Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism antifeminst women douchebaggery hypocrisy lying liars manginas misogyny MRA oppressed white men PUA racism

Manosphere dudes: Let’s set up fake feminist blogs to take down feminism!

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog disguised as a cat.

Over on the always repugnant In Mala Fide, a guest blogger by the name of What is To Be Done recently offered his comrades in the “anti-establishment / man/ biorealist / HBD/ reactionary / racist / patriarch / tradcon / whatever blogosphere” what he evidently sees as a revolutionary suggestion: instead of trying to fight the evil feminists with “well-reasoned arguments,” why not simply set up fake feminist blogs, and post shit on them to make feminists looks bad?

WITBD explained:

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a saboteur. We are naturally smarter than the feminists (in fact, objectively better in every conceivable way), and in addition, we are well-trained in deception by our studies of game. In other words, it’ll be a piece of cake for us to mimic their arguments and appear to them as really smart girls who really know their shit.

Really? Because no one I’ve ever run across in the manosphere has managed to pull off a particularly convincing impersonation of a really smart anything.  And in order to effectively parody something, you have to actually understand it first. Given some of the truly odd things MRAs and manospherians believe about feminism and feminists – see my post on Operation Alimony yesterday for one recent example — I’m somehow thinking that the only people dumb enough to be fooled by these “false-flag-feminist” blogs will be other, yep, MRAs and manosphereians.

Nonetheless, WITBD claimed that’s he’s already started putting his little plan into action:

I have already begun false flag blogging myself. At this stage, giving the link would ruin the whole thing. But it’s out there. And “false flag blogging” returned only 87 results, of which only a few actually seemed to discuss what I’m talking about, so for the time being it seems nobody is watching out for it. Not that they’d be able to tell anyway.

His fantasies got more and more extravagant:

Think long term. The endgame is to build a big enough presence that coming out as a fake feminist generates buzz in and of itself. Imagine if it came out that the founder of Feministing was actually a men’s rights activist.

And that he could fly, and shoot lasers from his eyes! Imagination is fun!

(Note: The founder of Feministing is not actually an MRA, or a man. Nor can she fly or shoot lasers from her eyes.)

WITBD continued fantasizing:

Eventually, our false flag bloggers will coordinate with our legitimate bloggers and have “debates” where both sides are controlled by us.

And where the only people paying attention are you guys.

If you feel you are getting really good at this, attack some prominent feminists for not being feminist enough. I don’t even know what that would mean, but, hey, this is feminism. Nonsense is our bread and butter.

Wheels within wheels!

Some on In Mala Fide thought this was a dandy idea. Frost wrote:

Fuck yeah. Awesome post. …

[W]e need to get bold and creative with how we fight the war for the best minds in the western world. False flag blogging is a wide-open front. Especially if you’re new to writing and aren’t yet confident in your voice – and unless you have written many thousands of words already, the truth is your writing is probably going to suck – a false-flag blog would be a great way to hone your skills while only having to actually write at the level of typical mid-twenties gender studies grad student.

Here’s a post of mine that sadly didn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s one of my own personal favourites:

http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2011/08/an-open-letter-to-the-manginas-of-the-internet/

I submitted it to The Good Men project, Manboobz, and a few other Mangina sites as a guest post, but sadly no one bit. These people are just so easy to parody, it’s ridiculous.

Regular Man Boobz readers may have a rather different assessment of how effective his parody was.

Others on In Mala Fide were a bit more skeptical of the “false-flag” idea.  As out-and-proud racist thwak put it:

It sounds like a good idea, but it won’t work. Its been tried by white people on counter racism forums and they always got busted. We used to call it the “nigger impersonation syndrome”.

A white person would sign up with a name like “Jamal” and speak ebonics… but they always got busted cause at some point they hafta come out of “nigger cloak” to practice racism; i.e, say and/or do something a black person would not say/do.

Sure, they have the option of coming on the discussion board and pretending to be a full time nigger, but how does that advance the racist agenda? …

The “black White Supremacist” stuck out like a nun in a whore house everytime.

And got busted everytime.

Gosh, it’s almost as if black people are actual human beings and not just racist caricatures. And that real black people can somehow magically spot the difference between other real black people and racist assholes posting in “ebonics.”

Huh. Could the same happen with feminists?

In a followup post, WITBD dismissed the critics as uncreative cowards. And it turns out that fake blogs are only the starting point in his grand plan.

The fact is we are not the alt-right. We are the new left. We are the oppressed proles … They are the establishment. We lost “our” country. They control it all now. We have blogs. And a handful of churches and seasteading. Sucks.

Now it’s time to move on. We have to take these pieces of shit down and that means we must use leftist tactics. This kind of blogging operation is the beginning of a long march to infiltrate and undermine their institutions.

Sounds like someone has been reading Mao’s Little Red Book!

Playing around? Real men fight to win, period. We fight feminism specifically because it’s the weak point of liberalism. Read your Sun Tzu. Attacking the entire rainbow coalition at once is madness. You always attack the enemy where he is weakest.

And the weakest links are the ladies, naturally.

[N]ot all women actually benefit from feminism. They may think they win at first, but we know full well that feminist sex and the city-type women lose big time: no kids, no committed alpha, no nothing. Most women don’t benefit, and many women are recognizing this.

Right now among women, feminism is high status and actually being feminine is low status. But all women instinctively want to actually be feminine, and they have better life results when they do. We all know about how to manipulate women’s idea of status. This should be easy to work out.

If we take out or marginally disrupt feminism, and pull lots of white women out of the coalition, it crumbles in short order.

Oh no! Not the white women! Don’t take the white women!

High-IQ thundercunts are major war engines of the regime, and especially the childless ones. They actually run the agencies, corporations, HR departments, universities, etc. Without them, the enemy has a harder time operating. As well, white women are blatantly used as bait to recruit minority men into liberal groups.

Anti-feminism is something that we know well … and it is something that the other elements of the liberal coalition actually somewhat agree with us on because its not like the blacks, Mexicans, Arabs etc. are keen on empowering their women. All men of all races have common ground in dealing with the unique female brand of bullshit and thus are potential sympathizers on this issue.

So this is his grand plan: for racist white dudes like him (and much of In Mala Fide’s readership) to build a sort of antifeminist rainbow coalition with “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc” … in order to take down feminism … in order to weaken liberalism … in order to screw over the “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc.”

Yeah, that’s totally gonna work.

1.1K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
belledame222
10 years ago

Wow, it’s the name and avatar of a pretty young woman with a blog/persona that sounds exactly like an MRA albeit in first-person feminine, posting on a thread about MRA’s setting up fake blogs. Huh.

pissedoffwoman
10 years ago

Emma: when I read your post saying women are “safer” and “protected” when they are stay-at-home wives, the first thing I thought of was domestic abuse. A woman who is economically dependent on her husband is not “protected” from this all-too-common cause of pain and injury and death, but made more vulnerable, as it’s harder for her to leave. This is especially true if she has kids, and therefore also has to worry about taking children away from contact with the abuser and supporting them on her own. It’s true that you said alimony should exist in cases of abusive marriage, but what about those cases that are difficult to prove? Like punches to the stomach that leave no marks and turn the violence into a he-said-she-said situation. Or verbal and emotional abuse that leaves the abused partner feeling worthless and afraid, but again leaves no marks. No one should have to choose between a miserable relationship and homelessness, but that is the choice made by those who are economically dependent on their abusers.

Then I read that you’re apparently in an intimate relationship with someone who “condones” rape and was about to go on a killing spree against those he considers feminists before he met you, and suddenly the question stopped being an academic one.

Emma, I’m worried about you. I’m not saying this to be condescending, but out of sympathy. I usually just come to this blog for quick and easy laughs and don’t bother to post or even read comments, but what you wrote, if it’s true, has made me really uneasy. I don’t know if you are just dating Eivind Berge, or living with him, or married to him, or married to him with children. I hope that you are just dating him and that the two of you don’t have kids, because he sounds like the kind of person that could easily become abusive towards you or them in the future, if he is not in fact doing it now.

I know you think that he cares about you and would never be physically or emotionally abusive to you, but he has a record of thinking violence against women is ok and that means that he might well decide, say after an argument, that he is entitled to be violent towards you. So that’s why I’m telling you, Emma, please:

Keep your money. Keep your independence.

If you have a job, keep it. If you don’t, make sure you have enough income saved up, in a separate bank account, to support yourself (and any kids if you have them) on your own for a few months. If you can’t scrape together that much in savings, at least know the phone number of a local domestic violence shelter. But try to make sure you have enough “quit money”, because you may want to leave him while he’s still just a demeaning asshole and not an outright batterer. You should be able to stay or leave based on how happy he makes you, not feel trapped in your relationship.

Good luck, be happy and stay safe.

Emma the Emo
10 years ago

Kyrie,

I don’t think I ever advocated pushing someone to quit work to raise “your” kids (they are also the other person’s). I also never said abandoning them in poverty is fair. I said that to keep paying them after they decided to leave on their own accord (not due to anything terrible you have done) is not necessary, but you can still do it if you want to.

“If people provide you with link or books titles, say thank you, if they don’t or are clearly annoyed stop asking”
That is what I have done.

As for that servant/master thing, I don’t get where that came from. Are you saying this is how women choose their partners today? I said that both being demanding and refusing a lot is not caring. But you can go on believing you are being caring while depriving the partner of what they want, no matter how nicely they ask and no matter how much they are willing to do in return, without providing a legitimate reason for your refusal.

I don’t think you’re evil or stupid (neither am I), but we don’t agree. It’s cool. I think I’ll go away for a while, since my presence creates so many bad feelings.

Tatjna
Tatjna
10 years ago
Reply to  Emma the Emo

You don’t get to judge what is or isn’t a legitimate reason for refusing sex, unless it’s you doing the refusing. And you definitely don’t get to judge the level of caring in someone else’s sex life.

I think you going away is a good plan.

Kyrie
Kyrie
10 years ago

I don’t think I ever advocated pushing someone to quit work to raise “your” kids (they are also the other person’s).

You don’t need, there are already plenty of stay at home parents, mainly stay at home mothers, for social and economical reasons. This is a fact that we, as societies, must deal with.

I also never said abandoning them in poverty is fair.

So it unfair? Or does it just never happen that a divorced ex-stay at home parent goes into poverty? Or is it unfair but we must live with it?

I said that to keep paying them after they decided to leave on their own accord (not due to anything terrible you have done) is not necessary,

Not necessary? What happens then to the person who spent 10 years raising a kid (ie working for the family), therefore having very few chance to get a well paid job, who one day quits their husband or is quited by them?

but you can still do it if you want to.

You do know people don’t always leave as friends? Counting on the kindness of the richest spouse won’t work in this universe.

As for that servant/master thing, I don’t get where that came from. Are you saying this is how women choose their partners today?

I got that from what you wrote. You describe sex as something the woman must do whenever the man wants, or else she should be shamed. Her only moral liberty is in the choice of the person to which she gives up her liberty as the must choose as best as she can in the hope he won’t abuse his rightful access to her vagina.
How is saying that sex should happen when both persons want it an unreasonable statement?

I said that both being demanding and refusing a lot is not caring. But you can go on believing you are being caring while depriving the partner of what they want, no matter how nicely they ask and no matter how much they are willing to do in return, without providing a legitimate reason for your refusal.

How is it not demanding to expect your partner to have sex every time you want regardless of their desire? If the man asks and the woman says no, who is at fault, is he demanding or is she uncaring? Unless you count “I don’t have any sexual desire right now/I’m busy” as a legitimate reason. Then we’re cool on that point.

I don’t think you’re evil or stupid (neither am I), but we don’t agree. It’s cool. I think I’ll go away for a while, since my presence creates so many bad feelings.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re evil. It’s nice you think I’m not either, but on the other hand I don’t date (knowingly) nor defend people who condone rape and misogynists in general. And I don’t shame women for not “putting up on demand”.

1 44 45 46
%d bloggers like this: