Sunday, February 24, 2008

A Woman's Right to Choose

"[Do you believe women have the right] to bear children when they wish to?"


I suspect this is a trick question that deals with abortion, and not actually women’s natural right to bear children when they wish to. All females in the animal kingdom have the natural right to bear children, as I have already pointed out in a previous post.

Also, note that women are the ones who are in control. They choose to either abstain or get naked and spread their legs. They are the ones who know best when they are ovulating and thus are directly in control of “The Rhythm Method.” They are the ones who have the pill, condoms, IUD’s, spermicides, diaphragms, hysterectomies, the “morning after pill,” and abortions at their disposal. After giving birth, they are the ones who can decide to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or anonymously abandon it at a hospital, police station or fire department without fear of legal repercussions.

A man has only the choices of abstaining, condoms or vasectomy.

And yet, society whines relentlessly at the man for “getting her pregnant.”

This is entirely absurd, and it would appear to anyone on the outside looking in that women are complaining of oppression because they are the ones with all the choices.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to abortion.
I am sure that feminists will fast point out that 2/3 of the population supports abortion. But, as with almost everything that feminists say, they are only speaking in half truths.

What these types of abortion-support statistics are based on is that when surveyed, 1/3 of the population supports abortion-on-demand, 1/3 does not support abortion-on-demand but does support abortion in cases of incest, rape or when the mother’s health is at risk, and the remaining 1/3 are opposed to all kinds of abortion.

Feminists are quite aware that most un-informed people naturally choose cohesion to the larger group and that is why they dishonestly skew these statistics to make it appear that most of the population supports abortion. Everybody wants to be a “moderate” who is in agreement with the majority. It is a well known psychological phenomenon, sometimes even used in brainwashing techniques, and feminists manipulate it ruthlessly.

When one examines things a little closer though, it becomes apparent that abortions performed on victims of rape and incest, or those performed when the mother’s health is at risk; make up such a miniscule percentage of the total amount of abortions performed that it is far more accurate to say that 2/3 of population are opposed to the majority of abortions – that being, abortion as a means of birth control.

What a sneaky little trick that our “esteemed academics” have played on us with this wordplay.

Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels applaud them heartily from the depths of hell.

But, this whole argument gets even more absurd than it would first appear, precisely because feminists have successfully fought for the “right to choose.”

In a previous article, I pointed out that children are the product of woman's sexuality, which she owns 100%. It used to be that upon marriage; a woman "sold" her sexuality to a man and took his surplus labour as "payment" for it. Thus, the children of a marriage used to be considered the husband's children, while children born out-of-wedlock were considered to be the woman's "property."

In times past, it was often considered the “morally right thing for a man to do” to marry a woman who got herself pregnant by irresponsibly using her sexuality out of wedlock. Society benefited from this socially manipulated moral pressure, as it has always been known that fatherless children were detrimental to society, thus the negative connotations associated with the word “bastard.” But, under no circumstances was a man legally obligated to “give the child his name,” to take ownership of the woman’s sexuality through marriage, and thus, make her child into his own.

But we live in different times today than we did in the past. We now have a plethora of birth control methods that have been made available to women. (Not men. Aside from a permanent vasectomy, men’s birth control methods have not changed much at all). And, to top it all off, if a woman fails to use all of the various birth control methods available to her, she is still offered the ultimate choice to kill the baby via abortion. And, let’s make no mistake about it; it is HER CHOICE, not the man’s, and not anyone else’s. Is this not the core of the feminist mantra, "A Woman's Right to CHOOSE"? Is not this “right to choose” enshrined in the laws of almost every Western nation?

So, I want to put a little comparison into your head to fully illustrate how absurd this argument has become.

Imagine Dick and Jane, two platonic friends, are walking down the street together and they pass a car dealership, Fembot Motors. They stop and admire a shiny new Corvette together. They both get a twinkle in their eye and smile as they see the other has the same thought: “Let’s take this car for a test drive!”

So, Dick and Jane roar out of the dealership in the Corvette. First Jane drives the car, then they switch positions and Dick drives it home. Ah, the joy of driving! Their hearts pound with excitement. The exhilaration of controlling a powerful beast! But, they never had any intention of actually “buying” the Corvette. They are just joy-riding.

Upon returning to the dealership, they toss the keys back to the salesman, say “thanks,” and carry on walking down the road together without a care in the world.

But, alas, a month later Jane calls up Dick and informs him that she returned to the dealership after their test drive and purchased the Corvette, signing a 4 year lease with payments of $1,300 a month. Now she wants to know if he will “man up” and help her make the payments on it, because after all, they went on the original test drive together. Jane claims that he planted the seeds of desire into her head which caused her to choose to purchase the Corvette.

Of course, Dick tells her to get bent. She chose to purchase the car of her own free will and he is not responsible for her choices.

Jane does not allow things to just quietly go away and take responsibility for her choices, however. No indeed! In fact, she gets herself a lawyer and Dick is served a summons to appear in court where Jane is bringing a lawsuit against Dick, to force him to pay for her new Corvette.

Dick goes to court as he is required to, and walks out completely dumbfounded by the judge’s decision:

Because Dick went on the original test drive with Jane, the judge declares that Dick is liable to pay “damages” to Jane. After all, Dick planted the seeds of desire in Jane’s head by agreeing to go on a test drive with her. Therefore, the court declares that Dick is responsible for Jane’s choice to purchase the car.

Since Jane is the one who has the responsibilities of driving the car, washing the car, and providing a parking space in the driveway for the car, Judge MacKinnon rules that it’s only fair that Dick contributes his share to the upkeep of the Corvette: Dick must make the $1,300/mo lease payments, in addition to paying for the insurance, gas and maintenance to operate the car.

Dick requests of the judge that he be given the right to drive the Corvette himself from time to time, but Judge MacKinnon rules against Dick’s request because it is not his car, and therefore he has no "rights" to it!

You can see why being a Dick is not a good thing to be.
But, is this not the exact situation we are now presented with since “women have the right to choose?"

Most places have laws on the books called “Fetal Murder Laws.” Take states like California or Texas, for example. Fetal Murder is considered to be a Capital Crime, punishable as if the fetus were a living, breathing human being.

Killing a fetus in these states is considered equal to murdering a human being.

But, how come then, a woman and her doctor are not charged with murder in the event of an abortion?

It is because of the woman's right to choose, which even supercedes murder laws!

And, let’s just clear this up a little. It is not that the woman is choosing whether she wants to have a fertilized egg inside her or not. She has already passed up on choosing several safe and easy birth control methods before she got to the Right to Choose phase.

What a woman is “choosing” is whether what is inside of her is a human life to be honoured and revered, or just a useless piece of tissue to be flushed down the toilet.

If she chooses that the fetus is just a useless piece of tissue instead of human life, then the state fully backs her up and says the fetus is not alive, and therefore she cannot be guilty of murder when she rids herself of it.

But, if she chooses that the fetus is to be a baby, then the state backs her up and says that if someone causes her fetus to miscarry, that person is guilty of homicide – of taking a human life.

So you see, while a woman may have a fertilized egg inside of her as a result using her sexuality with a man, the “right to choose” dictates that it is nothing until the woman chooses, of her own free will, whether or not she wants “this thing” to be a baby or disposable garbage.

And, God forbid that she loses that right to choose. Why, that is enshrined as a woman’s civil right, and to deny her this choice is to oppress her! (Mother Nature is a really oppressive bitch).

But, it is clear that if a woman has “a right to choose,” then she does not actually become pregnant until after conception. She becomes pregnant only when she chooses to of her own free will.

So, how on earth can feminists and the corrupt courts possibly demand that a man should be legally and financially responsible for her choice?

If she “chooses” for it to be a human life and have a baby, then it is absolutely no different than if she chose to go into a fertility clinic and become pregnant through artificial insemination. And, in such situations, she is responsible for the consequences of her choice, including financial responsibility.

A man should only be responsible for the child if he himself has chosen to be so of his own free will. And, that choice usually comes through marriage.

Are women to be treated as children in our society? Why don’t feminists demand an end to this insulting farce and declare that women are independent and can handle responsibility for their own choices? Why do they insist that others should pay for their choices?

“Rights without responsibilities” is the state of a child.

“Responsibilities without rights” is the state of a slave.

“Rights with responsibilities for one’s own actions” is the state of a full fledged citizen; a full “person” under the law.

Why do feminists keep demanding that women be treated like children and men like slaves?

Why don’t women stand up and declare their equality by refusing to be coddled as though they're toddlers who cannot be held responsible for their own choices?

Why are women granted the right to be “dead-beat citizens?”

It’s time to choose to “woman up,” ladies.

What’s taking you so long to choose to grow up?

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........


Read more about this subject on Angry Harry’s site:

Rant Against the CSA


Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

How to End Domestic Abuse

"[Do you believe women have the right] to be free from domestic abuse?"



In fact, I think that we should strive to put an end to all forms of domestic abuse, and I don’t think we should rest until domestic abuse is completely eradicated from our society.

I also think that domestic abuse should be removed from society not only in the terms of male on female violence, but also in regard to female on male violence.

I’ll bet you think that I’m going to start quoting statistics illustrating that females are just as violent as males, don’t you?

Come on, admit it!

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think that’s the best way to end domestic abuse.

I believe the best way to “end” domestic abuse is to simply abolish the term “domestic abuse” from our language, from our mindset, and definitely from our courts.

I’m serious. Out of all the feminists who cry out to “end domestic violence,” to all the holier than thou academics who study domestic abuse in an effort to “solve it,” to the plethora of politicians who pledge to pass more laws to “prevent it,” and yes, even to the multitudes of Men's Rights Activists (MRA’s) who demand to be “included as victims of it,” have you ever heard of such a sound plan as mine?

I am the only one with a sure fired, guaranteed formula to actually end all forms of domestic violence!

Why, oh why, am I paid so little?

Why do we have the term “domestic abuse” in the first place?

Weren’t there already laws in place that protected us from violence before the feminists thought up the term “domestic violence?”

Living together in the same house does not somehow free one from impartial judgment by the law of the land. At least, I can’t find the law which says that it does, or ever did.

Were there laws on the books that granted “spousal immunity” in regard to general assault and battery laws?

Could you legally murder your spouse before the term “domestic abuse” was concocted, or did homicide laws protect people regardless of their marital status?

If someone were to, say, threaten to “pound something into my thick skull,” can I not go to the proper authorities, report it, and ask for a restraining order regardless of whether the person is in my immediate family or not?

Wasn’t all of this covered already before the term “domestic abuse” became a household word at the behest of the feminists’ socially redefining academic and legal juggernauts?

We can end “domestic abuse” completely by simply getting rid of the term itself and going back to allowing the law to protect us in the way it used to.




I’ll send the government my bill.

And by golly, YES, I will accept that tenured position at the University of British Columbia!

Does anything better illustrate how sick we have become as a society than the phenomenon that we can no longer comprehend how to function without begging the government to impose more laws upon us?

Not only do we ask for less freedom, but we demand that problems be completely solved by passing more and more laws until every last aspect of the problem is gone.

Imagine a lobby group was formed to “end speeding” and they pledge to keep fighting until every last speeder is removed from the roads.

It starts off small, perhaps with a policy of “zero tolerance” for being even one mph over the limit and increasing the fines by 50% to hurt people in their jeans.

But, some people are still speeding.

What to do, what to do?

Well, let’s give speeders points on their driver’s license which will increase their insurance premiums!

“Zooooooommmmm!!!” The sound reverberates in a rubber-necker’s ears.

“There out to be a law!” he exclaims, “Doooooo something!”

So, we pass a law that anyone caught speeding will have their car impounded for 6 months.

But still, someone will speed, somewhere.

I think you can see where this is going. In the end, there is absolutely no possible way to remove every last speeder from the road… except, that is, to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car, period. That is the only possible end to the equation.

And so it is. Transportation by automobile benefits mankind to an enormous degree, but there are certain negatives we must accept that go along with the positives. If we want easy, fast mobility and cheap transportation of goods, we must also accept there will be a certain amount negatives that are unavoidable.

There will be speeders, there will be accidents, and there will be injuries and deaths.

And we must accept that there will be these negatives or we will not receive the positives.

This concept is all around us in nature. Mankind must not be as smart as he thought if he can’t see what is all around him.

People who say they will not rest until the problem is completely solved are preaching totalitarianism and should be made to spend an afternoon in the stocks; letting some tomatoes smarten them up a few IQ points.

The world will never be perfect.

Only Marxists preach that they can create Heaven on Earth. And they preach it will be achieved by slavery to a totalitarian state.

Marxists are evil idiots. Many feminists and academics are unabashed Marxists.

Have a look at how the Abuse Industry works with our children.

Instead of asking a hard working farmer and his wife of 40 years how they successfully raised eight law-abiding, successful children, we ask someone completely different for “expert” advice.

Who do we ask?

We ask an angry 45 year old lesbian with a Ph D in Whatchamacallit, who herself comes from a broken home. She has one 3 year old child which was spawned by Thomas the Turkey Baster.

These kinds of people are our “experts.”

And, what do our “experts” recommend?

Parents should not be allowed to decide how to discipline their own children! Some parents have “over-disciplined” their children, and therefore no parent should be allowed to discipline their child with spanking.

That parents have successfully raised their children with the aid of physical discipline for thousands of years now becomes irrelevant to our academic gods. Times are different now. Yes, fine individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were spanked as children, but children were born with leather asses back in those days. Children born today are different from them. Can’t you tell? They now have three arms and green skin!

“Parents have been wrong for thousands of years," cries our Sapphic guru, “and some parents have abused spanking to the point where it is physically abusive, therefore NO parents should be allowed to do it!”

It is much better to let a child learn that playing in traffic is dangerous by sitting the five year old down and explaining it to him. If discipline is needed, a “time out” is recommended, and ultimately, children need to figure out and learn these things on their own anyway. That Mack truck has a natural lesson it will teach your child, so what the hell do you parents think you are doing, giving your child a smack on his bottom? You Cretins!

You see, our “intellectuals” have manipulated our legal systems with a belief that it is better to have all children raised at 50% capacity, rather than to have 95% of children raised at 100% capacity, with the remaining 5% raised at 25%.

They believe they can prevent this:
By making everyone live in a Utopia that looks like this:
Our lesbian lecturer will tell us that this is for “the greater good,” but it becomes obvious that she is not an expert in mathematics.

You see, 100% of the population at 50% equals 50%.

But (95% of the population at 100%) plus (5% of the population at 25%) equals 96.25%.

A population operating at 96.25% capacity is greater than one operating at 50%.

Who’s telling who about “the greater good?”

Everywhere you look in nature you will find this formula.

It’s time for us to recognize that laws can also be repealed!

We already had legal mechanisms protecting us from violence. We didn’t need to have a whole further myriad of never ending laws bringing the whole herd down to 50% capacity.

And we certainly don’t need to lobby to be included within them, feeding the Utopian beast even more.

End the Abuse Industry NOW!

It’s the only sure fired way to rid the world of Domestic Abuse.
"Heaven on Earth" is a nice fairytale theory. But in practice it becomes a Living Hell.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

Monday, February 18, 2008

The Women's Vote Question

Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin asked:

[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?


I’m not sure that a person who believes Somalia is in the Balkans should have a say in who represents us in foreign affairs.

I’m serious.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that 51% of the people should have the ability to vote to take away the rights of the other 49%, but that is exactly the situation we find ourselves with in a system of Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." – Benjamin Franklin

I think that questions like “should X have the right to vote?” could be compared to a typical family:

Imagine four children and two parents.

Should everyone have an equal vote in this six person family?

Why or why not?

Aren’t they all equal human beings?

Why or why not?

I think most rational people would say the four children should not be allowed to “outvote” the two parents; yet, they still have the right to live in the family’s house and to sit at the family’s dinner table.

Don’t you agree?

Is there a situation where this should change? What if, say, the oldest two children go out and get jobs and start paying room and board?

Should that increase the “power” of their wishes?

Many people would say that it should, and I don’t disagree. But what if the two oldest children decide to “vote” to knock out all the walls in the basement so they have greater space to play floor hockey?

Should they have the “right” to do such a thing just because they have a vote?

I think most people would agree that just because the two older children now have a greater say, this in no way gives them the authority to break certain general rules.

And what if the two children who now pay room and board decide to “vote” that Mom and Dad should pool their monthly incomes with them and thus greatly increase the resources available to them? Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

Perhaps, the two children paying room and board might “vote” that Mom and Dad should purchase a second car for the kids to drive, or for an expensive swimming pool in the backyard. Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

I think most people would agree that low income people having the “right” to vote to take away the resources of high income people, and use those resources to benefit themselves (the low income people), is nothing more than legalized theft. Why should a low income person be entitled to steal the resources of the higher income person?

In the story of the Good Samaritan, he stopped along the way and gave of his own resources to help someone in need.

Would he would have been a “Good” Samaritan if he had stopped you by gunpoint, stole your resources, and gave them to the needy?

I think he would have been a Crap Ass Samaritan. Don’t you?

And what if this Crap Ass Samaritan ended up stealing so much of your resources that you no longer had enough left over to actually give anything of your own accord? I don’t think that is a good situation at all. Do you?

To answer the original question, "[Do you believe women have the right] to vote?", I don’t think that anyone should have the “right” to vote unless they can demonstrate they possess enough understanding of our country’s constitution and history, plus illustrate they have an adequate understanding of political science in addition to a basic general knowledge of both domestic and foreign affairs.

We make people take a test to ensure they are knowledgeable and responsible enough to drive a car. Don’t you think it would be equally wise to make people take a test before granting them the power to drive the country?

I do.

I also think we should be living in a country that adheres to the principles of a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are equally responsible to a system of “impartial rule of law” and where no man or woman is above the law. And I think that the leaders of this Constitutional Republic should be decided by a Limited Democracy.

A Universal Democracy, however, is a really, really bad idea and never leads to a good end.

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." – Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

What most of the political correctoids fail to comprehend when they screech about “democracy” and women’s “right” to vote, is that our countries were not intended to have universal democracy – not for men or women. There are far too many people who believe Somalia is in the Balkans for that to have been a wise idea.

Even men did not have the vote for much longer than women. Oh sure, some men had the vote and held positions of power, but the vast majority did not. Most countries in the Western World began granting the “right” for landless men to vote during the mid-Nineteenth Century, anywhere from 50 to 60 years before it was granted to women. Men certainly did not have the vote for “thousands of years” before women.

The rise of the philosophies of Socialism began in earnest during the time frame of the mid-Nineteenth Century to the early Twentieth Century. It was also during this time frame that our Western countries changed from adhering to the principles of a Constitutional Republic to those of a Universal Democracy.

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." – Karl Marx

Yes indeed, Mr. Marx.

And it is interesting to note that a fairly good spattering of the Suffragettes were deeply involved with the Socialist Movement. One naturally wonders then if their demonstrations for democracy had more to do with the advancement of Socialism than it did with the issues of “women’s rights.”

In fact, one might say that a wise person who wishes to condemn that women did not have the vote for the approximate half century when only men did, would do well to at least examine the arguments of those who opposed women’s suffrage before attempting to speak with authority on the subject. Don’t you agree?

Should one undertake such a task, one would soon find that many of those who were opposed to women’s suffrage took such a stance out of concern for preserving the nature of the state. They were concerned about the changing of the principles of a republic into the principles associated with a democracy, and what affect women’s nature would have on this.

You see, it has long been known that women tend to choose collective security over individualism and freedom. This was well known in the past and it is still well known today. Sure, sure. Some men will choose security over freedom as well, but in general women choose collective security while men choose individual freedom.

Have a look at who the majority of women vote for today as opposed to men. In the USA, women overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party and its socialist principles of bigger government while men tend to be the majority of supporters of the Republican Party, which theoretically stands for smaller government and more individual freedom.

In fact, here is a study titled How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government? which was written by John R. Lott, Jr., and Larry Kenny for the University of Chicago. It illustrates that since the advent of women’s suffrage in the early Twentieth Century, women have consistently voted for larger government and more Socialist policies.

Now, all political correctness aside, if it is shown that the women’s vote is slowly but surely changing our countries from places which enshrine the values of freedom into nations which do not allow for freedom, but rather enshrine the values of totalitarian Socialist government… do you think that people should have the right to discuss this phenomenon freely with out the shrill chirping of feminists and their mangina enablers in their ears?

I mean, you do believe in free speech, don’t you?

And oddly, free speech is actually a universal “right” which is laid forth in our constitutions while, curiously, the universal “right” to vote is not. Even a five year old has the “right” to free speech, but not the right to vote.

One might even go so far to suggest that a responsible citizen has a duty to point out that if we keep following down this road without creating some checks and balances, we soon will wind up with a form of government in which none of us has the ability to vote at all.

Political correctness coupled with intimidation from feminists and manginas does not change “facts,” and such people who believe that they have the “right” to vote for the destruction of the constitutions upon which our countries are founded, are in fact exercising a vote of treason.

People who would vote for treason, regardless of their sex, should not have the “right” to vote at all. Don’t you agree?


Read more about voting "rights" and the subject of Republic vs. Democracy here:

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Do You Believe Women Have the Right to Freedom of Speech?


Do you believe women have the right to freedom of speech?


I believe all people should have the right to freedom of speech.

However, I am curious as to why feminists Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin should frame the question in a way to make it gender specific. Perhaps they feel that women should have free speech, but not men?

It is certainly not anti-feminists who are opposed to free speech. In fact, some of us are anti-feminist because we believe in preserving free speech. Feminism is the movement that wishes to make anyone speaking out against it guilty of hate crimes. Where Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin get the idea that anti-feminists are against freedom of speech can only come from the projection of their own feminist evil desires.

Who was it that became famous for wasting $75,000 of taxpayer dollars by creating a report for the Status of Women Canada which recommended that websites who opposed feminism should be placed on a “Hate Watch?”

Hmmm… who was that again?

Oh yeah, it was the feminist professor, Pierrette Bouchard, from Laval University. Mzzzz Bouchard, great feminist “thinker,” does not believe in free speech. (I know, I know. “Feminist thinker” is an oxymoron).

The danger of such laws as feminists have put forward are that they outlaw the truth. Yes, that’s right. What “Hate Crime Laws” do is make the truth irrelevant and illegal.

Under Hate Crime Laws, if say, an incredibly intelligent anti-feminist should quote domestic violence facts which illustrate that women are just as violent as men, such as those put forth by Stats Canada (the Government) itself, the truth does not make you innocent of committing a Hate Crime. You see, Hate Crimes are designed so that anything which is said about the protected group must be stifled, because even the truth can cause ill feelings towards them.

But yet, this is what feminists are trying to do to an unsuspecting population. They are trying to outlaw the truth because they know they have been cooking the books and slanting their position to such an enormous degree that even a quick glance will reveal their dishonesty and unravel their totalitarian agenda. Feminism can’t handle the truth because there is nothing truthful about feminism.

It is truly staggering to see the backroom manipulations, from our own governments to the United Nations, all trying to get speaking out against the political movement of feminism to be declared a “Hate Crime.” If feminist theories are sound, they should stand up under intense scrutiny, don’t you think? What are they so scared of then?

On the subject of free speech and freedom of the press, I do, however, believe that there should be some regulation to impose some badly needed checks and balances.

Yes, yes. I know. That goes against my general libertarian ideals. But, media is somewhat unique in its function of maintaining liberty. In fact, the media is supposed to be mandated to help maintain liberty by continually questioning and highlighting various aspects of society.

The whole idea of free speech is supposed to be a check and balance within itself, and this is what it is supposed to mean in our constitutions. It works on a free market type of idea.

It was originally intended that there should be hundreds, if not thousands of ideas and viewpoints put forth to the people with free speech. If someone believes in an idea, he should be able to buy a printing press, set it up in his garage, and start speaking and spreading his ideas around. If his ideas are sound, they will rise in popularity. If his ideas are stupid, some other guy with a printing press will write about it and his ideas will fall in popularity. All along, free speech from multitudes of sources should theoretically self regulate itself.

What was never intended, however, was a media monopoly, as we currently have. Here in Canada, we have only two companies who own virtually all of the media. In the USA, there are five companies, I believe.

We might have multiple newspapers and multiple news channels on TV, but they are all owned by the same companies and they all spout forth the exact same message. This effectively destroys the part of free speech which is supposed to maintain liberty. Media is unique in the way that it is mandated to maintain liberty. The media has failed us horribly.

The way the internet is working, with thousands and millions of voices all competing with eachother is exactly how free speech is supposed to work.

It makes one wonder then, why those in government (ie. Nancy Pelosi) immediately charge forward trying to regulate free speech on the internet, often in the name of protecting political agendas such as feminism. The internet does not need to be regulated, it is self regulating just as free speech was intended to be. How come the government does not attempt to break the media monopolies to encourage more free speech? Rather, government is trying to stop the first breath of free speech we have heard in decades by trying to regulate the internet.

They are scared shitless of free speech.

They know that agendas like feminism are heavily based in Marxism and have been used against the people to socially re-engineer them.

They know that with free speech, these agendas will no longer be protected and permitted to go along unnoticed. There is treason afoot, and unregulated free speech from little ding dongs like me is fast revealing it. The millions of voices are getting louder and louder. Communist based agendas like feminism are coming under the microscope and are found to be lacking.

I don’t think there is any anti-feminist that is opposed to free speech. Quite the opposite.

But, I can see why feminists continually try to end free speech under the rubric of “Hate Crimes Legislation.” Feminism knows that if society is allowed to closely examine her silk panties, it will be discovered that they are soiled with skid marks.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Charles Moffat. Canadian Artist? A Critical Review of Charles Alexander Moffat.

Well, well. A pre-emptive strike by a mangina has brought the mighty Rob Fedders out of retirement. What can I say? The public demands me!

First, I would like to remind the reader that it is never a wise idea to post an e-mail in a public space, especially when using it to attack someone. E-mails are considered to be private communications and taking a private correspondence, posting it publicly without consent of one of the parties, and using it to attack and defame the person is borderline behaviour that could land one in court on the wrong end of a libel suit.

Lucky for Charles Moffat that I am not a sue-monkey! Rather, since he has pre-emptively posted an e-mail conversation between us publicly on his site, I now feel no moral obligation to refrain from speaking about Charles Moffat, the great Canadian artist.

Charles Alexander Moffat is one of those artists whose specialty appears to be creating something similar to those children’s game pictures. You know the ones, “How Many Things Can You Find Wrong With This Picture?”

On Jan 15, 2008 3:39 PM, Rob Fedders wrote:
I have found a page on your website:

You show a picture of an “All Women Are Bitches” Knifeblock:

However, either you yourself, or someone else has purposefully altered this picture from the original which is attached to this e-mail WITH the proper disclaimer that seems to have conveniently disappeared…


I find this extremely dishonest of you, and it only supports anti-feminist arguments that honesty and honour have absolutely no home within feminist “logic.”

This picture was made as a protest against the BLATANT promotion of deadly violence against males, which in its country of origin is SUPPOSED to be illegal. However, it is not. It would however, if it were an “All Women are Bitches” Knifeblock, wouldn’t it?


Shame on you for your own blatant propaganda and manipulations.

The more that people like you resort to this kind of dishonesty, the more you steel the spines of those who want to make your sick agenda disappear.

I would be more than happy to highlight this dishonesty of yours all over the internet, if you believe that this is the proper way for you to convince others of your cause. In fact, I know of lots of people who would delight in such blatant proof of feminist dishonesty.

Charles Moffat wrote:

We found that image on an anti-feminist website.

Charles Moffat


On Jan 15, 2008 5:09 PM, Rob Fedders wrote:

I don’t doubt that is where you found it. It can be found in many places, and certainly feminists don’t care two hoots about the violence men suffer so I believe you that you didn’t find it at Pandagon. But it pretty much always appears with the disclaimer that states WHY it is the way it is. I doubt it was altered by an anti-feminist, and if it was, it would have been in a post about the "All Men Are Bastards" Knifeblock. The form you have posted is altered, and therefore purposefully inaccurate and misleading. Also, now you know it is inaccurate and misleading, which would make you somewhat libelous, don't you think? You now have a copy of the original.

Like I said, I don't have any qualms about spreading it around what you have on your site. I care about your cause as little as you care about mine. I, however, adhere to some basic morals - most likely to my disadvantage. But anti-feminists just love it when feminist sites get caught with their panties down. Posting that picture in an altered form is blatantly dishonest.

Do you support violence against human beings? This is a protest against violence - period. Yet, your dishonesty has taken a protest against violence, shown said protest in an altered form, and you insinuate inaccurately that men are encouraging violence against women - and you know it!

What are you going to do with your moral superiority?


Charles Moffat wrote:

We're going to laugh and post your ridiculous email.



On Jan 15, 2008 6:08 PM, Rob Fedders wrote:



(Tap, tap, tap… a month goes by… tap, tap, tap… “Ding! You have mail!”)


On Feb 13, 2008 1:22 AM, Charles Moffat wrote:


Do you believe women have the right to freedom of speech?

(Rob's answer: )

To vote?

(Rob's answer: )

To divorce?

(Rob's answer: )

To be free from domestic abuse?

(Rob's answer: )

To bear children when they wish to?

(Rob's answer: )

We find your response regarding the knife block image quite amusing, but frankly not much of one. The image was cropped because it took up too much space and felt too much like an advertisement.

You seem to have taken it rather personally. It is just an image. Get over it.

Also, with regards to the questions above we believe that if you answer No to any of them is basically a vote in favour of slavery.

Because when you take away a person's rights that is exactly what happens: Slavery.

We'd like to pound that idea into your thick skull, hence this email, but we don't really expect it to work. Most men are stuck in their ways and a lost cause after the age of 24.

In conclusion that article "Dealing with Antifeminism" isn't meant for you. It is meant for our female readers and those men who haven't been blinded by misogyny and bitterness.


Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin


On Feb 13, 2008 10:40 AM, Rob Fedders wrote:


I thought you were going to post my ridiculous e-mail.


On Feb 13, 2008 12:03 PM, Charles Moffat wrote:

We did post your ridiculous e-mails:



Now, I encourage the reader to keep in mind that Charles Alexander Moffat is an artist!

Towards the bottom of the page on his site, he lists on his Curriculum Vitae that he was “educated” as follows:

Specialized Honours Bachelor of Fine Arts at York University, Toronto, specializing in painting. Also studied art history, drawing, installation art, interdisplinary works, mural painting, politics, sculpture & time-based art. Elected Vice President of C.A.S.A. (the Creative Arts Student Association manages $150,000 in student funding) for two years and York Senator for two years.

Yes, indeed, Charles Moffat is an artist who states in his e-mail: "It is just an image. Get over it."

Now let me ask you, dear reader, how it is possible for someone whose entire education and whose entire gallery, his entire work as an artist, could be so bold to claim that “It is just an image. Get over it.”?

Isn’t an artist’s purpose in life to communicate with images in the same way a writer communicates with words?

What kind of an artist would imply that images are pointless?

What kind of an artist would suggest that his very work, his image based art, cannot move people? Wouldn’t that mean that everything which he does or tries to say with his art is also pointless?

Since my tax dollars support the education system which educates such “Canadian artists,” I believe it is my duty as a patriotic Canadian to do an in depth, critical review of Charles Alexander Moffat and his mindset, to discover how our university system can graduate artists who, apparently, do not believe in the power of images.

Stay tuned for part two of my critical review of Charles Moffat, a Canadian artist who asks premium dollars for his art, yet apparently does not believe that images can communicate meaning or move people.


(The new and improved one:

"If the All men are Bastards knife didn’t serve the purpose and you thought it to be a bit ouchy then try the Throwzini Knife Block. Inspired by the spinning wheel of death, don’t you think that you can now master the art of throwing knives in your kitchen. No dear you cannot do all that. 5 stainless steel razor sharp professional chef knives will remain secured in their respective places with magnets. You can just keep the wheel spinning and let your younger one clap her hands over the fact that none of the knife fell off. The handcrafted knife block is made of wood.")