So, apparently I have a new admirer on the side of the world where holy Britannia sent its undesirables and human refuse:

Hi there, my name is Gerald. I’m with the Waikato Times and the Stuff news website in New Zealand and would like to interview you regarding this blog entry:

https://lostapwbm.wordpress.com/2018/12/20/a-christmas-gift-of-aryan-insight/#respond

Max Christoffersen’s widow is extremely upset that her husband’s column is being used in this way and tells me she has tried to contact this blog in an effort to have it taken down.

By contact, do you mean randomly spaz out in my general direction with a stream of invective and threats? That would be more accurate.

You are souless evil arseholes. You have stolen work by my late husband Max Christoffersen – who died only two weeks ago – and perverted it for your own evil ends. I will have you prosecuted to the full extent of the law for spreading such vileness under my husband’s name. How dare you.

Even if this wasn’t some internet rando going TROLOLOLOL, this isn’t the sort of thing that merits a response from any rational person, much less compliance.

I am writing an article on this given that Christoffersen died less than a month ago and would like to ask you: Why the column was written?

Short version: For non-commercial, critical, and comedic purposes.

Long version: It is for the purpose of criticizing propaganda that passes itself off as acceptable discourse. Specifically, a style of propaganda meant to induce guilt in the reader and prey on whatever goodwill he has, while categorically denouncing and vilifying the same reader as a member of the ‘oppressor’ class: Men.

You shouldn’t leave your ideological weapons lying around where anybody can pick them up.

And that is what is being criticized: The casual deployment of ideological weapons and the attempt to induce guilt and anxiety in men in order to gain compliance. You could call it applied psychology, or you could call it manipulation. Just as a person has a natural right to not have their bodily autonomy compromised against their will, a person has a right to not have their psychological autonomy compromised by someone preying on his emotions.

“My wife has an emotion, therefore, feel guilt and comply.”

“Some man who isn’t you did a bad thing to a woman, and because you are both men, you should feel guilt and comply.”

“Some man who isn’t you has institutional power (which he likely isn’t using in your interest anyway, but that’s a separate topic), and because you are both men, you should feel guilt and comply.”

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Woman. – Romans 3:23 (Feminist ed.)

But, nobody gives a shit about men, not women and not even other men outside of their immediate group. Men have a natural preference for women in general over men in general. So, how best to expose the usage of ideological weapons against a targeted group? Just redirect the ideological weapon in another direction that no one can agree to: the Grauelpropaganda of the NSDAP against its own racial/ideological target.

The Wacky Germans weren’t the first to use ideological weapons against populations they wanted to demoralize and vilify, nor have they been the last. The Jacobins excoriated the ‘ci-devants’ and ‘enemies of the People’ (Marat’s being so incendiary that someone killed him for it), the Bolsheviks had their ‘kulaks’ and ‘counterrevolutionaries’, the Wacky Germans had their ‘November Criminals’ and ‘Lebensunswertes’ and the Maoists had their ‘roaders’ and ‘reactionaries.’ The Wacky Germans are simply the most infamous and the most reviled (and properly so).

Ridiculing works by ‘acceptable’ writers like Mr. Christoffersen is criticism, it is satirical, but it also puts an uncomfortable question right in their faces: Why are they comfortable with psychologically manipulating, demoralizing, and vilifying one group of people, but not another? Why are the weapons of propaganda acceptable against the class of ‘men’ but not against any other class? Because they supposedly have only the best intentions? In the name of the gender equal utopia? Because men really are just puppets dancing on the strings of the Patriarchy and therefore have it coming?

If your worldview suddenly becomes indefensible with a few applications of ‘Ctrl + H’ then it probably wasn’t defensible to begin with.

There is strong evidence it is breaching New Zealand copywrite laws. Will you take this entry down and if not, why not?

For an appetizer, that’s not how you spell ‘copyright’ in any corner of the English-speaking world. And ‘evidence’ is a pretty strong word. It has to be relevant, logical, and more probative than it is prejudicial. ‘Evidence’ is not a magic spell you get to invoke, just like ‘report’ and ‘police’ aren’t magic words or a lever that dispenses pellets if you slap it with your paw.

But, I do have a presumptive respect for other men. So, I’ll remove the post in question. Just step to like one man to another. I’m not interested in nonsense about the protean, yet morally pure emotions of the Widow Christoffersen, or your selective grasp of IP and international law, or the veiled threat that you’ll write mean things on the walls of the girls’ bathroom (I’m writing an article). You’re the corporate media. You’ll write whatever you want and then hide behind New York Times v. Sullivan, or it’s Kiwiland equivalent, when someone points out how divorced said writing is from reality.

Just step to like a man and say: “I was Max Christoffersen’s editor, and friend, whatever for X years. I understand you are trying to prove a point about the state of contemporary journalism as it relates to men. But, because Max was my friend and it is bad for my business, I’m asking you, one man to another, to delete the post.”

Reason and good faith should prevail over ideological weaponry and manipulation. But until they do, satire and ridicule will simply have to do their part.

Source