Milo vs. Roosh

Two of the more controversial figures in the greater field of anti-feminism conservatives all too easily distance themselves from for ideological and religious reasons. Perhaps that distancing is not entirely of political or ideological necessity in my view but rather could have none too hidden economic motivations.

Ideologues of all sorts tend to dismiss these iconoclastic thought leaders.

Of course the religious considerations are important; however distinguishing modern religious propaganda from historical propaganda to include that purveyed by The Church is tricky! The wisdom of Solomon would be required to separate such concerns from economic, utopian, and power considerations. After each of us die, perhaps such motivations can be extracted by historians. However, good luck in the modern age framing that narrative dispassionately.

Part of the appeal to me of these two characters, Milo and Roosh, is their “outsider” status. As an “outsider” or iconoclast myself I’m prone to identify with them. That does not mean that I believe that the views of outsiders are necessarily objective or benign. We all have “self-interest” at our core to perhaps include interest in future generations, nations,  humanity itself, and even “God’s Plan”. There are also “useful idiots” and “good intentions”. The heart or soul tends to reveal itself over time to intimates. The camera, in the era of “crisis actors” is not a reliable witness. Neither is the human eye.

Only God sees the entire picture, hence the belittling of Theists by all those who are burdened with the disability of Paranumerophobia: Fear of irrational numbers.

As a treatment for this affliction, I recommend a course of study in Calculus, and if I may, I shall say a prayer of thanks to my maternal Grandfather and Grandmother for all the tools provided me of both rational and irrational nature by that Calculus professor (and Swiss immigrant Freemason!) and renegade late-marrying (in secret!) math teacher, respectfully.

However I do not hold them forth as archetypal idols worthy of emulation but rather very human iconoclasts in an era burdened by both The Great Depression and the debut of the magic big screen parade of Idolatry.

Speaking of Idolatry, in my view this is a problem which magnifies with State-mandated monotheism, by sheer volatility, rather than being effectively discouraged by it, regardless of how thick may be the burkha placed upon the mesmerizing figure or ban on graven images. Archetypal facets of the human condition are always going to be personified whether by myth or media, subject to the interpretation of the particular culture or age. The Greeks knew this and so do the Hindis. Camille Paglia, mysteriously  “Jewish” like Italian American Catholic Philadelphian Transsexual (FtM in her mind) that she may be, figured this out.

These Deities or Celebrities tend to have particular magnetic appeal to children regardless of whether one’s house of worship contains images of human forms, or actual humans.

Denying the poor access to such a powerful physical force in the way of Dieties by way of the senses does not diminish such a force. Television, in a vacuum of Religious Dieties may have too much power. In the case of all the monotheistic religions, in my view, visual deprivation of “Dieties” (except perhaps the dour, suffering, and chaste) propounds the scourge of child rape, whether by heterosexual or homosexual mien. It further provides energy to the cause of violent assault of infidel, whether sexually or not a.k.a. Jihad.

Visual (or any other sense!) assault by pornography or mere advertising is not an improvement over censorship when imposed over a broad array of geography or culture such as is found in Globalism. Given that we have little in the way of independent States rights, thanks to Federalism, various international trade and military pacts, and porous borders, it would seem to me to be within the rights of any small community to impose their own local standards of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of the public sphere as concerns idolatry, celebrity, pornography, and advertising.

However, having a mayor of London who admittedly hails from a regressive religion such as Islam impose such “community standards” offends me. He can pander to Feminists and Christian Churchians all he wants but I have to say that temptation is most pernicious when it is soft and mild.

Speaking of idolatry, there is a certain cigar bar around here which contains an image of Thomas Edison with a low-tech graphic alteration of a picture of a cigar taped to the photo. I love to sit in a certain chair and just stare up at him. I think that photo is sexy! I’d love to stand up and do a little strip tease for the man however I suspect that will get me thrown out of the cigar bar.

That said, my ideological heart is with Nicola Tesla even if I do not find his visage quite as hypnotic. His name however I find appealing and exotic even though I have to wonder about the long term trade protectionism objectives of having an entirely different standard of electrical power in the United States (along with a history of strange plumbing fixtures, etc.) as opposed to the rest of the world. That might sound like an off-beat segue but let’s say that my mind works in mysterious ways not entirely within my control.

Speaking of placating, pandering supposedly “secular” Islamists, I find myself increasingly suspicious of the sheer volume of obviously “Semitic” figures appearing in the public sphere as concerns actors, activists, talking heads, politicians, etc., even in the case of those who would appear to be singularly vilified; because:

Every crowd has a silver lining.

Every Crowd Has a Silver Lining

It may be entirely my feminine irrational sense of intuition, but, given a choice of salons in which to converse, smoke, or drink, headed by any of the live human celebrities mentioned or intimated in this piece, I would choose that of Milo Yiannopolis myself.

I’ll keep reading Roosh and Return of Kings because I believe I have the ability to filter out what may be stealth Islam conversion methods. I’m just going to put that out there. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or anything but is he the best that the Americas can do in terms of a Masculinist icon? How about one with perhaps just a little less of the Islamic beard? Hmmmm?


Demographic Destiny

Inspired by: Down on The Duke

When I was a schoolgirl, all of my classes were overfilled, and even some school buildings were warehousing children somewhat above fire code capacity with a rueful nod by civic authorities, pending the erection of trailers and outbuildings. This state of overcrowding was the case at each one of my schools, within the nine different school systems that I attended, but especially at the more “elite” ones.

However, given that I was “gifted,” rules were bent for me as well. The rule at some schools requiring children born in November to enroll with the students of the following year was also bent engendering in me a propensity for Calendar Math failure that persists to this day. I’m never sure which year was what or whether I should pretend to be an age-fudger except when such over-exaggerates my sexual precociousness (and makes statutory criminals out of my mentors).

Given that I was relatively privileged, I cannot even begin to blame “the man” for the school overcrowding state of affairs.

The frequent moves were due to my father’s career inability to make a viable career decision that did not offend my mother’s sensibilities. My mother’s sensibilities were as overdeveloped as that of a baby kangaroo, except she was never required to creep up a pouch all by herself. We all did that for her.

I have to thank Jim Goad here for introducing me to the term, “Sensitivity Creep,” no doubt a cousin of “Concept Creep“.

However, no one could possibly be more sensitive than my mother. Not even today. Fortunately, an over-inflated medical and pharmaceutical bubble steps in where I fail to shelter her.

School overcrowding in my case was due to too many children born the same year I was, which, unsurprisingly, did not mean that there were immigration restrictions. Some of my fellow students were immigrants.

Why would it be surprising that fitting too many people into an environment would create psychosis? Not to the partnership of the mental health and pharmaceutical interests of course. Is there a moral distinction between medicating a person out of his/her/its individuality and euthanasia? If not, why?

Is the “moral” law being bent civic or religious?

How about the Fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics?


The Treatment

There are two Bellagios, as far as I know. The Han took me to both of them. At the first, we drank fine vodka, which brought back memories of a nice Russian man.

I wish that I had loved him. He was so handsome, with a nice beach house, and fancy car equipped with a lovely vintage cell phone. He had such a charming and dashing air and was involved in a business I’ve always enjoyed, namely, importing and exporting, especially when I am the commodity being shipped.

I felt like such an idiot when I screwed up at a party he took me to and someone asked me which fabric swatch I preferred. Can I help what I like and don’t like? However, the Russian didn’t mind because he had been acclimated to much worse behavior from my predecessor. Public tantrums to be specific. That’s not my thing, but if that’s our thing, then have your people call my people and they can screech all through your lunch like hyenas.

Mostly, he imported Russian vodka and condoms. He wanted so much to treat me to the first but not to the second. However, since I did not love him, I just liked him a lot, I selected both options.

Silly me. There have been a fair number of Russian men in my life, even before I started using “Caprizchka”. I think I have a thing for them. Or maybe their thing has a thing for me. I’m never sure.

My Russian magician’s story appeared to have a very happy ending because the girl who he ended up with after me seemed to be perfect for him. I was so happy for them both especially after having known the woman who had preceded me, and who ruined every man she touched, or so it appeared.

She touched a lot of men. I don’t even know if she is still around. I’m afraid to even say her name. What a toxic person she was.

One of the men who she touched was my first Master. I should just leave this story at that because I have great sympathy for him today, particularly after my dealings with a woman one degree of separation from Carlos Castaneda. The two men had a lot in common and so did the two toxic women.

Besides, I am only now just starting to forgive him, my Master that is. It would seem that he had a harem far larger than he was capable of either managing or protecting, and this made other men very angry. Anger does not help these situations. Neither does one woman going around damaging men left and right like some sort of ghost in the machine. Naturally, she put me in her cross-hairs as well in terms of psychotic behavior. However, she was a fine seamstress and for people obsessed with costumes and pageantry, she was a fine asset. None for me, thanks.

I’d rather wear a dress made out of feedbag.

It would seem that the male victims of toxic women always seem to find me, and on a good day I can help them recover. On a bad day, they seem to assume that it is my fault that they have been hurt, even if it is a role I did not choose. Fortunately, I have more good days than bad days. If I didn’t hurt them in the first place however why do they expect me to pay for it? I assume that they believe that I must have had an easier life than they did. In the case of most women, that’s probably true.

Of course, regular readers of my blog know that for me sympathy is not an aphrodisiac. If tears are yours then I’m going to need something to cry about. It will take some doing. It’s a game I like to play with men who I like. First one to cry buys the drinks. They all expect that it is going to be me. If I really really like him however then I’ll choose the beverage around which the evening is to be centered. It might be a bit salty and perhaps even a little bit dirty.

Time for a little music:

Love that song. Reminds me of that run down Alligator Alley I had to do regularly in order to get my flower watered.

Flowers need to be watered and are grateful for the watering. One flower in particular.

My Russian magician (not really, but, there’s a funny story there as Los Angeles readers probably understand) treated me the way that he found that women liked to be treated. It was a good system. Lots of women like spa treatments. It’s a nice gift. Unfortunately, for me, that gift backfired. However, if Carlos Castaneda were there he would have said something like “the spa incident” meant that I was not in the right place at the right time. It was not because aforementioned ghost in the machine had poisoned the mud. It was all a misunderstanding.

Some people are like that. I believe the line goes like this:

“If I can’t have him then no one can!”

Imagine this woman plus psychotic screaming and you’ll perhaps get the right idea.

It was at Lake Como, not at Bellagio, but at a tiny restaurant near there where I had my first up-close-and-personal contact with a live Nazi. Yes I know that they don’t like to be called that, but, do you expect complete historical accuracy here? There was a civic sculpture within walking distance that had been horribly defaced but I could still make out some of the words, in… I forgot to count how many languages.

It commemorated The Holocaust. It was sobering to read some of the graffiti. ‘Wow,’ I thought. ‘I guess there really is a Neo Nazi movement in Europe. Christopher Hitchens was right!’

I got to meet Hitchens at Berkeley or should I say, “Cal”. He looked like he had had a whole lot to drink and had stopped wondering when the smart coeds were going to throw themselves at him. I think that was 2003 or 2003? I’m not sure.

If he hadn’t looked quite so much like he had just had a spa treatment I probably would have introduced myself to him. I’m not talking about an ordinary spa treatment here, I hope that my readers understand why I must be coy about the specifics.

The Han was what is known in Hong Kong as a “Rice Catholic.” He was mildly perturbed about the humiliations he had suffered in his life at the hands of Westerners and some other people more near to where he had been born. I’m kidding of course. He was so consumed by rage that it is a wonder his head didn’t blow off like a cannon. He found a way to blow off some steam however and I suppose I am the whistle.

In this particular case, that is the “rice” part, these Westerners were Irish Jesuits who ran the school he attended. They could have been any of a variety of extractions of Irish. They might even have been Scotch-Irish. (I know that this particular spelling offends some people and I’m sorry. The next Scotch is on me, OK?).

However, The Han’s resentment reached back a lot further in time than his own tumultuous life as he explained to me during our travels. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art he brought me to his ancestor’s scroll, and yes, I was impressed. In fact, the two of us got the full treatment. Access does my heart so much better than diamonds and pearls. I like to go deep. That’s just the kind of girl that I am.

It was some time later when he switched the resentment he had for Westerners to Jews; however, not such a radical switch that he let me keep my money!

Chinese peepo don’t wike it when Westners weep der mawney!

At Lake Como, The Han and I were having lunch indoors by the window and sipping frizzante. The Han explained to me that the reason that restaurants always seated us by a window was because we were such an attractive couple. We were “window-dressing.” It was a similar system used in China and Japan when it came to where employees were positioned within the buildings; except in business, it was a matter of honor for the aged rather than beauty. The Han had, among many other consultations, worked for an American automobile manufacturer. Some politicians too! It’s a little bit too close to a certain season for me to be more forthcoming about that last.

We were such an attractive couple that at every pharma junket we attended (usually by getting ourselves invited by another Chinese doctor), we would always win the raffle. We were delighted to be photographed accepting the prize. It was fun and with a beautiful portrait as a souvenir!

While having lunch at Lake Como, along came a very old man of German descent, handsome, tall, and erect. He saw the attractive couple in the window and I looked deep into his eyes, which were behind glasses that looked sort of like this (except cleaner, of course):

I will never forget that moment because the rage behind those glasses chilled me right down to the bone. What is with me and vampires? Why do they always find me?

I understand, old man, but, you see, California is a nice place where every extra woman gets a husband because they all have pure hearts free of artery-clogging saturated fats, with beautiful teeth white from lots of brushing, fresh breath, and no smoking.

Not the bad smoking I mean. Only the good smoking.

Don’t forget the spa treatment. You remembered! Flowers for me? Thanks!

Having had my own permaculture farm, I know what flowers look like. I also know what mud looks like. A lot of other liquids as well mixed in there, nice and rich.

If you’ve never had an extra special spa treatment like what I have experienced then you don’t know what you’re missing. That is probably just as well.

Somehow I made it out of that particular spa with a little mud of my own. Not a lot. I don’t need a lot. I don’t need what every other woman it would seem says that she needs. For me, having friends is all the wealth I need, but sometimes my friends need to be soothed and mere words aren’t enough. How can I be in more than one place at the same time?

Not so long before I posed for a series of beautiful photographs with The Han, I worked for a company which had a contract on the midrange computers which ran the digital machines one sees at bars in certain nice places. Most bartenders at those places do not understand why I prefer to buy my own drinks while perched at the bar engaging the other patrons. Neither do most Dicks. I have wasted a whole lot of men’s time in my life.

Why is everyone today always in such a hurry?


The Big Bad Wolf

One way to shelter both women and children from the cold cruel world is to regale them with grim fairy tales (by the Brothers Grimm for instance). Scare tactics such as these can serve to keep young innocent creatures close to home.

The fairy tale of men’s sexuality being all-encompassing such as to even subsume morals and ethics is a big bad wolf indeed to keep one’s loved ones from wandering into the forest.

Meanwhile, a well-preserved over-aged child determined to prove her intellectual and moral superiority over all who might hear can turn out to be a holy terror. So long as the state is prepared to step in should she start to feel bad about her husband’s roving eye then her shrill sanctimonious demeanor has nowhere to go but up. Such is one of the hazards of church and state-sanctioned monogamy.

Compensating a woman’s diminishing sexual value with education causes her to feel intellectually superior as well, to pretty much everyone, and then mistake that feeling for wisdom.

Some husbands successfully navigate the tightrope of flattering and sheltering their wives just enough, to include the husband’s escape valves with lesser women in terms of class. Class, generally speaking, results in more sheltered children in the higher classes than the lower ones such that wisdom of “fallen” women often exceeds that of the pedestalized.

Eventually however class-tiered sheltering begins to break down in a society, particularly as wealthy wives start engaging in follies such as child and prostitute rescue as a hedge against their own diminishing sexual market value or guilt with regard to their own moral failures.

For some, the temptation to use their own children as a means of attracting either sexual attention, monetary favors, or even just mere flattery or class preservation, might even motivate a wise husband to send his children elsewhere.

None for me, thanks.

These dynamics complicate further in blended families, with adopted children, or even the concept of “ward” of an older child.

Fortunately, there are jobs such as the neighborhood crossing guard where she can sneer at all men driving fast cars with the wall of children in her charge that she can summon at will. Provided those men are one’s competitors whether in business or for one’s pool of prostitutes or prospective mistresses then the husband wins in this exchange.

However, if it is your witch who she threatens with such a tactic, then let it not be your children who she summons for the wall. Consider this a friendly warning, to, currently, four different men. (Why do these things happen to me in clusters?)

I am grateful to some very bad men for taking me as “ward” such as to be unmoved by scare tactics both created by and for vain, insufferable women of threatened sexual market value. Thank you for protecting me from those women and thank you for protecting my “spiritual” daughters, sons, sisters, and brothers from same.


“Intelligence”, like beauty or nutrition, is defined according to historical trends, politics, availability, and political acceptance. If intelligence is defined as breadth of vocabulary, while vocabulary, as trend, is contracting, then some humans are becoming less intelligent. Those who aren’t have few people with whom to exercise that breadth of vocabulary, and so what would be the point of having it? Words go through a process of attrition. Not all words of course or we hope.

If “intelligence” is defined as knowing that when one feels cold, to go looking for shelter or to put on clothes, then, persons who have never had a need to be concerned with such things wouldn’t have it.

If “intelligence” is having a particular bon mot, historically referenced cliche, or play on words at one’s easy recall, then, it is guaranteed that such a professor with that definition will always be able to garner funding.

If “intelligence” is the ability to utter certain phrases such that all who listen are reassured of their own intelligence as well as their class standing within the esteemed audience then such members of the audience will likewise find their choice to both attend and pay for the ticket to have been brilliant and otherwise worthy of self-congratulation.

This, in my view, is why “academia” must be limited or else not only does it implode but it becomes “too intelligent” to come in out of the rain.

Is it wise to say these things? Or is it wiser to refrain from saying anything at all?


The Curse

Not being a Christian, but discovering just how politically and culturally I am invested in Christianity (and so perhaps I ought to become one—I’m not sure), the subject of “the curse” on Eve has come up recently.

I don’t personally consider this notion to be unique to any particular religion in terms of the nature of femininity. Moreover, I do look at the picture differently than say the average Christian.

The way I see it is that when analyzing the differences between femininity and masculinity, a male person might look at and pity the masculine deficiencies of women. This might inspire chivalry, say, or even identification, or elevation, or “equalization” of women. It is almost a given when it comes to a marginal or immature man with regard to the Oedipus Complex that women would be looked upon this way, as creatures “victimized” by Patriarchy and God.

Whereas having a “curse” on her by God pretty well assures that any man with such a notion of rescuing womanhood will be seen as having hubris, and the inevitable disaster which ensues, eventually, as the trend fully matures (i.e., Feminism) can be looked back upon as hubris with regard to the individuals (men that is) who decided to elevate womanhood to be “equal” to man. The only way to destroy this psychological device of “curse” is to destroy the notion of God such as to be an Atheist.

In my view, there is no “equal.” There cannot possibly be “equal” such that in fact every attempt to elevate womanhood to the level of man (or suppress if one is a gynocentrist) will inevitably result in societal downfall, eventually, regardless of whether that “equalization” is benevolent or maleficent. Just like the “equivalence” of benevolence and maleficence, attempts to monkey around with it results in destruction. This is the mathematical, psychological, demographical inevitability a.k.a. Apocalypse.

My “problem” is that I don’t see it as a “curse”. I think it’s a blessing. Specifically, I think God loves women as much as God loves men, however, the expression of that love is not “Equal” in the eyes of most human beings, because, most human beings do not have the attention span, time horizon, historical reference, etc., in order to be able to fully comprehend Love not to mention God. Trends management and prediction is the business of both the internet and the stock market. The longer one’s time horizon, and ability to weather volatility, the more likely one is to come out on top and otherwise owning everything.

Such is the conundrum with regard to “the curse”. Since women don’t know what they want and men don’t know what women want, why not give women self-determination? Uh. Better not! But isn’t self-determination Love? Only if one is talking about a man. Of course, some level of self-determination is necessarily afforded to women, particularly in the absence of men; but, there’s such a thing as too much. From the vantage point of a man or privileged woman, this notion is very difficult to fully comprehend. Does not “the pursuit of happiness” require self-determination? My answer is, not if one is a woman.

What kind of diabolical regressive creature am I to call this a feature not a bug? I’ll tell you. I am a woman who has not been protected from the darkest forces of evil but yet, somehow, God decided that I should live. I believe this is my purpose, to declare that to be a woman, and to be subordinate to a man in terms of even self-determination is not a curse but rather an expression of God’s Love. By being subordinated, I am free to Love and Obey. How could that not be a gift?

However, if a man wants to destroy another man, eventually, or his entire bloodline, eventually, one way to do that is to elevate his women, such as to offer them a fruit from the tree of knowledge. Once she eats it she will believe that her sheltered “goodness” is wisdom. This starts an inexorable chain of events.

Adios AVFM

Update: I am now officially blocked from AVFM:

If you’ve come here via disqus and wondering why I haven’t responded to your comment directed to me at AVFM here’s the takeaway:

For further details, please see below:

I reproduce herewith the Disqus comments which, collectively, have resulted in my voluntary self-expulsion from AVFM, after one “Strike”.

These comments were copied from my Disqus pages on February 23, 2016. I am aware that writers can edit their comments and am prepared to address challenges in the event that there are any inconsistencies. However, I hope that AVFM will be so honorable and technologically proficient such as to preserve the original thread and otherwise honorably adjudicate such challenges.

It would appear that AVFM is cleaning house with regard to alliances that no longer serve them, and I laud them their efforts, albeit tempered by criticism.

In no way could it be said that AVFM has any sort of alliance with me. After these events there is even less of a reason for anyone to presume an alliance between us. That may well be all for the best in terms of both the concerns of AVFM and my own objectives.

Moreover, ironically, in my quest to criticize a false accusation made within the AVFM pages, I was falsely accused of impure motives. I will render those accusations herein.

I will also attempt to defend myself against a portion of these false accusations here for the record, not because I wish to be subject to another round of them within AVFM. However, should the occasion arise, I will not shrink from any further challenges to my integrity on neutral grounds.

What AVFM fails to realize is that, unlike Roosh or AVFM, my voluntary contributions are not at risk because I do not receive any, and my book sales result in a minuscule return to me (which I would be happy to reveal in the proper venue), such that the loss of which will not injure me.

People in glass houses should not throw stones! I hope that for the sake of the legitimate issues which AVFM addresses that they will divert from their current course rather than implode. In any case, they can do so without my comments. Adios AVFM.

The article in question where the comments appeared: The truth about Christina Hoff Sommers

I “Recommended” the article through the Disqus interface, upvoted the video therein, and then commented as follows:

I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists—quite the MHRA bedfellows).

I hope that one day Mr. Elam puts a magnifying glass to Bill Baird, father of birth control rights, who was thrown under the bus by Second Wave Feminists. According to Wikipedia he is 83. Please don’t delay. Birth control and abortion are men’s rights issues with birth control a far easier topic to discuss without divisiveness. Bill Baird is responsible for three Supreme Court victories. Right to Privacy is a men’s rights issue. Roe vs. Wade used Bill’s victories as precedents; he was not only not directly involved but vilified and marginalized by that legal team. Of course, I’ve written about him on my blog, but, perhaps, my views aren’t in accordance with those of the MHRM, and therefore, a political slant more in accordance with the MHRM is warranted.

By the way, the only organization to welcome association with this hero in the ’90’s, was the American Humanist Association, which sponsored the event where I was to finally meet him, shake his hand, and thank him.

I am not a MHRA but I support men’s rights, while calling myself anti-feminist. It’s no skin off my back if the MHRA’s want to throw me under the bus, or, for that matter the inimitable Karen Straughan or Janet Bloomfield who I admire with somewhat of a religious passion in terms of the insight and courage they represent.

I desire a reverse of the political and economic and social ascendancy of women, and it would seem, Ms. Bloomfield is gradually coming around to my views given her vantage point in the midst of the vicious PSYOPS catfight in which she battles.

Of course, non-egalitarianism is not politically pragmatic for the MHRA, but since I have no financial support from any sociopolitical movement, I’ll take my lumps. I don’t care.

I am motivated by the personal stories of men who were and are very important to me (not all are living today), as well as women who are unhappy with the “empowerment” and “ascendancy” of women and otherwise do not appreciate the pedestal.

These sorts of women are a marginalized group with no particular unity amongst ourselves because we prefer the leadership of men over power-hungry, hypocritical gynocentrists. If during that battle we should appear at all strident or domineering it is due to the duality of women who on one hand must remain appealing to her protectors and yet fearsome and fierce toward the harpies, termagants, and shrews who attack us, and the PUA’s, at every turn.

I will caution the MHRA however, that those who don’t remember history are destined to repeat it. Egalitarianism such as promoted by Maximilien Robespierre generally has the same outcome throughout history.

Speaking of throwing men under the bus, please do not throw the PUA’s under the bus. Not all anti-feminist gynocentric philosophies are completely opposed to men’s rights. Thank you!

My first response was promising (and I upvoted it):

“I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists–quite the MHRA bedfellows).”

Roosh was always under the bus/without a head…. So how could he be taken down from a position he never held?

Myself and others always thought CHS was gynocentric – nothing new here, it is just that this has hit mainstream.

My response:

Thank you for your civil response. I also have been highly suspicious of Hoff-Sommers, in particular, her Feminist Imperialism such as to promote that First World Feminists ought to “empower” Third World Women. I regret that Camille Paglia, who, on balance, I admire more than criticize, takes that same stance. It is tunnel vision which may be another term for gynocentrism.

I am far less familiar with the works and history of Roosh than I am Hoff-Sommers and Paglia. However, that which I have become acquainted with in regards to Roosh and ROK and Rationalmale and many others, would put me into more of the “neomasculinist” camp than the MHRM on most issues. That said, the MRM gave Roosh his rhetorical coronation now, thankfully, back-pedalled. The MHRM response, however, I believe is overblown. That said, distancing oneself from him…or Me…is perfectly understandable. However, resorting to a false accusation of Roosh is, in my view, worthy of criticism.

Ooops. Freudian Typo: I meant to say “MSM” (Mainstream Media) not “MRM.” I guess I was rattled given that I responded in reverse chronological order, given that Disqus reports notifications in reverse chronological order. My bad. (I’ll just leave that comment as is rather than issuing a correction.) I do not pretend to be either perfect or dispassionate.

Perhaps I was rattled given that the next response (and the first one to appear to me) to my initial comment was not so civil:

What a passive/aggressive load of old shit.

Why do you expect MHRAs to embrace and support anyone who opposes men’s rights at all, “completely” or otherwise? The only way you can throw anyone under a bus is if you were walking alongside them at the time – that’s what the phrase implies – and the MHRM has never walked alongside PUAs.
They’ve been too preoccupied trying to piss on us from across the street.
The only thing MHRAs have ever asked of PUAs is that they zip it up and continue on their way, preferably in the opposite direction.

You characterize yourself as one of a “marginalized group of women” who prefer male leadership. Nice way to dump all of the obligations and responsibilities that leadership entails onto the shoulders of men, who are, quite frankly, becoming fed up with holding up the sky for women like you. Why not step up and do your bit, as Suzanne McCarley, Karen Straughan and Janet Bloomfield have done?

It’s hardly surprising that you knock egalitarianism. Its principles demand that men and women share both rights and responsibilities, and you seem to be highly selective about which ones you want and which ones you don’t. History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself, but this hackneyed phrase has long been convenient with agenda pushers too lazy or disinterested to actually study history in any depth. AVfM’s egalitarianism goes way beyond political pragmatism – it is a fundamental principle which underpins many of its goals.

I agree that you are not a MHRA, despite being an anti-feminist, but your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests. As I have stated before, the MHRM isn’t an ideological free-for-all for anyone who opposes feminism. It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.

I don’t know what others read into your comment, but I read a whopping sense of entitlement mixed with a set of demands from someone who doesn’t even identify as a MHRA. Perhaps it’s time for you to come clean about why you’re really here, and clarify which men’s rights you don’t “completely” support – just as a matter of interest..

My response:

Before I begin to address your concerns, I wish to preface my remarks as follows: My desire for men to be restored their rights and imperatives under British Common Law, among other precedents does not imply that I am my giving your arguments here any credence.

Since you accuse me of blowing “a passive/aggressive load of old shit” and if I were to return in kind, I may be banned, I will instead choose to request specifics on how you personally are “stepping up”.

As for my own “stepping up,” perhaps you’re not familiar with my disqus profile, my blog, my book, or my other Internet presences since Caprizchka was created in 2011. In what other manner would you request that I “step up”? For your ideology of egalitarianism? Pass.

As for my “highly selective” stance, would you care to quote me in order to prove that allegation?

“History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself…”

Nothing I can add there. Do go on.

I discuss how intellectual devolution, of which you are an excellent specimen, arises in response to unquestioning ideological adherence here: https://caprizchka.wordpress.c…

“…your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests.” I return that allegation in kind.

“It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.”

Even the rights of PUA’s ? Do go on.

In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you. I’ll take my chances.

I come entirely clean in my blog. It is highly non-politically-incorrect and probably not politically expedient to publicly align with me, regardless of which ideology you personally espouse while representing yourself as representative of the MHRM.

The purpose of my comment is to espouse anti-feminism such as to laud this exposé of Hoff-Sommers while decrying the false accusation made within these pages about Roosh and other PUA’s as being inimical to men’s rights.

Thank you for having the courage to respond to my comment.

In response to my own typo, rather than editing under these conditions, I simply replied to myself:

Edit: “non-politically-correct” rather than “non-politically-incorrect”.

I also found another typo of mine. Oh well. It’ll stand.

The response from the same commenter:

Where did you get the idea that I, or anyone at AVfM, have ever promoted the idea that PUAs like Roosh should be denied their rights? That is exactly the kind of mischaracterization of AVfM’s position on Roosh that PUAs have insisted on making. It is a complete fabrication. Since you have made the allegation, it’s up to you to prove it.

I refuse to engage in a ‘who’s done more to oppose feminism’ pissing match with you, and I would have thought that you were above that sort of thing. You pass on egalitarianism in favour of “restoring” men’s “rights and imperatives”, which, according to you, includes leadership roles which places the onus of all responsibility and obligations back on to the shoulders of men. Don’t you think you might want to check with men if that’s ok with them? Rather important point don’t you think?

“In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you.”

So, for men to return to leadership roles, they’ll have to learn how to be ‘real men’ again. Typical PUA bullshit and trying to spin it here at AVfM only proves that you don’t really get what the MHRM is about. Men don’t need to be reassigned roles by you, or by anyone. We can do that for ourselves. Your approval of our choices is neither sought nor anticipated.

The man-up challenge implied in my ‘courage’ to respond to you has not gone unnoticed, but it has made it very clear exactly where you’re coming from. Where do you think you are, Return of Kings? You can’t get away with that sort of thing here. You’ve been around long enough to know better.

Rather than address what was essentially in my view an entrapment to violate AVFM Comment Policy, a backpedal from his challenge to me to “step up,” given that he hasn’t, masked as a diversionary tactic, and a strawman, I responded thus:

So many questions that I have already answered and no answers to mine.

Meanwhile, I was the beneficiary of the following moderator comment, to include a warning and a response to my answering the prior challenge to “step up”:

Strike 1:

This is a friendly reminder that this is an activist site, not a discussion board. Please read this important announcement for a better understanding of this environment. Please also reread our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about misandry and misogyny, general attack and trolling.

Thank you. [Ref: 7848]

Additional remarks:

Has your account been hacked? Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards? Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on. If you were a new commenter you’d be insta-banned as a troll.
Knock that shit off.

My response, which is to be the canned response I will issue to any further comments within AVFM directed to me, pending disposition from an AVFM moderator, (for which, I will not be holding my breath):

Thank you. If you’ll reassure me that your questions are sincere then I’ll be glad to address them. Otherwise, I presume that they are not and that any answers I may proffer in response to any question addressed to me will be misinterpreted. No need to Strike me again. I’ll leave without further warning. Adios.

Rather than focus on the hypocrisy represented herein, I will leave it up to the readers of this blog to make their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, I shall address this AVFM Moderator concerns directed to me personally herein:

Has your account been hacked?


Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards?

No. I do not rely on the minuscule income I receive as a portion of the total retail book price, exclusive of shipping and handling, a price which is discounted at the majority of the outlets in which it appears, thereby reducing my net royalty. My mission concerns integrity to my beliefs, regardless of whether such integrity results in my marginalization. Such is the mission of my blog. There is nothing that any human can do to me that exceeds what has already been done. Nothing. I fear no man nor woman. Bring it on.

Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on.

This analysis doesn’t portend well for the future of AVFM. Where was I dishonest? As for “manipulative” that is subject to interpretation. Of course simply pummeling me with insults as bait to reveal my bona fides as a set up to attempt to discredit my motives or to have me banned is not considered “manipulative” by this moderator, apparently, nor in opposition to AVFM Comment Policy, as interpreted by this moderator.

I respect the issues that this moderator regularly deals with, and, without revealing my own bona fides, know that it is a difficult and often thankless task. Therefore, rather than continuing in this rhetorical brawl unnecessarily expending AVFM energies, I withdraw.

Adios AVFM.

You know where to find me.

Postscript. The Moderator continues to attempt to bait me into violating the Comment Policy by flinging at me her own shortcomings:

You should know by now that if your questions were intellectually honest, you’d get answers here. Shame on you.

Should I desire to give her a reason to ban me, then I would respond as follows:

Likewise. I hereby accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Even so, I address all of your questions in my blog. You know where to find me.


Thinking Muslim

For starters, in no way am I considering or advocating conversion to Islam. Rather, I see some facility in pretending to be Muslim.

First of all, if I pretend to be Muslim, it is practically illegal to criticize me. Perhaps if I am even a Semite trapped in an Aryan body, it would be culturally insensitive to even force me to wait in line or endure any indignities whatsoever that don’t get my juices going.

I can unabashedly adore male facial hair (inspired by Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow by Mark Steyn).

Nobody cares that I am a male supremacist, because Feminists don’t dare criticize me (inspired by Feminists Love Islamists).

I can move about in complete head-to-two disguise. That would be safer. Anyone care that I’ve got nothing on but fetish wear underneath? No? Didn’t think so.

Naturally, as usual, I would have to lead a double life in order to completely disobey the Koran on just about every other issue. However, anyone investigating me in any way would be a hate criminal. Win/win.

Sneaky Florida Fascists

It’s for the children and the fishes!

Environmentalist Tackles a Florida Law That Preemptively Blocks Smoking Bans

If you’re planning on enjoying a cigar in Florida in order to celebrate the new year, note the sneaky campaign to outlaw smoking outdoors that decided to use the holidays as a time to introduce this campaign:

Sneaky Campaign

Please do not allow any anti-tobacco advocates to generate any sort of trash that an earthworm could choke on this New Year’s.

Urban Birds Using Cigarette Butts to Protect Nests