It's Simple: Intelligent Design Is Not A Scientific Idea. Period.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific idea.  Its just not.  And if you think otherwise, then you need to actually learn what "science" is, because right now you're demonstrating that you know less than nothing about it.


Part of the problem is that the terminology used in "design theory" aren't actually defined.  The way that the ID movement uses the word "design", for example, has nothing to do with the definition of "design" as it is normally understood.  "Design" is defined in terms of some intelligent agent actively and purposefully arranging something.  The IDers, on the other hand, define "design" by pointing out what "design" isn't (known regularity and chance), therefore making their definition of "intelligent design" the product of an argument from incredulity.


In engineering, a solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or else the "solution" is no solution at all.  Any theory about design must, therefore, address the agent and the purpose, or else its not really about design.  No proponent of Intelligent Design has ever included the agent or the purpose in any attempt at a "scientific" theory of design, and some absolutely come right out and say that these two factors cannot and  should not be included.  Thus, even if the ID crowd were to somehow prove that the universe was purposefully put together, this proof would be practically meaningless.  And it would certainly say nothing about the design in the usual sense of the word.


The idea of "irreducible complexity" also isn't scientific because it, too, is an example of an Argument from Incredulity fallacy.  "I think this is too complex to come about naturally, therefore it must have been created."  Anyone paying attention should recognize how utterly subjective this is.  Whenever one person can think something "too complex to be natural", but another person can say, "No, its still not complex enough... its still natural", the idea behind it isn't science.  Science is either true, or its not.  There's no "might be true" in science.


Lastly, at its core, intelligent design just makes no damned sense at all.  Take spider webs, for example.  Intelligent design says that, because spider webs are complex acts of engineering, the spiders that make them must be intelligent.


And by "intelligent", they mean the spiders must be as smart as people.


Or, it might be that the spiders aren't the intelligent ones, but rather its the spider's designer who instilled into the spider the ability to create heavily complex webs.  The problem being that it could just as easily be argued that the spider's designer isn't intelligent... its just that the spider designer was himself instilled with the ability to create complexity, and was designed that way.


So the question would then become "who designed the designer?"  Or was the designer's designer merely designed?


Such infinitely regressive nonsense gets us nowhere.


But anyway, last and certainly not least, its been admitted by several of its proponents that the entire "Intelligent Design" thing has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sneaking religion into our science classrooms in a way intended to avoid the First Amendment non-establishment clause.

No Evidence For Jesus. No Evidence At All.

I keep having to post this.


On Facebook, I'm active in several different groups dealing with atheism and Christianity. And being so active, I have found I have to repeatedly refute certain claims regarding extra-Biblical proof of the existence of Jesus.

At one point, I had to post this three times, to three different people, over the space of three days. I am disgusted that Creationists just do not seem to learn, and I'm tired of it. So if there are any creationists out there, I'm about to give you an ass-whipping you deserve.


Kevin Jones said, “There is more solid evidence for Jesus Christ than there is for any other historical figure.

If you really believe this, let me just get this out of the way: you're an idiot, and you're wrong.

And here is why.

First, we have no contemporary sources that mention Jesus Christ. None. Absolutely none. And no, none of the sources Christiants usually name were contemporary. "Contemporary", since you apparently cannot understand the concept, means "occurring at the same time."

Second, quite often, when they make claims about “historical evidence”, what they are actually trying to do is use the Bible as evidence for the Bible. Even if this weren't easily dismissed as a logical fallacy (go look up “circular reasoning”, folks), it still wouldn't work. Let me tell you about the Bible, folks. The Bible has been demonstratably proven beyond any possible doubt to have been changed, edited, and rewritten to suit the religious and political dogma of men who lived *centuries* after the supposed lifetime of Christ.

And when I say "changed, edited, and rewritten copies", I would like to point out that sometimes those changes, edits, and rewrites are substantial.

In addition, careful study of the Pauline epistles in the New Testament have shown that while all of the Epistles are supposedly written by Paul, at least fifteen of them (1 Peter, 2 Peter, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philipians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians) were absolutely not written by Paul at all. Most of these were, in fact, written between 150 and 250 years after Paul supposedly was martyred in Rome.

The remaining Epistles (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Romans) have been thrown into doubt as to their authenticity to the point that its entirely possible that Paul didn't write any of them.

At the very least, later parties took Paul's original words and heavily edited and rewrote them. We know this through careful examination of the vocabulary and the grammar used, and their relationship to the known timeline of the life of Paul (to put it bluntly, at least two of the epistles turn out to be happening at the same time, meaning that Paul was in two places at once -- and these places are hundreds of miles from each other).

Despite the fact that Biblical literalists like to claim otherwise, we know that the Gospels were not written by the men whose names are on them (indeed, outside of the Bible, there's not a lot of evidence that these four men even existed). Mark did not write Mark, John did not write John, and so on. So who did write the Bible? We don't have the first damned clue.

We don't even have original copies. What we have are copies of copies of copies. So we really have no idea what the sources for these documents, which remember the literalists thing are historically authoritative, really are.

And this goes for the apocryphal gospels and epistles also. We don't have the originals, we don't know when they were written, and most of them aren't old enough to be contemporary.

The New Testament canon wasn't assembled until three hundred years after the alleged death of Jesus. The Bible as we know it right now didn't exist until the Fourth Century CE. The reason why the New Testament looks the way it looks is because a man named Athanasius pretty much unilaterally declared it would look like it does.

But for the sake of argument, let's look at some of the usual suspects, the people Christians often claim can be counted as “extra-Biblical evidence” for the existence of Jesus.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus: Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian. He was born in 64 CE, and he didn't write "Annals" (the history that Christians like to cite as if it proves something) until 109 CE. That's a century after the fact, young man. A century. Trying to claim that Tacitus is contemporary with the supposed life of Christ is like me claiming to be contemporary of Ulysses S. Grant. After all, I was alive in the 1960s and he was alive in the 1860s, right?

In any case, Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus, he mentions "the followers of a certain man named Christus" and gives no source for his information. What he's writing about in Annals is information that he heard from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy, a hundred years after the fact. That's hearsay, and absolutely has no value.

Thallus. The problem with Thallus is that we don't actually have anything from anyone named Thallus that makes any mention of anything that could be considered close to Jesus. What we have is a 9th Century Byzantine priest named George Syncellus writing that a 3rd Century priest named Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about some unknown writer named Thallus who supposedly wrote a contemporary description of a solar eclipse at Jesus's crucifixion.

Even worse, we don't even have the document from Africanus that talks about Thallus. All we have is Syncellus claiming that Africanus says something about Thallus saying something. More hearsay. No evidence.

Now, there is note from that notorious liar, con-man, and forger Eusebius of Caesaria who claims that Josephus also wrote about this Thallus account, but that's still one guy talking about what a second guy who got it from a third guy. Even worse, at this point no historian worth his PhD would accept the word of Eusebius of Caesaria if he said the sky was blue because he's been shown to be, as I mentioned, a fraud.

Clement of Rome: Born sometime between 90 and 100 CE. Not contemporary.

Ignatius: Born sometime between 55 and 65 CE. Not contemporary.

Polycarp: Born in 69 CE. Not contemporary.

Barnabas: There's no actual evidence this person was real. Traditionally, this is the Barnabas mentioned in the Bible, and several works have been ascribed to him, but most of these works actually date to long after the man's supposed martyrdom (for which he don't have any evidence, either) some time around 80 CE. The best account we have of Barnabas is the journal of Anthemios, Archbishop of Constantia, who claimed to have been visited by Barnabas in a dream.

So yeah, the evidence we have for Barnabas even existing is a dream.

Papias: He wrote his "fragments" between 95 and 120 CE. Not contemporary.

Justin Martyr: He was born until 100 CE. A century after the supposed life of Christ. Not contemporary.

Aristides the Athenian: He suffers the same problem as Thallus. All we have of his work is Eusebius the Liar describing how Aristides said thus and so. We don't actually have copies of his work, so its all hearsay, and thus no evidence at all.

Athenagoras the Athenian: He wasn't born until 133 CE. Not contemporary.

Theophilus: Wasn't born until 165 CE. Not contemporary.

Quadratus of Athens: Also known as Quadratus the Martyr: Yet another religious figure we have no evidence actually existed other than the well-known lying word of Eusebius of Caesaria. Again, we have no copies of his works, just Eusebius telling us what the man supposedly said.

Aristo of Pella: We can put Eristo in the "Eusebius probably made him up" club, as the only mention we have of him or his work is Mr. "Lying for the Holy Mother Church is a Virtue" himself.

Melito of Sardis: We don't actually know when Melito of Sardis was born. But we do know when he died: 195 CE. Now, seeing as its highly doubtful that the man was over 200 years old when he died, its entirely reasonable to say that he, too, was not a contemporary of Jesus.

The Didache: The Didache was first mentioned by our favorite Christian con-man, Eusebius. There is absolutely no evidence for it being older than the 2nd Century, and all the evidence we do have for its origins show that it was actually written by Eusebius himself. Like most of his writings, the Didache claims to be a contemporary account (specifically, of the actions and teachings of the twelve apostles), but no credible scholar actually believes this.

The Epistle of Dignetus: This document was written by an unknown someone sometime between 130 CE and 200 CE, based on the language and other textual evidence. Thus, it is not a contemporary document.

Josephus Flavius: Josephus, the Jewish historian, was born in 37 CE. His "Antiquities" wasn't even written until 93 CE, after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. In addition, despite the best wishes of believers and the lies of Christian apologists, the account found in "Antiquities" has been definitively proven to be a forgery written by, you guessed it, Eusebius of Caesaria. So thoroughly has this passage been debunked that no credible Biblical scholar ever mentions Josephus except to use it as an example of a Christian forgery and hoax.

Pliny the Younger: Pliny was born in 62 C.E. Not contemporary. Also, his letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves.  Lastly, the earliest versions of the manuscript do not have that account. That likely means that the account in Pliny the Younger's work was added later by Christians.

Phlegon of Tralles: Wrote his histories in 137 CE. Not contemporary.

Lucian: Born in 125 CE. Not contemporary.

Celsus: According to Origen, Celsus wrote "The True Word", his attack on Christianity, in 177 CE. We don't have any surviving copies, but the fact that Origin places it nearly 200 years after the supposed life of Christ means he's not contemporary either.

Mara bar Serapion: Dates to 73 CE. Not contemporary.

Suetonius: Seutonius has two problems. First, he was born in 69 CE and thus isn't contemporary. Second, he doesn't mention Jesus at all. He mentions a criminal named "Chrestus," which was a common name at the time ("Christ" is a title, not a name). His account is only about Jesus if you squint, tilt your head, and pretend.


So to say there is no authentic historical evidence that Jesus Christ walked the earth is simply to be utterly factual and in accordance with modern Biblical scholarship.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I Don't Have to Respect Your Opinion

What's that, you say?  You refuse to accept the literal mountains of scientific evidence that establish the factual nature of evolution because your religion says God did it all?  You mean you want to turn back the clock and oppress and deny someone basic human rights because their existence doesn't jibe with your personal prejudices?  You refuse to have your kids vaccinated because in your opinion an actress who never made it past High School told you there are poisons in most shots, and besides, what do medical professionals know anyway?   You refuse to accept that's you're being a huge, racist douche because you are a member of a traditionally oppressed ethnic group?  Or that you're being a huge sexist douche because you're a member of a traditionally oppressed gender?


And you refuse to listen to counter-arguments because you have a right to your opinion, and I have to respect those opinions no matter what?  That we'll just have to agree to disagree?  Or even worse, that you'll punish me somehow for disagreeing with you?


Well, in that case, let me just say this:  go fuck yourself.


You heard me.  Go fuck yourself.


Yes, you have a right to your own opinions, and I must and do respect your right to those opinions, but I am under no obligation to respect those opinions themselves.  No obligation at all.  And as for agreeing to disagree, how about we don't do that either.  While you do have a right to your opinion, I have a right to point out that your opinion is stupid, and that your insistence on holding it -- especially holding it in the face of contrary evidence that clearly shows your opinion is wrong -- means you are a dumbass.


I see people say these sorts of things all the time when debating over certain issues.  Civil rights, religion, evolution, food safety (especially GMOs), men's rights and violence against men (hell, WOMEN's rights and violence against women!), vaccinating your kids, even history itself.  The problem is, these are not areas where there are gray spots.  But people want to believe what they want to believe, and the facts can go to hell if the facts disagree.


But that's not how it works.  Civil rights, for example, should be universal and if you're in favor of denying other people rights because your holy book says you should, then your holy book is wrong, and so are you.  Or the Theory of Evolution.  Evolution has been so well-investigated over the last 150+ years that there is absolutely no way its not true, so don't bother arguing against it.  Here's one:  if you think anyone getting raped or beaten is EVER justified, or that the victims deserve to be ignored and marginalized, regardless of their gender, then you seriously need psychological help.  And a bodyguard, because if I meet you, I'm going to punch you.  And if you think you are doing some good for your kids by refusing them their shots, then you need to have your kids taken away from you because you are a shitty parent who is endangering their lives.


And that's not my opinion.  All of those things I just said is backed up by hard, cold fact.


Which means believing otherwise is simple stupidity.  And why the hell should I ever respect simple stupidity?


Now, here is something I will concede:  there is no way to force someone to agree with a fact if they absolutely do not want to agree with it.  Doing so is just another form of dogmatic indoctrination, which is the very stupidity we need to cure.  People need to take the step toward education and knowledge themselves or else they'll never learn.


But remember that opinions can be wrong, even when they are baseless.  As for respect, that's a two-way street, folks.  This bullshit about "you have to respect my opinion" is really just a passive-aggressive method of attempting to avoid disagreement.  Its the polite way of saying, "I'm going to listen to you, but the truth is I'm going to ignore everything you say.  But have fun talking."  Sorry, but I think I'd rather have you argue with me, thanks.


People cement their opinions and hold them close, especially when these opinions are related to the individual's moral compass (such as religious beliefs).  Changing those opinions requires the person to acknowledge that their basic worldview is incorrect, and people generally don't do that easily.  I acknowledge this.  The problem is, due to there being so many different people and so many differing opinions, inevitably, some of those opinions will be just plain stupid.


The ability to form and hold our own opinions based on our knowledge and experience is one of the most fundamental freedoms human beings enjoy.  I will defend that freedom, even if I disagree with you, as far as I can.  But if your opinions fly in the face of logic, fact, and common sense, then while your right to hold the opinion is still sacrosanct, your opinion itself is worthless, and I feel no need to respect it at all.


And I have a right to tell you this, because I have a right to my opinions too.

The "R" Word

So it seems there is a formal movement to outright ban the word "retard" from public discourse, and to shame anyone who does use it.  When the subject came up amongst some of my friends, I told them that I absolutely would not support such a measure, because while I agree tormenting some poor mentally disabled person with hate speech is wrong, people have the right to say things that you or I might find offensive.


In response, I was told that banning this word wouldn't really be censorship, because its not really about the word, its about respecting other people.  Its about not hurting other people.  Its about being decent people.  And, I was asked, why am I so in love with calling people retards, anyway?  Because apparently, no one could ever desire to just defend freedom of thought and expression without wanting to insult someone.


Obviously


As the saying goes, believing in freedom of thought and freedom of expression isn't just being able to believe as you like and saying things you want to say.  Its also standing and defending the right of someone else to think and say as they like, even if what they like to think and say makes your blood boil.


That's freedom.  That's true freedom.  The right to disagree is the entire fucking point of freedom of thought and expression.  And that includes some jack-hole's right to be an offensive dumbass.  That other thing?  Yeah, that's censorship.  Simple, traditional censorship, in which one group wants to tell another group what to think and what to say against the wishes of the other group.


Sorry, but fuck that.  I won't tolerate censorship, even when its against someone using hate-speech.  Even when what they say makes me want to lay into them with a 2x4, I won't stop them from talking.  Because I respect the rights of others.  Also, while it might be "about respect" to my friends, there are others out there who are behind this "ban the R word" thing for whom its all about the censorship, the political correctness, and the urge to punish people they don't like for the crime of existing.  I am not in the business of banning words to soothe the bruised emotions of other people.  And if you truly believe in free thought and free expression, then you shouldn't be, either.

"Its not about censorship, its about respect."  Horse shit.

I really get tired of people and their empty platitudes.

Yes, your intentions are good.  I've already acknowledged this.  But I've also already acknowledged that the worse offenses in history have always been committed in the name of "social justice".  That's why this "ban the R word" disturbs me so badly.  There is an entire section of our society who are quite willing to step all over other people if it means that they can be seen to be "doing good" about some social issue.  And they take to these causes with self-righteous fervor, especially when they can step on people en masse rather than one at a time.  And for some reason, this issue stinks of people doing just that.

What do I mean?

Ponder this question:  just what does banning the word "retard" from public discourse actually accomplish?  Is it going to end the vile behavior some people put the mentally handicapped through?  No.  Is it going to stop hate crimes against the mentally handicapped?  No.  Is it going to stop parents from abandoning their mentally handicapped children at orphanages?  No.  Will it stop such parents from abusing their mentally handicapped children?  No.

The only thing this will accomplish is allowing a bunch of self-righteous assholes to pat themselves on the back because they "made a difference" without actually doing anything important.  And then these same self-righteous assholes will go on to their next "noble cause" and the entire "R word" thing will be swept under the rug and no more will ever be mentioned, much less done, about improving the treatment of the mentally disabled.

The truth is, its all about context anyway.  You don't call mentally handicapped people "retards".  You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded. There is a difference between goofing around with your friends and intentionally hurting someone else with your words.  But even then, I don't think those words should be banned outright.  Doing so is the first step on the slipper slope that leads to having our freedom of speech rights taken away entirely.

The word "retard" isn't the issue.  Treating the mentally handicapped with human decency is.  Do something about that and you'll have my full cooperation.

NAFALT!

You know what I hear when a feminist tells me that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT)? Here's what I hear:

"Hey, I know we feminists are all on the same team, and wear the same 'uniform', and I know how even moderate feminists give tacit approval via their silence (and strength in numbers) to the radicals, but that doesn't mean you can paint us all with the same brush.  I mean, I know some of us are actively throwing our fathers, sons, and brothers under the bus, and I know some of us are actively taking away the basic legal rights of men, dehumanizing men, and demolishing their futures.  I know some of us are manipulating the system so it benefits women and demolishes men.  And I know that in addition to the ones doing active harm to men, there are a whole other bunch of us cheering them on from the sidelines. But not all of us are like that. Some of us stand around and do nothing but telling men who complain about the treatment those other feminists are giving them that not all of us are like that."

Believe it or not, I realize that, technically at least, not all feminists are like that. Feminists, like all human beings with a dogma, exist on a spectrum of belief like anything else. A few feminists, I am sure, believe as I do. They are truly egalitarian and are interested in things like a level playing friend before the law for everyone regardless of gender. The majority are only mildly toxic and self-serving in their rhetoric, agenda, and notions of female superiority. But the level of toxicity landslides quickly until you get to some truly evil, deranged people who are authentically calling for the mass murder (or at least the mass castration) of men. Rather than telling me that "not all feminists are man-haters, you'd be more accurate to tell me that not all feminists are actually interested in anything remotely resembling gender equality. Most feminists (especially most vocal feminists) absolutely believe they are egalitarian, but when push comes to shove they really, really aren't. And that's the problem, because these people are capable of justifying and promoting almost any sort of anti-male prejudice under the banner of "equality" in the same way that conservatives twist the words "liberty" and "freedom" in their rhetoric. When you scratch the surface of even the most reasonable feminist, what you find is some combination of gynocentrism, essentialism, misandry, and in some cases even misogyny. You find beliefs of female superiority and unchecked female privilege, none of which are compatible with the idea of "equality". That's what mainstream feminism is. That is what it has become. Once upon a time, I considered myself a feminist. Unfortunately the contradictions, fabrications, the fact-spinning, the outright disregard for the lives of men (except as they exist as privileged oppressors), and to put it bluntly the outright hate finally convinced me to separate from that movement. It convinced me that Feminists are no different from fundamentalist Christians in their inherent persecution complex and self-righteousness. Feminism offends my sense of what is objectively true, and I value objective truth more than I do subjective truths any day. Women only determine half of all subjective truth, and for that half to be imposed on men is not "equality". I still believe in the ideas that led me to feminism in the first place, but the movement itself no longer does so. And yes, I have "educated" myself, thanks. A far higher proportion of feminsts are "like that" than men are rapists, but this doesn't stop feminists from tarring all men with a broad brush that asserts that all men are potential predators. Male rapists do not represent, act on behalf of, or even claim to act on behalf of all men any more than female rapists represent all women. These vocal, hate-filled feminists, on the other hand, do claim to represent Feminism as a whole (and by extension, claim to represent all women, everywhere, because they can't tell the difference between "Feminism", a political movement that includes both men and women, and "Women" a demographic containing, for the most part, the genetically female population) These are not just a few bad apples in the barrel who are useful for stereotyping and demonization, like the rapists you use to demonize all men. These are your spokespeople. These are your heroes. These are the people you rally around. So do not begin to talk to me about how "not all feminists are like that." Conceded. I'll admit that not all of you are, in fact, like that. My point is this: so the fuck what. When the radicals are the ones driving the bus, the radicals are the ones deciding which way you're going. And lady, they're taking you with them because you refuse to get off the damned bus.

The Breaking of a Myth

Common wisdom says that men commit the overwhelming majority of rapes.

Common wisdom is wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2013 (figures for 2014 have not been tabulated yet) there were 1,270,000 reported rapes in the United States.  I say "reported rapes" because only 22% of them were actually determined to really be rapes.  The rest were either proven to not have been rapes or else were not proven one way or the other.


But here is where it gets interesting:  In 2013, in addition to the 1,270,000 reported rapes, there were 1,268,000 reported cases of "made to penetrate."


Don't know what "made to penetrate" means?  That's okay, you're not alone.  Most people don't know what "made to penetrate means."


Here's the deal:  "made to penetrate" is what the people at the Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of Justice call it when a woman rapes a man.


The reason they call it "made to penetrate" instead of "rape" is because the National Organization for Women spent close to $15,000,000 putting political pressure on the government to change the official definition of "rape" so that instead of just meaning "forced sex that occurs against the consent of one of the parties", it means specifically "penetration of the vagina or anus by a body part or foreign object."


Highly convenient, isn't it, that this immediately removed most of the occurrences of rape that women were responsible for?  Oh sure, women do still commit rape, but now its only "rape" when they use a body part (like a finger, I suppose) or a foreign object (like a vegetable, or a bottle, or a dildo) to penetrate someone else's vagina or anus.  And the other kind of female-instigated rape, the kind where a woman forces a man to penetrate her, is no longer considered rape.


When the government reports rape statistics, they don't include "made to penetrate" cases.  "Made to penetrate" is included under the category "other types of sexual assault."  This lets feminists say, with a straight face, that men commit the overwhelming number of rapes.


But the numbers do not lie.  In 2013, there were 2,538,000 reports of rape (a number arrived at by adding together both the official number of rapes and the official number of "made to penetrate" cases), and women were responsible for almost half of these rapes, which they committed against men.


Don't believe me?  Here... have a graphic.  This was taken from the US Justice Department's own website.

The difference between the number of rapes and the number of "made to penetrate" cases was only 3000 reports.

Of course, the last thing any feminist wants to admit is that women commit rape at the same rate as men.  Because that destroys the myth of rape culture and the myth of patriarchy.

The Tipping Point

As time has gone on its become more and more obvious that the word is out about the Feminist Movement, and no matter how much they want to , they will not be able to shove the genie back in the bottle.

More and more people are coming to be aware that modern Feminism is not the solution, it is the problem, and these people are talking about it, loudly and publicly, in greater and greater numbers. And trust me, these people are not pleased and they aren't afraid to say so. Granted, this trend has gone unnoticed by mainstream media, but the blind dedication to the “Feminist narrative” from the mainstream media is beginning to look suspiciously like the old-boys neighborhood covering their asses. Of course, Feminism is still a sacred cow for many people. That said, it is only a matter of time before the critical number of anti-Feminist dissidents find the nerve to desecrate that sacred cow with gusto, in public, and in broad daylight.

The organized Feminist movement is well aware of this, and are well aware of how much of a threat to their political and financial power, their Party Line, and their ability to manipulate other people for their own advantage. So they have reason to be afraid of the dissident movement, and what they fear the most is the number of dissidents reaching the tipping point. This tipping point is the moment in time when non-feminists are so numerous and no vocal and so informed that they are capable of making political and economic changes to the current narrative. Its when the dissidents have the strength in numbers to openly voice, en-mass, their disgust with the modern Feminist movement.

When the non-feminist tipping point is reached, a counter-feminist culture that constantly questions and criticizes the modern, anti-male sexist narrative promoted by the modern Feminist movement will spread across public awareness to the point that it merges with the culture at large.

On that day, Feminism loses the power of self-definition and it loses this power forever. The world will be telling Feminism what Feminism is all about. They will no longer be able to hide behind a bogus dictionary definition. They will no longer be able to make bullshit claims that they are all about “gender equality” and will be exposed as the misandrists that they really are.

Quite understandably, the Feminist movement want to keep this from happening.

They are, in fact, terrified of it happening to the point that they'd basically do anything to prevent it. And we can summarize their primary method of preventing it with one word.

Isolation.

By which I mean that Feminism is trying to cast itself in the role of “the only gender equality movement anyone ever needs”, and as such, it is somehow empowered by a “manifest destiny” to take the reins of any discussion on gender-based issues. To prevent the inevitable loss of political and economic power, organized Feminism will brook no resistance to its dogma or its actions, regardless of how repulsive those actions and dogma happen to be. Everything outside of feminism is thus treated as either a space to be filled up with Feminism, or else a resource to be exploited by Feminism in some way or another.

It is thus the opinion of Feminism that everything that is not Feminism must be redefined so that they are only thought of in Feminist terms.

The non-vocal anti-feminists, those who agree that there are huge problems with the movement but who do not take steps to share their disagreement with it, they pose no current danger and thus are ignored. It is those people like me, those know-it-all, uppity, vocal anti-feminists, the ones who are already speaking out and damn the consequences, armed with facts and figures and statements that show that the modern Feminist movement is nothing but an anti-male hate machine, this means containment.

The challenge for Feminism being just how to go about this.

For years now, its been pretty easy. All the Feminists needed to do was weld the idea of anti-feminism (an opposition to a political movement) to misogyny (an opposition to a human demographic). Now, anyone with half a brain knows that a political movement is not the same as a human demographic, but what the fuck does organized feminism care about the truth. Hence, the idea of resistance to feminism became equivalent to misogyny in the minds of the naive and uneducated.

For instance, note the constant use of the term MRA (for “Men's Rights Activist”, someone who is concerned with male-oriented gender issues) as a coded substitute for the word “misogynist”. The implication being that no one can really give a shit about men, the rights of men, or the issues men face that women just do not face without hating and despising women. Its a subtle sort of brain-washing. You repeat a huge lie often enough, and people start to believe it, after all. As the Nazi's proved, humanity as a whole is prone to such mental conditioning.

Let's talk about Feminism and misogyny, shall we?

The modern Feminism movement does not actually give a shit about ending misogyny, or really doing anything about it. It just doesn't. It is of interest to them only because they can use the term as a weapon against their political enemies, and the only reason they continually talk about misogyny is because they are desperately trying to convince everyone that misogyny is the equivalent of anti-feminism.

Misogyny, you see, is of no threat to Feminism. Anti-feminism, on the other hand, absolutely is a threat to them and thus must be dealt with and dealt with in as definitive and final a manner as possible. Feminist containment strategy is to label all active anti-feminists (along with everything they say and do) as misogynist. However, only the anti-feminists are treated this way. The actual misogyny poses no threat to Feminism, and thus is never addressed. Its included in the Feminist reaction only in order to taint the anti-feminists.


The reaction from the naive public is thus to regard anything critical of feminism as “misogyny”, no matter how well-established, how factually based, or how TRUE. This is the reaction that organized Feminism is banking on, and they work very hard to encourage it.

Feminists thus group their legitimate critics with such actual misogynists as Marc Lepine, Rush Limbaugh, Darren Mack, greasy pick-up artists, random commenters, “manly-men,” teenage boys angry at teenage girls for breaking up with them, and online “harassment” by trolls who are just looking to stir the shit and really don't have any interest in hating women.

The legitimate anti-feminists, people like Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Carnell Smith, Monica Ebeling, Glenn Sacks, Erin Pizzey, Nadine Cross, Samantha Weissner, Trudy Schuett, Karen Straughan, Nick Reading, Sage Gerard, Adam Kostakis, and of course myself are all painted as misogynists by association because we threaten the feminist power structure. At the same time, sources of information like A Voice for Men, Misandry Awareness, and Help Male Victims are listed as “hate-groups.”

As I said earlier, they use the term MRA as code, meaning “misogynist”. They bleat on about “Patriarchy” and the “manosphere” and “rape culture”, knowing full well that none of those things really exist in this country. In the mouths of Feminists, these words are all code. They are figures of speech used to push the Big Lie.


The reality is more complex.


To a Feminist, the world is colored either black or white. To a Feminist, there is absolutely no difference between simply lacking a Feminist outlook and actively opposing it because both get in Feminism's way. To declare that you are merely not a Feminist is, in the eyes of Feminism, the same as actively working against the Feminist movement.


Against such people, the Feminist movement uses both direct and indirect aggression. With the direct aggression, such people know that they are under fire. They are publicly insulted and attacked. Even worse, they are threatened indirectly. “Keep your mouth shut or we will target you the same as any rapist woman-hater.” Because, in accordance with Feminist dogma, if you're not a Feminist you're a bigot. This intimidates most passive anti-feminists into remaining silent because they fear being tarred with the misogynist brush.

According to Feminist propaganda, by simply saying “I am not a feminist” you are mystically lumped into the same immoral grouping as real misogynists like Lepine or Limbaugh. Such is the libel which Feminism propagates in its drive to contain the anti-feminist tipping point.

The fact that Feminism has to resort to such cheap and criminal methods ought to make people think twice about Feminism as a matter of course. I mean, do we really need such bullies?

Reaching the tipping point is inevitable, but its not going to be easy. Many people who, at this point, still identify themselves as Feminists, will have a hard time accepting that the Feminist movement is essentially rotten to the core and utterly irrecoverable. They still believe in the ideals of Feminism – Hell, I still believe in the ideals of Feminism – and thus will have a hard time accepting that the movement that supposedly supports those ideas has gone bad.

But it has.

The ideals are all very laudible and worthy of preservation, but the movement itself has gone off the rails. And its way past time that we all start talking about it.