harder to implement than it may seem:

    Make women feel ‘unpopular’, or ‘unattractive’, when engaging in undesired behaviors…but do it in a way that makes them want to fuck you. And anyone who knows anything about women will tell you, one naturally leads to the other. This is not “Game.” It is sexual politics on a personal level.

    I don’t think I need to go into basic Sexual Marketplace ideas here, but it should be obvious that the Rebellious persona is a hell of a lot more compelling than the Conciliator persona. All feminist babble and bullshit aside, ‘damn the torpedoes’ attitude is far more attractive to women than a soft, respectful tone will ever be. And any woman will tell you, when a man asks for permission he loses her respect to some degree, when he ‘takes charge’, on the other hand….

    Regardless, any examination of the history of the men’s movement should, by now, reveal two things to you. One, moderation is patently ineffective. Two, aggressive and uncompromising and corrective assertion of the truth, with total indifference to who it offends, works.

    It works so well that they have started to foster their own undoing with violence in the street. We need to stay directly in their faces, and disabuse ourselves of the myth that a lot of women are not turned on by it. For a lot of them, it soaks their panties. You don’t have to even care about that to find it useful.

    Source:click here

    Here is the that peaceful,loving attitude from feminists that Factory was talking about:

    It's good to see Factory back and discussing a subject I've brought up numerous times in the past. We are in agreement that a moderate voice accomplishes nothing and we've gone great guns using the militancy. Some have asked Why the militancy? and I believe I've answered that question. We're fighting the good fight and we have to keep it up if we're going to win.

    1 comment:

    Bob said...

    This is an excellent article. Talking nice to feminism FAILED more than a century ago for E. Belfort Bax, and his generation. It failed when feminists demanded suffrage and has failed every year since. Moderation against feminism is, was, and will be capitulation to feminist victory. I have personally been booted from several faux "MRM" web sites for posting opinions supporting men rather than pandering to females. Those voices for "moderation" are working against men. Females fuck for manly men, not for pansies and wusses that allow themselves to be manipulated by her.

    Quibble: Female shit is "Cowshit." Calling her feminist crap "bullshit" blames men for everything bad, even female bad.