Wednesday, 2 March 2016

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

Good Parenting as Activism

I have been recently reminded of a powerful truth.

The title of this post is a refrain from a poem written by William Ross Wallace in 1865. It was a paean to the power of motherhood. The issue today is that Wallace was perhaps, and at least in feminist terms, a "misogynist". That is to say, in glorifying motherhood, he might today have been interpreted as supporting "patriarchy", or some other silly nonsense. However, we should take the lesson he gave us to heart. After all, it is not just women today that are largely responsible for a child's upbringing (if that was ever the case to begin with), but also fathers. Especially fathers fortunate enough to be available and present in their children's day to day lives.

Freiherr Karza Von Karstein reminded me of the power of the truth I mentioned above in a recent post, due to my ruminations on fatherhood. What I have to say to you guys is this: If you are a single father, a stay at home father, or a father who works from home, you can, and probably should, endeavor to set the world right, and no, not by beating your children into submission of course (though I'm sure feminists will read that atrociousness into this post), but by being a Father. We are, in large part, responsible for how our kids grow up. The nurture half of the nature/nurture debate is firmly within our power to change. In subsequent posts on this issue, I will elaborate on what my wife and I teach our own children, about how the world works, and what they can do about it. The WoolyBumbleBee and I have not been shy about what it is we teach our daughters (like this) and what we will teach our son, and how we go about doing it, and so you might also hear some podcasts on her channel related to this issue in the near future. For now, rest assured that I will not be forgetting the spark of activism (for good parenting, I would argue, is a form of activism) that the good Freiherr reminded me of.

Let's begin with the simplest lesson I've learned about parenting. Paradoxically, it is often, though obviously not always, the case that the fewer choices, the better.  When dinnertime rolls around, too much choice isn't always a better thing than a few carefully selected ones. See these articles on the issue of choice here, here, and here.

Misguided Atheists and the Illusion of Choice 

Now, one of the more difficult subjects, and one I've argued tirelessly with well meaning, but ultimately wrong atheists, both online and off is the issue of informed choice. Of course, the de facto position in this case is largely a byproduct of the politically correct culture now in vogue in the United States and other Western countries: One should expose one's children to as many types of religious views as possible, trusting (as atheists), that they will eventually come to the "right" decision regarding religious practice, or at the very least, that as parents, we've done the right thing by not "choosing" a religion for our children, thus allowing these milquetoast, ersatz parents to feel happiness and fulfillment at having allowed their children to make the choice of what religion to follow for themselves, and coincidentally absolving the offending "parent" for any responsibility they might otherwise have toward their child's emotional and psychological well being--and ultimately, toward the wellbeing of the community of which they will eventually become a part.

Of course, no one chooses a religion for themselves, since all religions (and indeed, all social indoctrination schema) exhibit some form or other of coercive tactic(s) to be used against potential converts--bear in mind religious readers, that atheism does the very same thing, and I refuse to pretend otherwise. I merely argue from the perspective of being an atheist because I am one. The thornier issue of one's ontological and epistemological stances is for another post, not this one. But I digress.

As to the issue of teaching one's child to be an atheist: the worst thing a person can do is subject a child to the illusion of choice regarding religious issues. Either you are teaching your child to demand evidence, or you are not. It does your children no great service to pretend that the religious life offers evidence to support its teachings, "just like atheism", because it does not. Indeed, it cannot. For the same reason that your belief in gravity doesn't matter after you've jumped from a fifteenth floor window, and that is that a religion cannot abide proof. Once in freefall your belief is irrelevant, and once Jesus provably walks down 5th Avenue, providing proof to the doubting Thomases, the words the fictional character utters on the matter of belief (in John 20:29) become poignantly apropos:

New International Version
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
New Living Translation
Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."
English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 Long Story, Short

As a parent, it is my responsibility, especially given the limited window of time within which to accomplish this (being a child's formative years), to inculcate in them the mental resilience to resist snake oil salesmen of every stripe. It is my responsibility as a parent, not to think of my children as possessions or reflections of myself--no matter if they are or not genetically -- I cannot live through them, though neither can I pretend that religions are not the opiate of the masses as the saying goes. I must, if I am to be a good parent, and if I am to influence the way in which the world turns,  teach them not only all I know, but also a viable heuristic they can use themselves for when I am no longer available to them.

To that last question I would say that given the present state of technology, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunities afforded me by social media and leave a record for them of my thoughts, my conclusions, and the belief system to which I suggest they adhere, as well as a compendium of factual information from which they can draw, not only to support those beliefs, but to serve them as a handbook, an Enchiridion as it were.

This leads me to ponder the following regarding the notion of pandering: am I to teach my children to 'go along to get along', or am I to teach them to stand fast in the convictions I've so carefully laid out for them? Should I view my role as a parent as something of a facilitator of life, or am I to abdicate responsibility for that to the state, or to the future zeitgeist I imagine they will live with? Should I shield them from all the evils of the world (or even some), at the expense of disabling their ability to fend for themselves, or should I 'steal' from them their "childhood"? Should I make of them nails that stand out, waiting to be hammered down, or do I teach them that the fewer waves they make, the less likely they will be to suffer?

Let's be clear: these aren't simple questions for thoughtful parents. It is the demagogue who does not stop to think about these things, assured as they are, both in the righteousness of their particular cause, and in the benefits that accrue from adherence to their personal dogma. As a parent, it is to my children's well being that I must look, and not to the immediate personal satisfaction of raising children that parrot what I say, and who behave like little more than mini-me's. After all, what recommends the life of the iconoclast versus that of the conformist? Certainly nothing from a moral standpoint, since one would have to point to a verifiable set of moral values, and that possibility is not currently (nor has it ever) been in the offing.

As usual, I have more questions than answers, but then, that should be par for the course, should it not? I mean, if we  had it all figured out, there'd be no need for blogs, would there?

Monday, 15 February 2016

This Is What They're Teaching Our Daughters (And I Was Wrong, I Think)

Dear Laura Gianino:

You recently wrote an article titled I Didn't Say No — But It Was Still Rape. I would like to thank you for it. It has given me the opportunity to talk to my own daughters about the importance of indoctrination, and of doing one's level best to keep oneself from believing in something so blindly, so faithfully, that your brain falls out of your head. In this....piece of tripe, you say that 

"My rape is not rape to attorneys or lawyers or judges. And if another woman has gone through something like this, it might not be her definition of rape, either."
 I have taken your story to heart though. Perhaps not in the way you may have thought, but I believe you've done a service to young women everywhere. Your article is a prime example of what I want to teach my daughters about personal responsibility. I want my young girls to know that the decisions they make are theirs to make. I can, and do teach them to make responsible decisions, with as much information as they can gather beforehand. They know that people do good things, and that people do bad things. They know that unless they want other people to always make decisions for them, they have to learn to make them for themselves, and that I am strict with them because I want them to understand what can happen when people make bad decisions, and I want them to know the types of things that bad people do.

Which is to say that what you experienced was not rape at all. In some ways, I wish that there were more to say. I've written this post more than four times already, and I've waxed eloquent on the notion of free speech, on the ideas of the Enlightenment, and on the Orwellian nature of modern feminism. As eloquent as my university taught me to be, as ridiculously extensive as my vocabulary is, I found that words,  perhaps for the first time in my adult life, failed me.

A sense of dread and despair overwhelm my every thought on the subject. I fear I have done my daughters and my son an egregious, perhaps an unforgivable wrong in demanding of them that they take responsibility for themselves. I believe that I've irreparably damaged their futures by insisting that they think critically, and for themselves, about issues of import to them. I now believe that in that insistent manner which Marines tend to have, I have hurt them by giving them the tools to think for themselves.

After all, my children will grow up in a world where not accepting responsibility for their own actions is rapidly becoming the norm--how horrible it might be for them to grow up hiding the fact that they would rather choose to be responsible adults. They will grow up in a world where the level of their supposed victimization will determine whether or not they will be afforded the opportunity to talk on the world stage--at the UN for example. They will grow up in a world where the majority of their friends will blithely walk into traps and snares, whilst I have given them the tools to walk around them, and to run if they choose. They won't want to stay on the porch, so to speak. They will, given my previous efforts to instruct them about life, its vicissitudes, and its joys, want to run with the big dogs.

I teach my daughters the value of mental toughness and the discipline to stay the course. Each day I require of them that they recite their multiplication tables, perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and that they practice their spelling. When they ask what they can watch on Netflix, or from my own library of movies, documentaries and so on, I routinely admonish them to balance 'fun' movies with informative documentaries like "How It's Made", or Cosmos. I demand that they spend some time each day with an actual physical book, and in those they read mythology, Plato, their children's books, and other damaging materials. I talk with them frankly about boys and girls, and "good" and "evil", smart and dumb and so on. I teach them to differentiate between loving their grandma, and understanding that grandma believes the christian fairy tale to be real--that is, you can love someone with whom you disagree on very, very important things.

In the afternoons I suppose that I have helped them to internalize misogyny because they learn to kickbox from me, sometimes even using the exercise equipment, including free weights and our heavy bag. I have scarred them in such a way that in this post I must beg their forgiveness. It is too much to ask that they know how it feels to engage in fisticuffs, and how dangerous it is to play with scissors, guns or knives.

The truth is, I don't know how else to be. Their grandmother (my mother) is a tough woman, a survivor of an attempted rape, who often worked two jobs, often menial, because despite her intelligence, the language barrier she lived behind forced her to work hard.  She taught me through her own hard work and self sacrifice (she would stay awake at night to keep mice from eating at my fingers when I was an infant), that all other things being equal, the notion that a strong mind is both a powerful shield and a sharp sword with which to confront life is a good thing to possess.

Now I know that the very notion of confronting life is anathema to the modern sensibilities of the Western world, and that 'confronting' life is a misogynistic, bellicose, toxically masculine way of viewing the world. Now, thanks to your post, I have realized that I, and the notions which I have always held dear--mental and physical toughness, aid for the weak, munificence for the destitute, being responsible for oneself, and engaging society on its own terms, are outmoded, wrong headed, and rather quaint anachronisms that don't fit the modern world. I have learned that vidya is bad. Personal responsibility is bad. Educating oneself is bad. Priming oneself for the worst, though ever expecting the best, is bad.

Or....feminism is a horrible chimera, that like all dogmas, it is designed to infantilize us, usurp our individuality, destroy our personal and public lives, and hamstring our every attempt at betterment, achievement, or excellence. Perhaps what your post has taught me is that if you allow it  

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. [and] Ignorance is strength."

Mr. WoolyBee's Note: i attempted to archive the page in question at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, only to receive an error message (what a surprise), so it is archived here for anyone interested, I can only reproduce a small portion of it here, and really, there isn't any need for more.

Sunday, 7 February 2016

The Irony and Hypocrisy is over 9000!!

I'm sorry, but I just have to comment on this because it is just too hilariously ironic.

I am killing myself laughing at the complete lack of self-awareness that this moron possesses. This is the man that lied about me and instigated an SJW level attack on me and my family back in 2013. 

That's right folks. This hypocritical asshat is butthurt and wants to sue TYT for 'attacking his person'.

Excuse me while I laugh myself silly for a moment.

I guess Dean forgot how he instigated an all out attack in full SJW style on an innocent person - complete with doxxing and inciting others to report me to police, as well as trying to have my only means of financial support at the time cut off. It was not only an attack on me, but on my family as well. That was the only financial support I had at the time to house and feed my children, but who cares right? Let's just try to have me arrested and my finances cut off because Dean Esmay thought I was guilty of theft without any proof what-so-ever.

Since day one Dean never had any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, ever. Even Karen Straughan admitted as much, finally, about a year ago.

So just let that sink in for a moment. Dean Esmay, a person who rants and bitches about SJWs and feminists all the time, and who angrily attacks and chastises them for trying to get innocent people fired or arrested, used those exact same dishonest techniques to attack me and my family. If that isn't the highest level of utter hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Bravo Dean. You just earned your SJW gold wings.
Fly little hypocrite. FLY!

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Laughing Witch DMCAd This Video

I am uploading the video which Laughing Witch DMCAd on YouTube here so people can see it. I have issued a counter claim and she has 14 days to prove to YouTube that she has hired a lawyer to take this to court. I don't play games with these idiots.

***NOTE: The Laughing Witch has recently had Blogger remove the copy of this video which I uploaded here. 
If you would like to download a copy of it, please click HERE.

Friday, 22 January 2016

This is Your Mens Rights Movement Folks

What has the MRM accomplished in the past god-knows how long? Nothing. But they are very good at waving their dicks around and accomplishing a whole lot of nothing while fucking other men over in the process.

I have made it known, over and over again, that I no longer want anything to do with the MRM. I want no part of such a useless, poisoned, and corrupt movement. Yet, like little cockroaches, they just keep trying to come back to annoy the shit out of me. Thank goodness I have a massive can of 'Asshole be Gone'.

In case you don't know the back story to all this, you can find it here and here.

Today I was contacted by Jack Day of NCFM (National Coalition for Men). I have had contact with him before - back when I was under the illusion (delusion) that the MRM actually wanted to help men, I had been in contact with him to help me open a Men's Shelter back then. He seemed quite genuine and eager to help. Boy was I seriously stupid back then. Thinking that these people actually cared about men and their pain/suffering.

I should have seen the writing on the wall after Earl Silverman killed himself. The reason Earl killed himself was because no one cared about his advocacy, or tried to help him help men who were really suffering. No one. Paul Elam was raking in massive donations. NCFM was raking in massive donations. Did these people offer to help or donate large sums of money to keep Earl's shelter open? Nope. Of course not. Why would they want to actually help men when they could pocket all the money for themselves? Why do that right? Men who need help can just fuck off unless they are profitable to their personal pocketbooks in some way.

If that isn't proof enough that people like Paul Elam don't actually care about men unless they can financially benefit, then I don't know what is. Well, maybe this will help if you still aren't convinced.

Remember, AVFM has been in the business of 'helping men' for almost a decade now. Remind me what Paul Elam has done with all the money he has raked in over all that time? Oh ya, 'changing the dialogue'. I'm sure men in dire need of help right now really appreciate all that 'help'. I'm sure Earl Silverman appreciates it. Oh wait... He can't can he? And it's not like tons of prominent and well respected people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ashe Show, Cathy Young, etc... aren't part of changing the 'dialogue' in much better and positive ways without tons of personal donations from hurt men. Yep. Only AVFM is capable of that - with lots of donations of course. Because writing blog posts, yelling about feminists, planning failed conferences, and making crappy YouTube videos to 'change the dialogue' costs a lot of money didn't you know.

Oh, but wait, there's more. Remember how I said Jack Day from NCFM had recently contacted me? Well perhaps this might show how ridiculous and useless these people actually are. Remember, they call themselves Men's Rights Activists. Yes, that's right, activists.

There is one of your MRM 'activists' folks. If activism was about drama and constant dick measuring contests, they would definitely be right up there with greats like Ghandi. Remember guys, it's all about helping men by engaging in constant shit slinging matches between one another. How awesome is that?

Thursday, 7 January 2016

Be Better Than the Stereotype

Now that you've read this, if you are upset or offended by it, ask yourself why. If you consider yourself to be better than the stereotypical feminist or anti-feminist outlined above and call out their bullshit, how could any of this possibly upset or offend you?

*Yes I know there is a typo in the pic. I can't be arsed to fix it.