This one pretty much sums things up with ol' Hugoboy.

http://tinyurl.com/clmj8

This character constantly upbraids MRAs while he kisses up to feminist scum.  He complains about the use of the word "feminazi" from his nauseatingly self-righteous perspective.  Hugo says:

As an historian and the son and grandson of Jewish refugees from Central Europe, I am particularly offended by the term "feminazi."  No one, ever, ever, ever, ought to compare feminism (or any other non-violent doctrine) to Nazism, even in jest.  To even suggest that men today suffer in ways equivalent to Jewish suffering in the 1930s and 40s is so beyond the pale of acceptability that it alone is grounds for being banned from this blog.

Men are dying because of hateful feminism and the policies it gets men to implement.  We have families ripped apart because of feminism.  We have men being forced to work to support children, when men have no reproductive rights.  We have men committing suicide because they are despondent at the destruction of their families, the deprivation from their children, and insanely crushing financial burdens.

Hugo says feminism is about "bringing justice to women."  Of course, anyone who looks at feminism honestly can see that it is a hate movement.  Don't forget, National Socialism, too, started out as "just another" political movement and party.

Hugo also says you can e-mail him.  His e-mail address is on his blog for anyone who wants it.

But why would you want it?  Do you really think he will do anything by e-mail than to spout his feminist garbage, just like he does on his blog?

Let him have his stupid blog with his collection of one-feminist-size-fits-all groupies.  If he's going to cater to femi-dweebs like Amanda and the other grrrrlz who hang out there, that's his choice, but I doubt he'll ever be accepted by men.  Hell, there was one guy who seemed like an MRA who actually tried to help Hugo!  The guy's name was Dave and here are links to his comments:

http://tinyurl.com/d3gzx

http://tinyurl.com/albhn

What the hell can you do with people like that?  The feminists are free to say whatever lies and other hateful crap over there, but Hugo bans the men's rights guys because we supposedly "derail" the discussion?  I think he is afraid of the truth.  He'll piss off any MRAs who post there--and say outright that they are banned--but heaven forbid that he ever do anything to even slightly annoy one of his fembot girls.

It's a shame that there are such men who are so willing to sell out their male brothers just for a piece of ass.  No, it's more than a shame.  It's despicable.

Posted by Matt @ 07/29/2005 10:50 AM PDT

Matt, I could not agree less. The crew of the Titanic knew how to steer around icebergs, they were not able to steer around the owner’s obsession to optimize. He was continually interfering and vetoing the captain’s better judgement. The point of my analogy is that our lives invariably end in death. Our lives are like being on board a luxury liner that is destined to sink. Matt, you will get old, you will get sick, and then you will die. Don’t think for one minute you won’t. It is indeed possible to have cheerful times along the trip, but if you can show me someone who smiles all the time in spite of what is going on around them, I can show you someone who has been dead long enough for rigor mortis to have contorted their face into a hideous grin. Even if the Titanic had successfully arrived in New York and had a long and successful career as a liner, it would still be nothing but scrap metal in India by now.

Just as an aside, have you ever seen that satire skit on the life boat deck of the Titanic?

Matt, I have explored these ideas and issues, probably longer than you have yet been alive. So many people long for “peace of mind”. The only obstacle to having it is an intensely felt resentment of boredom. To paraphrase something that Robert M Pirsig said in the opening chapter of his book “ Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance “ the best roads to travel are the old two lane ones that go from nowhere to nowhere-in-particular and which have an alternate that would get you there much quicker. When you drive through a landscape which is populated by folks who are not in a hurry to get anywhere but are simply living in the moment boredom sets in. Something wonderful arises when that boredom is accepted. The resentment of boredom leads to thoughts and actions which are bound to produce suffering. This is so ironic when you consider that boredom is by far the easiest form of suffering to survive.

Attaching your sense of satisfaction to the pursuit of a political goal is bound to make you chronically dissatisfied. More sadly though, it is bound to make people who don’t deserve your meddling dissatisfied .

Matt, I know a philosophy professor who was convinced that quality was a matter of opinion until I asked him on what basis he marked his students’ papers. He has a son who is a male model . His son has appeared on some popular soap operas. His son was getting married to an Italian model. She and her parents (both of whom were remarkably handsome people even in their fifties) came for a visit when the couple were engaged in order to meet their soon-to-be-son-in-law’s family. We were walking together as a group at Peggy’s Cove, a popular tourist site. As we walked about literally everyone’s head turned to gaze upon this strikingly beautiful entourage of people. I turned to the philosophy professor and said:

“Don’t you ever dare suggest to me that beauty is a matter of opinion.”

He gave me a sly smile, raised his eyebrows, and nodded his head knowingly. He said :

“I think I’m beginning to see what you’ve been on about when you say that the enforced political correctness of the egalitarians has been forcing people to live a lie. Sort of like George Orwell‘s “doublethink“. So now I‘m going to have to try and define this thing we call beauty.”

Matt, there is a book and a movie called “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” which is a terrific portrayal of this conflict. At one point in the movie, one of the characters, a woman (who is an artist and a refugee from the aftermath of the failed “Prague Spring” uprising in Czechoslovakia) living in Switzerland, is eating with a friend at a restaurant. In the background is music that is tacky and tasteless and entirely inappropriate to the setting. She complains to the maitre d’ about the music. Most likely because he couldn’t be bothered changing it he asserts that the majority of patrons enjoyed it. Truth was, most of them had tuned it out and were ignoring it and were surviving it’s irritation with well practiced wilful ignorance and had simply lost the energy to insist on anything better.

As she stormed out of the restaurant she said , what was to me, the most memorable political slogan in my life:

Marxists and feminists have been persistent persecutors of it indeed. Beauty and quality are what make the lie of equality so evident that it becomes priority number one to persecute these mere “matters of opinion”. I had a young feminist wanting to engage me in debate who had the e-mail moniker of “wasted beauty” or “useless beauty” something like that. When I read her position on power and “patriarchy” I was reminded of a Zen parable in which a Zen master said to a confused seeker:

“The God of Fire comes seeking Fire with a lit torch!”

The main reason why feminists feel obliged to persecute beauty is because a woman’s beauty is a form of power. This completely belies their egalitarian principles and is a source of the most poisonous sort of envy.

The problem is, Matt, that instead of forming a feminist party and offering themselves as a democratically selectable alternative, feminists have infiltrated and insinuated themselves into the policy committees of all political parties and have thereby eliminated all democratic choice in the matter. Virtually none of the people who did this were actually elected at any point in time. They would not have had a snowball’s chance in Hell of being elected if their political goals and agenda had been offered for fair democratic mandate.

I’m neither left or right wing , Matt. The Libertarian Party of Canada made overtures to me to run as a candidate. I am against political parties and I think they should be outlawed. Political parties serve solely as brokerages of blocks of votes to powerful interest groups. The party whips and party leaders who punish members for variance from party line and party discipline should be treated like any other gangster who intimidates or blackmails an elected official.

I have for decades advocated a delegate form of democracy wherein the delegate is selected in much the same manner as someone called for jury duty. There role is to vote according to the wishes of the consensus of their constituents and nothing else.

For years people politely listened, agreed it was a good idea, but deemed it impossible. Well just a few years ago the Canadian Arctic came of age politically. And guess what, they are doing exactly what I have described. There are no political parties in the Canadian Arctic and their governance is by delegation and consensus.

What is more I would make it illegal for any political lobbyist to even speak to an elected delegate. Lobbyists would be obliged to make their pitch to the general public through the public media so that everyone would get a fair chance to participate in that decision process.

I am a Libertarian because I am absolutely sick of a legislative system of government of the lawyers, for the lawyers, by the lawyers. Where our legislative process is a never ending cycle of make work projects for lawyers. Where if one person shits his pants laws are made compelling everyone to wear diapers. We are being relegated to a quasi-child status and being regulated right to death. My primary nemesis is a gaggle of really nasty lesbian witch lawyers who have authored and championed some particularly nasty misandrist public policies, have a strong desire to implement quite a few more, and have called on the government of Canada to silence as “hate criminals” anyone who would dare express dissent. You can roll back the calendar in this blog if you wanted to get up to speed on those matters.

Matt, I have had three such relationships before my marriage. My separated spouse is not a feminist, and she indeed shares my views on them. We separated over matters not at all related to that conflict. Having had three live-in relationships with feminists and having attended what is probably the most feminist post secondary institution on the planet is why I do not like feminists. Whether or not the two of you even speak to each other five years hence remains to be seen.

It’s all in being sycophantic and capitulating would put a finer point on it, and when it comes to sexual relationships, men are all too well practiced at that.

There is a very interesting background story to the lyrics of this old Beatles tune. John Lennon had recently hooked up with Yoko Ono, who was attending the London School of Art. At that point in time, a reaction and backlash was taking place in art schools around the world…the non-communist world at least….to the teachings of an art school which flourished in Germany in the 1920’s called the Bauhaus. It lead the world in art trends after “art nouveau” and “art deco” faded out. It was run and directed by a group of primarily German Jewish intelligencia who were disciples of Karl Marx . They were militant egalitarians. They believed that beauty and quality were matters of elitist opinion. They also believed, and rightly so, that the art and architecture of a human community had more impact on the socio-political dynamic of that community than it’s residents generally appreciated.

They believed in the Marxist “Utopia” (from the Greek meaning “nowhere” because such an ideal place was an aspiration rather than a reality). In Marxist Utopian community planning, convergences of walkways, parks, stairway landings, commons, boulevards where people could gather sit and socialize, were all things to be avoided…because this was what formed “elites”. People were better off strangers and anonymous to their neighbours, in uniform and exact rectangular boxes with a minimum of amenities and of course…nothing that would be considered beautiful…that was what people needed to get them to fit into the Marxist “Utopia”.

What was remarkable at the time was that many places in the world which would never dream of subscribing to anything Marxist…notably America….bought into the “Utopian” school of urban planning because it was so cheap and the world was entering a disastrous economic depression.

All human communities that have done this have profoundly regretted doing so. There is nowhere in the non-communist world that urban planners still adhere to this…this is Urban Planning 101. Even in the communist world…with the possible exception of North Korea…nobody believes this anymore.

Especially in America, urban planners will tell you that Bauhaus principals are what create the most disgusting crime ridden slums with permanently entrenched social problems in all of their country.

The neighbourhoods that are boarded up with grass growing through the cracks in the pavement and where no taxi driver will go and no police will come in less than platoon force….are all Marxist Utopias.

Call your travel agent. Get a trip to Bratislava the capital of Slovakia. Really look at the pre and post Soviet parts of that city. Then take a trip to Florence in Italy. If after that you can say that beauty is a matter of opinion or “in the eye of the beholder” then I will know that you are a “true believer” .

I have much more to say on this topic….but I know that short pieces are what the readers want. Much more to come.

The Greek legend of “the Procrustean bed” goes something like this….there was an innkeeper named Procrusteus who was very touchy about the needling he got for being unusually short. Whenever a guest at his inn offended him by making remarks about his small stature, Procrusteus would slip him a Mickey and the offender would find himself in restraints in a torture chamber on a specially designed bed. It was a combination rack and guillotine. If the guy on board was shorter than the average Greek, he got stretched. If he was taller, he got chopped down to size. Opponents of egalitarianism have described egalitarianism as “the Procrustean bed”.

Now even the most militant prophet and soothsayer of egalitarianism, Karl Marx, acknowledged that people were not in fact equal.

“From each according to his ability…to each according to his need”.

That’s right, even the prophet Karl never actually asserted that “everyone is equal”….for whatever you might fault Karl Marx he was not stupid, and the assertion that everyone is equal is just, stupid , plain and simple, and no one need feel any embarrassment for saying so.

To put a finer point on it, Karl Marx never assumed that people were equal at all. He just asserted that they aught to have equal political and social entitlement. He also asserted that many of the aspects of “classism” were invalid measures of inequality, and really, who could argue with anything so obvious…the Monty Python skit about “the upper class twit of the year” …..I won’t digress…you all know what is meant here.

At the point in time when Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. More than 99% of the world’s wealth was in the hands of less than one 1/100^th of 1% of the people, and the last vestiges of the aristocracy were still seething over the loss of jus prima nocta. And to be fair to Karl, pretty well all of the nasty catty things he had to say about capitalism are true. That being the case then surely being a Marxist is the thing to do, one would think…except for one important detail….political and economic equality does not work…the reason why is that people only go to work because they are not equal.

There is more than enough wealth in the gross domestic assets of Canada (and this is probably true of all other developed nations) to give a million dollars to every one of it’s citizens. Now wouldn’t that be nice. Everybody would be a millionaire and nobody would have to work……..but they would still have to eat and there would be nobody producing or distributing food because all of the other millionaires are either at home, at the casino, or have moved to some country that would never dream of doing anything so foolish.

“If I did not work these worlds would perish”----The Bagavad Gita

In a situation such as I describe, nobody would even consider serving coffee, or tea and crumpets for a salary of less than six figures a year. The overall impact of the cost absorption of these high wages into our daily goods and services would cause an inflation that would make your million shrink pretty quick. In fact the overall effect of such a measure would be to make the first million of everybody’s net worth, worthless. This is economics 101. And any good economist can readily demonstrate by formula modelling that any and all measures of equality parity tends to devalue to nil everything south of the common denominator.

So, in short, and this is an extremely bitter pill for me as well because I have always supported trade unionism, exploitation of labour is a filthy nasty thankless job….but somebody has to do it I suppose….and none of Karl Marx’s proposed cures for this have ever been practically demonstrated to work. In fact, the more hard line and intolerant of “revisionism” the regime, the lower the standard of living and higher the level of general dissatisfaction and dissidence that must be kept down by “authoritarian” means. In fact the most authoritarian regimes that have ever existed on the planet (with the possible exception of the Tokugawa Shogunate in medieval Japan) were and are Marxist. So that telling a Marxist (or the re-incarnation of Karl Marx in the form of a lesbian who is allergic to all things male...what’s that called…oh yes feminist) to “fuck off”, or any other sentiment that you would wish to tell them off with, can in no way be construed as “authoritarian“….if anything it is insubordinate. Feminists are the control freaks, not the Libertarians who tell them to “fuck off”.

But to get back to the fact that not even Karl Marx made the assertion that everyone was equal, this was not his agenda. He did not want to assert anything that was obviously not so, unlike his feminist re-incarnation. Unless pressed to the point of the absurdity of that assertion, they will assert that women and men are equal as if that assertion was one of Newton’s laws of physics and not just political hogwash. The equality that Karl Marx was speaking of is of the nature of legal and economic entitlements.

So what is wrong with Robin Hood? Have we not cherished in our cultural mythology the daring outlaw who “robbed the rich and gave to the poor”? Have not the outlaws who burned mortgage and usurious loan documents in the banks they robbed been hailed as populist heroes?

First I will acknowledge that serious historians in the UK know that “Robin Hood “is at best an inaccurate composite of as many as four brigands, scoundrels, and scallywags, none of them in the least bit noble who might have used that alias. But let’s just say that he was an archetype of a , shall we say, vanguard Marxist hero.

Well first…the “rich” in the Robin Hood legend became rich (or considerably richer than they started out) through a confiscatory taxation system. The “poor” had become poor ( or considerably poorer than they were) through the aforesaid confiscatory taxation system. Robin just did some taxation disbursements that were not in the budget.

To state, assert , or imply that the “authoritarian” governing system which imposes this confiscatory taxation system in the first place, bears any resemblance to the Robin Hood of legend is simply laughable. Especially when you consider that the money is not being given to those whom it was confiscated from, and whether communists like it or not, giving plundered money to the poor only tends to devalue the money.

I HAVE BEEN POOR….IN FACT I HAVE BEEN HOMELESS…..I ONCE SANG IN THE CHOIR OF COMMUNISM AND WAS AN AVID FAN OF KARL MARX…but I grew up.

I have this to say to Ms. Vosulunga or Volusunga or whatever…the monkey who reads Marx and who dubbed me the “Feminist Anti-Christ” (I’m deeply flattered).

To Ms. Sophie Buckland aka thisgirl: You despicable hypocrite. I have read your whining and pleading to be admitted to the sites that Darren has barred you from. For the record I did not approve. I strongly suggested to Darren that you be admitted and permitted to have your say. I interceded to have you not barred from this blog. In light of your own policy on vosulunga, where I attempted to enter to give a polite reply to your post, that will now change. If any post on this blog is even suspected to have been posted by you in any of your many re-incarnations, I will delete it personally.

"contact

If you really want to contact me, you can click here, but read this first; if you send me abusive email, I will publish it to this site with your email address included.

Every one of my male friends works out. Many are marathoners and ultrarunners and triathletes. In that sense, we are a self-selecting group.

We are perhaps a shade more neurotic about our bodies than your average Joes. (On Saturday, my two running buddies and I discussed the details of the cleanse I've been on for quite some time, as well as having a heartfelt discussion of the nagging problem of "lower-back fat deposits.")