Beta what?
The post on Stallman has attracted, as I see from the referers, a miserable bunch of fools that I read to be "anti-feminist" or "for men's rights", who are associating this blog with the only cringe worse than the feminist cringe, that is 'the cringe of the poor male victims of feminism.
So there are two things I want to make clear. I pointed out that Stallman had to resign mainly because some American circles are very sensitive to the feminist cringe, and because Stallman himself is one of those men who are sensitive to the feminist cringe, or "left".
But be careful, because I don't think Stallman is a victim, nor do I think I say that "leftist" men are: when it works, for the "leftist" man to have the support of feminists pays. The problem is, as Nenni used to say, that sooner or later "the purest pure that always purges you"; or if you prefer that "in the long term it is impossible to make a feminist happy, and those who try it lose all the investments made".
But the advice to move to the right is simply a strategic suggestion, and is called "the choice of the battlefield". It is not a way to whine about being victims: it is the choice of how to conduct the battle. Anyone who has read any text of military strategy knows that there are four pillars of victory:
- The choice of objectives to attack or reach.
- The choice of the means with which to achieve the objectives.
- The choice of the battlefield.
- The choice of the moment of battle.
It is well known that choosing the battlefield so that it is the field we want and the field that the enemy does not want is a strategic advantage. Point. It is not a question of making a cringe, it is a question of saying that if you want to fight, the perfect battlefield is the right-wing circles.
But those pathetic little boys (who say they are right in trying to imitate those they consider virile) who whine against feminist manvagye are not willing to fight at all. They are willing to cry more strongly than feminists, or at least to cry just as much, using the same words "men's rights", complaining about the same "suprusi" and "inequalities", and other bullshit. They decided to make a cringe very similar to that of feminists, with the addition that the pretense of being virile in doing so also makes them pathetic.
I have already written in another article that it is absurd to divide the world into patriarchy and matriarchy, for one reason: it all depends on INCOME, and not on sex. If you are a low-income male you do not have a better fate than women: you are sent to die at work giving you the most dangerous jobs, you are sent to die like flies in war, and so on.
It was not the "matriarchy" who decided that 600,000 young males had to be sent to die in World War I, it was an elite made up of rich males. And those mothers were crying. So the feminists are wrong to see the male "privilege", as the "anti-feminists" are wrong to see "the matriarchy". The same applies to the thirty-six million males who died in World War II: who sent them to die was almost always a male (with the sole exception of the Queen of England), and the elites who caused the war were made up of males . It was Hitler who said that every family should have four sons, of which TWO DEAD IN WAR. The boys at the slaughter did not send them the "matriarchy". But it was not even the "patriarchy", given that millions of women didn't go there to die: if the males had been privileged, women would have died.
If you are a bunch of idiots, unable to understand that it is always a problem of income, that is of social class, and you are divided into "males against females", it is certainly not my fault. Moreover, it is true that the elites of the rich are almost always made by males, but it cannot be said that their wives, lovers and whores are hurting: to be honest, the one who sucked Jeff Bezos's cock shift seems a little, so to speak, "privileged".
And the same goes for everything that these idiots whine when they talk about divorce laws, and the fact that a complaint is enough "to ruin a man". That this happens is true, but it should be noted that if the man is rich he pays and gets along. Second, to blame the "matriarchy" is ridiculous: to make those laws were the most sexist parties in history, with very few women among the party leaders, and on the left when you see a woman being a minister is doing nothing important, because on the left count the party chiefs, and ALL ARE MALE. Those women on the left are assigned to the heads of the party. All males. So no: it was not the matriarchy who made the laws on divorce or child custody, they were all males.
So no: if the divorce peels you alive (but not Berlusconi, for example) it is due to laws made by male parties, dominated by males, parties where women do only what the MALE bosses make them do. These laws are enforced by a mainly male judiciary, with the support of law enforcement principally made by other males. If your wife spies on you with the cause of divorce, only the "matriarchy" can see it for you. You are victims of rich, powerful and bigoted males, not women.
Also because, I repeat, all the things you complain do not happen to all men: rich and powerful ones come to the Court of Cassation and are always saved, without considering the fact that even if a Berlusconi were to give 50% of the fortunes to his ex-wife, would be equally a billionaire. Those who sleep in the same condition in the car are you.
On the subject of "feminists" and "movements for male rights" I have a clear opinion: the problems that ENTRANCE complains about are problems that do not concern rich males, rich women, companions of rich women and male companions rich.
They deal only in a different way with women and men when they are poor and not very powerful: the moral of the story, it is a PURE SOCIAL CLASS problem.
If on the one hand we put on the feminist grit that women (but never, incidentally, the rich and powerful ones) are discriminated of up and down, and to this we unite a grotesque "Umanist" (which however does not touch rich men and powerful) which shows that men are slaughtered up and down, all we are shouting, and all together, is that:
modern society has different ways of massacring the poor, depending on their gender. It massacres less rich men in one way, and women less rich in another.
But up to here, I don't see any gender discrimination: I only see a choice of methods. If I were a ruling class OBVIOUSLY I would choose specific tools to oppress all those that could undermine my privileged position.
And I would do it just because, in this way (that is, by oppressing people differently) they would slaughter each other first of all . Once Marxists called this thing "class consciousness", but consciousness has nothing to do with it. It would be enough common sense to note that rich and powerful women DO NOT have any of the problems complained of by feminists, and that rich and powerful men have NO ONE of the problems complained of by "defenders of human rights". As a result, the problem concerns wealth and power.
But I'm not preaching to anyone to "start fighting together": the cringe feminism, as well as the cringe "men's right", requires as a requirement the stupidity and the loss of any self-respect, BEFORE it can be applied.
Nobody wants to go to the battle with two packs of pathetic idiots without self-respect or dignity: at that point they fight for survival, individually.
And my advice to "move to the right" was not given to those who whine in their "cringe man": those have lost self-respect, dignity and common sense long ago, if there is one thing that NO ONE has need is a loser and pathetic comrade .
So I'm sorry: if you are the kind of phony that feels "oppressed by matriarchy", or if you are the typical stupid chap who "is oppressed by the patriarchy", for me you are equal. Everything that happens to you is DESIRED, and yes, I'm doing "blame the victim", because when you shoot yourself on one foot you can't stop me saying that he shot himself.
Stallman lived with crowds of adoring fans (including women) until they came to the purest ones that purified him : but when he purified according to the purest ideal of software justice, life suited him well. If you chose the most plutophagous people in history as a people to drive (plutophagus in the sense that it devours its ruling class), you shot yourself on the foot. Fuck you're a victim: you're just a jerk. Only a jerk can want to be a leader of anything that is "leftist" after observing the pace at which the left devours its leaders.
And so I want it to be clear: the idea that it is better to fight on the right ground if you intend to survive the cringe feminism, as well as the cringe "men's right" of today, has nothing to do with the failed pathetic on both sides.
It concerns only those who want to fight, but struggle in the sense of STRUGGLE, not in the sense of "LAMENT TO THE INJUSTICE". Calimero who whines that "it is not right" is not "FIGHTING", it is whining.
I make a little drawing:
Here, I hope I have clarified the concept. My invitation to move to the right tatami was about those who fight. If you want to whine, you can do it from anywhere you want: you will be equally ridiculous, and worthy of derision.