Posts Tagged ‘human-rights’

For the last five years, Vladek Filler of Ellsworth, Maine, has been fighting for his freedom, against a corrupt, misandric prosecutor who tried to get him imprisoned for rape, on evidence that amounted to little more than the ‘she said’ testimony of his bitter, estranged wife. Hancock County Assistant DA Mary Kellett’s chicanery in prosecuting – or may I say ‘persecuting’ – Mr. Filler has gotten more than local, but national and even worldwide attention, and it raised enough of an outcry that the Maine Bar could not ignore it; she faces a hearing for prosecutorial misconduct at the end of August. Mr. Filler is the plaintiff in this matter, and he is scheduled to testify in Kellett’s hearing.

During that selfsame time, Vladek Filler will be incarcerated in Hancock County for the one charge Kellett was able to make stick – allegedly throwing a glassful of water on his then-wife, Ligia Filler. He will be in the control of the prosecutorial office where Kellett has been serving up this style of justice. How convenient … for Kellett, and her like-minded boss, Carletta Bassano, who has been doing all she can to shield Kellett from the scrutiny and discipline she deserves.

I fear that the timing of Vladek Filler’s sentence was set up so he can be bullied and intimidated out of giving testimony in the Kellett hearing. I fear that there is an unchecked culture of corruption in the Hancock County prosecutor’s office, and there has been ample evidence of misandrist behavior on the part of this office in the past.

In fact, I fear for Vladek Filler’s safety, if he is being held in Hancock County at the time of Kellett’s hearing before the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. Having him there would provide far too easy an opportunity for ‘something to happen’ to him, denying him his voice in the hearing.

Vladek Filler’s conviction should be overturned and stricken from the record. Absent that, he should be pardoned, in view of the suffering he has been put through by Kellett and her boss.

At the very least, his incarceration should be postponed until after the Kellett case is closed. If the Hancock County authorities won’t permit that, then his treatment and condition in there hands MUST be strictly and closely monitored by State officials who are not affiliated with the Hancock County prosecutor’s office, the Ellsworth Police Department, or any other local law enforcement agency.

There appears to be an unchecked culture of corruption, a culture of misandric behavior and persecution of men, in the Hancock County District Attorney’s office. They have Vladek Filler in their clutches, and I fear for his safety.

More information can be found in Gentlemen, Start Your Keyboards, A Voice for Men, 3 August 2012.


Read Full Post »

Keyster, a frequent commenter on several mens’-rights blogs, came out with this thought-provoking statement a while back. If I remember correctly, this was on The Spearhead:

If men are purely optional to women, then why can’t women be purely optional to men?

Because independent women are heroes.
And independent men are zeroes.

A man “needs” a woman.
A woman doesn’t need “any” man.

“A woman doesn’t need ‘any’ man” …?

I have seen a few women, in my life, who “didn’t need a man.” The only one who really stands out in my mind is my mother … and that, chiefly because she raised me without a dad.

I learned, from my mother, and my grandmother (the materfamilias of our household), that “men aren’t necessary.” This I learned by example, because I didn’t have a male role-model to “help me become a man.” Yeah, I’ve got the Y-chromosome and the danglies that go with it, but does that make me … more than just a “male” … a MAN? Read on, and judge for yourself….

I learned, after I left high-school and went to the seminary of the church where Mom had paid-up enough money for me to take the “Minister’s Program,” that my biological urges were something to be “transcended.” I’d learned this since age 12, when my gonads changed … but the Spiritual Call was supposed to flatten out my sexual urges and transmute me into an Androgynous Neutered Advanced-Being Spiritual Counselor. I did my very flat-out best to accommodate to this ukase. Honestly, truthfully, faithfully I did, and I have no idea who might have been shtupping the women I was counselling, honestly, truthfully, faithfully, really I don’t!!  I only know that I didn’t touch them.

I learned, from my religion, that I was a spiritual being who was damn-well supposed to be beyond sex.  Especially because I was in-training to be a Spiritual Counselor … and never the hell mind that my real father, not the guy whose name was on my birth-certificate, was the “exception that proves the rule” that a Spiritual Counselor in my religion was ordered to keep his paws the hell off his “preclears!”  I comported myself in accordance with the demands. I kept my own zipper zipped and locked, in accordance with The Auditor’s Code. I didn’t get ordained, though, and I didn’t do my internship, because I couldn’t afford to go on with them – I needed to get a job.

Certainly, I was a Zero when I left them and started work as a “Technical Aide” with the Federal Government. No glory in that, just a paycheck.

Some years later, I graduated past “being a Zero” with a couple of women. One of them was far, far more experienced than me “in the clinches” … the next was less-so, but circumstances after our first time eventually changed our romance into a Let’s-Just-Be-Friends situation. How swiftly I went from being her Hero … to being just another Zero.

Meanwhile, Society itself was being reshaped, to reduce men at large from Heroes … to Zeroes.

The first great reshaping was started by the Vietnam War. The previous wars in the public’s memory had been serious conflicts, taken seriously; the veterans of World War II and Korea were treated as heroes, as were the “boys in blue” of the Air Force, on the front line of the cold war. But many did not see Vietnam in that same light; and too many of the boys who got back from that campaign were treated with contempt. Treated as zeroes.

Then came the “Women’s Liberation” movement. It seemed to a lot of men that it was mostly about women liberating their vilest bad nature. The party line was that women wanted all the “privilege” they saw as being enjoyed by men – equal pay in the office, equal opportunity at the hiring time, equal access to college, to loans, to mortgages, to professions. They wanted to break down all the “artificial differences,” and ignore the differences that can’t be broken down because they’re hard-wired into male and female nature. Oh, and they made it clear that they regarded most men as “the enemy” and the top-rankers as “the competition.” They demoted a whole lot more men from heroes to zeroes.

Next came the revolution in divorce law, the “No-Fault” divorce – which is more accurately labeled as the “His-Fault” model. Along with stripping the husband of his kids, his rights, his house and most of his money in the settlement, the goal of this system is to strip all men of their last shreds of “equal treatment under the law.” And of equal compassion under Society. This stage is still ongoing, but meeting with stiffer resistance as more men recognize the battle and join forces against the new tyranny – the tyrants whose rabble march in slut-walks, or cheer as manginas from the sidelines.

I won’t bother to recount the way I went “from Hero to Zero” with either of the two following American Women on my roster, nor speak of the couple of chicas in South America who offered me their favors. I will say this: By the time I was 50 years old, I had accepted that I would never again be a Hero, and I would forever more be a Zero to the ladies.

My last couple of attempts to reach “the sweetness” have been with women who were completely and entirely incentivized by my money. Cash at the counterpane, dearie. Call them prostitutes, as they are, but you of the Femmunist Brigades will call me much worse. You’re already blaming me, and my fellow men, for the fact that some women are willing to trade their sexual favors for a man’s money; under the “Swedish model” you would jail, and prosecute, and fine, and imprison the man who offers his own hard-earned money for an hour of “the sweetness we’ve been dying for.”

A Voice for Men put it well in Male sexuality, un-demonized (4 May 2012):

We starve men, then shame them for their hunger and then when they reach for what little food is within their grasp, we smack their hand away.

The pessimist in me sees this as the final chapter in the old tale of the “battle of the sexes.” That battle is over for me, and I have left the gene pool. I am preparing to depart the land of my birth, and seek refuge from the craziness in another land. Maybe I will follow Odysseus, and Joshua Slocum, and others who have sailed away and finally vanished from human ken.

We men are less than Zero in your view, aren’t we?

I, for one, have ZERO (in honor of my social status) for you.


Read Full Post »

A couple of days ago, I posted a bit to MGTOW Forums on a thread that asked, “Are we the fringe?

The original post asked if “Men Going Their Own Way,” understood as the proper occupants of that forum, were “the tip of the spear” when it comes to recognizing the uncomfortable realities of male-female relationships. (This is a good point for me to expand the description, as it deserves, to “male-female-Government-Society relationships.)

The response to my post was enough to convince me to blog it here. (For those who aren’t familiar with it, “on point” refers to the lead position in a military formation – the “point man” is the one most likely to draw fire.)

There have always been men who went their own way – and they have always been “on point,” one way or another.

Odysseus went his own way; so did Gautama Siddhartha, and Moses, and Lao-Tze, and Jesus, and Mohammed, and Davy Crockett, and Buckminster Fuller, and Henry David Thoreau. So, too, did a vast number of unknowns who tried and died, or tried and succeeded but had no one to write of them and carry their story onward.

Those who go their own way don’t fit well with the rules, the expec-tations, the strictures and requirements of the society that they leave. That is why they go another way, turning aside from the well-worn highway to the well-known ends, looking for something more satisfying – or a place where they can shape their own lives, their own way. They’re pushed by discomfort or led by a vision. They seek … solitude, or the freedom to live life their own way, or even the view of something that nobody has seen and described before.

The pioneer, the explorer, the voortrekker, went out into physical wilderness to hew out a new home. There isn’t much unclaimed land to do that, nowadays – but there is still the realm of ideas, of beliefs, and of lifestyles. We may not be as able to “light out for the Territories” to escape the fetters of Society; but fortunately, we don’t actually have to go that far. We are instead going past the boundaries of Conventional Thought. It is enough to turn aside from the herd path, the path of conformity and accommodation and homage to the accepted gods, for you to be able to re-shape your own life in a more livable manner. And honestly, Society has no whip save your “guilty feelings” to swat you back into line.

Going Your Own Way, whether in the formal sense of The Book Of Zed or in the looser way of Just Doing It, is largely something you’re doing for yourself. It’s a turning-away from conformity and altruism, a rejection of Society’s imperative to “give your all for others’ sake.” Most notably, the way I hear it described and practiced on MGTOW Forums, it is a rejection of Society’s imperative to “find a Goddess and worship Her; give your all for Her sake, for man is nothing but Womyn is all-deserving!”

Our choice to ignore nature’s imperative to reproduce, and Society’s imperative to “worship The Goddess,” puts us at odds not only with Society, but with our own sexual nature. It is anti-survival, on the genetic level; but we recognize that it is not only pro-survival on our own individual level, but also pro-survival for the future of Humanity, which cannot go on under the immature will-o’-the-wisp caprices of the Child-Goddesses that women have proven, at their essence, to be. To those of us who have children – I sacrifice my never-to-be-born children to the Cause, willingly, with wistful sadness for what might have been, but no anger toward the survivors; with no, or at any rate with stifled, regret.

There are a lot of ways that men “take point,” not only as soldiers. Men “take point” when they take on the difficult jobs, the dangerous jobs, the jobs that take muscle and occasionally take lives. Men “take point” when they try to turn a new idea into a new business, and also when they start their own business in an established field. Men “take point” when they stand up for principle instead of going on with Society’s expectations and conventions. Men “take point” when they stand up against tyranny, especially a popular tyranny like feminism; most especially, when they’re ready to “go it alone” if no one will join them.

In the broadest terms, in the long run, we’re all headed for the same place. As my “Old Pilot” confrères would put it, we’re all going West; we’re all heading toward the sunset of our lives.

Most of us strive to make that journey in company, in the herd, getting along by going along, following the well-worn path of conformity. Some of us choose different paths, riskier and less certain. Some of us forge our own paths and go it alone, like the Men Going Their Own Way.

As an old pilot, myself – and as a new mariner who is planning to Sail Beyond The Sunset, in fashions practical and poetic – I am all-too-well aware that my hopes, my dreams, and my plans are contrary to those who would encourage us to reside in a quieter, kindlier, blander, more ineffectual world. After watching my Dear Auntie live in an Assisted Living facility for the past seven months, I can assure you in all honesty and gravitas that I would rather die alone at sea than spend my final years like that.

As Jimmy Buffett put it, “I’d rather die while I’m living than live while I’m dead.”

Get my point?


The mother of all lies (A Voice for Men, 12 May 2012) – Robert Franklin introduces himself to AVfM with a review of the New York Times’ recent in-print debate:  “Has women’s obsession with being the perfect mother destroyed feminism?  In particular, has this trend of ‘attachment parenting’ been bad for working moms?”

Deconstructing the TIME Breastfeeding Cover (The American Thinker, 15 May 2012) – Wow. Now this is what we can an “attention whore”! Actually a conspiracy of attention-whores … Jamie Lynne Grumet, the lactating mommy in the cover photo; plus TIME Magazine, who made her into their cover-girl with a supporting role for her “three-year-old” (and awful big for three!) suckling son.

Vote With Your Ass (In Mala Fide, 14 May 2012) – Jack Donovan, frequent contributor to IMF, lays it on the line with this excoriating dismissal of “the power of the vote” in today’s America. Gods above, I wish I could prove him wrong. (This last sentence is what a high-school friend once referred to as  “praising with faint damns.”)

Just by way of “full disclosure” – I am hoping to Sail Beyond The Sunset before 2016. I hope the election of 2012 will help to “turn things around” in Washington, but I put not my faith in princes, or in Congress, or in the Senate, and most particularly not in the Executive Branch of the US government. Is it time for me to “get out of dollars” and buy gold? I’m thinking about it …

Read Full Post »

One of the major things I see as raising Civilization above mob rule is justice. Please note that I don’t say “law” – I say “justice,” because justice and law are not the same.

Justice, to me, starts with what the Rig-Veda calls “karma.” Let’s not get into the religious ramifications of karma; I’d prefer to use it as shorthand for “what goes around comes around.” You reap what you sow. Take care of your family, your friends, your neighbors – and they’ll take care of you. Screw people over, and you’ll get screwed over, somehow, in turn. Not necessarily directly, and not necessarily “from outside;” our lives will balance things out, and I would rather put more “good” out into the world just for the sake of having more good in the world.

My definition of justice goes on to include the notion that the “little guy” gets justice, too. The wealthy, the powerful, have no more of those “inalienable rights … (to) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” than the poor, the humble, the powerless. Might does not make right, to put it simply; not might of arms, nor might of power, nor might of wealth.

Nor might of law. In my own naive opinion, “law” should be a code to clarify the Rights of the Individual and the less-definable Rights of the Community, and a system to judge disputes and determine which party – plaintiff or defendant – actually is right. I say “should” because that’s not what I see in law, in this society, today.

What I see instead, in law, are politics, and special interests, and a self-perpetuating system that’s all about more laws. And more special-interests. And more work for more lawyers, for more judges, for more policemen. And no longer to “support Justice,” but to support the Rights Of The Victim.

With special emphasis on Defining The Victim. 

One of the great sea-changes in modern law has been that of expanding the case from the individual, here-and-now circumstances to the inclusion of “historical wrongs” as a matter of current jurisprudence. It’s not enough, say the jurists, that an individual should atone for his own wrongs against another individual. Now it’s regarded as “right” that an individual should atone for the wrongs visited by his imputed ancestors against the ancestors of a “historically victimized” group. Since a long-dead group of my genotype, call us “Group C,” once oppressed a long-dead group of (let’s call them) “Group I” – the current members of “Group I” see fit to blame me and my current members of “Group C” for those historical wrongs; and the courts look favorably on their case.

This has led to the remarkable situation I call “Victim Power”. I describe this as “the empowerment, the special regard, the grants of special aid and special advantage, that should be afforded the Historical Victim in any, every, and all situations that might imply or include the existence of an Historical Oppressor.”

Victim Power does have some constraints, though, to its utility. The “Historical Victim” must have a “history of oppression” to point out, in order to make the case. The group must be able to hold up evidence that they are still suffering, somehow, from this “oppression”. To maintain their case, they generally must portray themselves as “helpless,” “manipulated,” “held down” by the Oppressor Class, even as they insist that they “could do it all if it weren’t for the machinations of those Oppressors!”

This works pretty well, for a while, if you have a Historical Oppressor. If someone actually invaded your land, killed your grandfathers, imposed their rule, and continue to exploit you in a blatantly-unfair system, or one you can allege is “blatantly unfair,” you’ve got a case. You can find champions, you can win redress … for as long as you continue to be obviously “downtrodden.” This doesn’t work any more, though, when you and your “fellow victims” get to the point where you’re living better than your supposed “oppressors”.

What’s a victim to do, when they’ve won way more than they ever lost?  Could you enjoy your victory and live well on the fruits of it? Worse yet, what happens to your champion; can he live on your sincere appreciation alone, after he’s won the day for you?

Apparently not. The “victim business” is just too lucrative. Our society takes very good care of “victims,” so it’s worth a lot to maintain your “victim” status.

The answer, apparently, is to show off more ways that you’re a victim; to display more and more-varied ways of oppression, to allege that you’re still oppressed, to stretch the shadow of your Victimhood as far as you possibly can imagine. And if you can’t point out your “victimhood” any more – because you have been so much, so often, so long the Actual Victor – then you’ll just have to resort to inventing oppression, even to the point of using a tiny slur to justify firestorms of public outrage. Piling up that outrage, then piling up others’ response to your own outrageous acts to present it as more and more outrage – piling Ossa upon Pelion, to be classical about it.

Probably the most successful “Professional Victims” in the modern world are women. Team Womyn have turned generosity into obligation, well-intended advice into deadly insults, their own blatantly-felonious wrongs into “justified response,” and the privilege of a tiny, tiny few into “obvious discrimination.”

Victim Power is, now, the societally-sanctioned axiom that “It’s all the Man’s fault.” And it continues to be used as the false front of a system that is reaching beyond Equal Rights – and for Women’s Supremacy.

There is a certain irony that the State where I grew up, the Commonwealth of Virginia, used Victim Power (though maybe not so blatantly labeled) in its State Seal, which is slightly modified in this graphic. I have not used the new Politically Correct version, devised by recent Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to hide the “wardrobe failure” of the original seal. I prefer to be honest:

“The New Tyrant” is among us, and she does indeed have tits.


A Few Good Links:

Cause and Blame: The Myth of Victim Blaming (Constitutional Daily, 1 Oct 2011) points out the fallacy of holding up a well-meaning individual’s advice as a “shaming tactic.”

False Victimhood (A Voice For Men, 19 March 2012) is another article that prompted me to publish this one. I’d kept it “on the spike” for a while …

Divorced Dads and Little League (The Spearhead, 20 Mar 2012) is a great example of Victim Power in operation, with the Tearful Concerned Ex-Wife contriving to slap an Emergency Order of Protection on her ex-husband expressly to deny him from even coaching their son’s Little League team.

The Fundamental Cause of Feminism(In Mala Fide, 21 Mar 2012) – “Society is an apparatus for providing women with resources.” This ensures survival in a world of scarcity – but what does it do in a world of abundance?

Read Full Post »