Kevin Benko

Random stuff from a chaotic mind

Men, Voting, And Military Service

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.10

I had stated in a previous post that women have never earned their right to the vote, for the most part.

This statement was that men did have the right to a vote, since men are disposable because most men have no choice to get drafted into military service. However, since women have a choice to enter military service, and if they choose to not enter military service– no harm, no foul.

Now, I stand by what I had said, for the most part. My true beliefs on the matter are probably a bit harsher. Since tomorrow is Armistice Day, also known as Veterans Day, Remembrance Day, and Poppy Day, I am in a certain mindset right now. Additionally, we had voted on 4 November and I am also thinking about that event.

Most people will disagree with my position on voting, since I haven’t voted since 1997. However, I do have some very good reasons:

First, if we assume the honesty of politicians, there has never been any candidate that I totally agree with , and since the lesser of the evils is still evil, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a politician I disagree with in any manner. Maybe if there is a politician that I agree with, I will vote, but not until I am aware of that mythical politician.

Second, I know that during the primary election the democrat is talking as he is the most representative of that party. And the same is true for the republicans. However, during the general elections, these parties present themselves as centrist. So, who are the politicians? What do they really believe? For that reason, I distrust politicians.

Third, most politicians are probably psychopaths. It seems to me that psychopathy attracts politicians or maybe vice versa. I have taken a personal interest in psychopaths, as my sister, a real live psychopath, had screwed me over about 1_1/2 years ago.


So, what this have to do with Veterans Day? These ideas I am about to present are directly from the book “Starship Troopers”, by Robert A. Heinlein was published in 1959 (the book has absolutely nothing to do with the 1997 movie). In the book, there are some important ideas:

First: The right to vote is a privilege reserved in military service, directly or indirectly.

Second: A politician must have served in the military service.

Now, as I have earned the right to vote, although I do not choose to do so. I seriously think that an able-bodied women has no obligation to go to military service if the politicians say that they must fight, and die, on a battlefield. Then the woman who does not enter into military service is, probably, a parasite.

Additionally, a politician who doe not enter military service, and for this military service that means active duty, no national guards or reserves allowed, then the politicians are, likewise, parasites.
How can the politicians lead us into war unless they know, first hand, what they are getting into? Unless the politicians understand military service directly, they do not have the right to be in charge of anything other than a quicky-mart or a burger-barn.

Of course, as usual, this is merely my opinion.

Have a good, but sad, Veterans Day.

Posted in Men's Rights, philosophy, politics, Veterans Administration | Leave a Comment »

Personhood / Right To Life / Male Abortions

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.06


On 4 November 2014, North Dakota had rejected the damnable “personhood” amendment. In the past, Colorado and Mississippi had also made attempts in the past to pass the personhood amendment. See, the wording of measure 1 would have been simpler in North Dakota that in the other two states. The wording was “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”

Yup, even though the people that had been trying to pass this damnable amendment in the past, the people of North Dakota have rejected it, approximately 2 “no” votes for every single “yes” vote. And even though this has failed in North Dakota, every one else needs to be aware of this type of amendment in every state in the United States, since these “personhood” people will probably not stop anytime soon.

These “personhood” amendments are intended to act as an argument against Roe vs Wade as an attempt to start a legal fight to make abortions illegal again. And, even though I a man, it is important for me to allow the woman to opt out of parenthood. Even if I cannot do that as a man, I would like the opportunity to opt out of parenthood at some point in the future.

Well, lets explain this disagreement of mine again, because I can never go through this argument too many times.

A women has the inalienable right to opt out of parenthood, through an abortion or adoption. This has been the right of a women since approximately 1973. Now, one way of getting equality is through overturning then banning that Roe v Wade result. However, I would propose that in order to gain equality for men, men should have the same rights that women have had over the past forty-one years.

Let me explain further.

A women has the option to opt out of parenthood, whereas a man does not have that option. My suggestion would be that we need a constitutional amendment to allow a man opt out of being a parent. The details would need to be worked out, but the primary rule is that a man could choose the option to not be a parent.

Now, this does not in any way, shape, or form, require a women to have an abortion. I think the man should have the same option as a women. And if the man opts out of being a parent, the women has the sole responsibility of taking care of the child.

Really, what is wrong about giving the man the same option as women have had for the past forty-one years?

See, that is a better option that the “personhood” amendments. This would place men and women into a state of equality with the option to not be a parent. Yes, there are some difficulties with my suggestion, but these difficulties are problems that can easily be worked out and the problems are a great deal more manageable that those “personhood” amendments.

Also, in my opinion, it is easier to give men the same rights that women have than it is to remove a pre-existing right from all people. Although, the “personhood” people are probably not rational.

The “personhood” people have slightly changed their tune several times in the past to the point where the “personhood” people are actually misrepresenting themselves as being “pro-choice” rather than the true fact that the “personhood” people are attempting to ban abortions. Additionally, the “personhood” people are, for the most part, trying to distract us with false evidence by telling us that is not a “personhood” amendment.

But it really is a “personhood” amendment.

Nevertheless, North Dakota has not embarrassed itself since North Dakota has rejected the “personhood” amendment.


Posted in Men's Rights, politics | Leave a Comment »

My Problem With Paul Elam

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.02

I was listening to an AVFM podcast about a month before I had started this weblog. On that podcast, Paul Elam had claimed that a man who needed some assistance from AVFM, would get that assistance through allowing the man to post AVFM articles on his website.

Well, I had noticed that I had not seen a men’s website in the Fargo, North Dakota area, so I thought about it for a few weeks and had set up this website and had emailed Paul Elam for his, nominal, promised assistance. However, Paul Elam had apparently forgotten what he had said on that podcast 2-3 years ago, and told me that he, essentially, had no idea what he wanted and then he suggested I ask his question on another website.

I let it drop, I have been trying to write articles on this weblog that are, hopefully, worth reading to someone.

Also, in my anger, and because I did not want to read anything that was not my own words, I had disconnected myself from AVFM. Now, recently, I have been hearing thing concerning AVFM. Apparently, JohnTheOther has been thrown under the bus, some women have positions in AVFM, and they have changed in essential ways. So, for the most part, I am glad that I had not been helped by AVFM, considering what they seem to have become.


My first problem with Paul Elam is married, but yet he claims to be a MGTOW. I am sorry, a MGTOW cannot be married.

My second problem with Paul Elam is that MGTOW is NOT a movement, rather, it is a philosophy. However, Paul Elam treats it as if it is a movement.

My third problem with Paul Elam is that has essentially been dishonest with regards to helping people who wish to be affiliated with AVFM.


Apparently, Paul Elam is attempting to make MGTOW a movement, as if it falls under the bailiwick of MRM (Men’s Rights Movement) or MRA (Men’s Rights Activist). Paul Elam is, essentially, attempting to co-opt MGTOW as a part of AVFM. But because he is married, he cannot speak for MGTOW. Additionally, MGTOW is about freedom and individuality, whereas MRM/MRA is a legitimate movement with the necessary hierarchy. And those true MGTOW will not tolerate to being under a hierarchy.

So, in my opinion, if Paul Elam does attempt to co-opt MGTOW, then he will either fail, or the MGTOW will, essentially, be at odds with AVFM. Also, AVFM is a money making business, and it exists for a profit. However, his profit is being funded by the MRM/MRA, and possibly the MGTOW. In my opinion, we should not forget that AVFM is a money making business.

Paul Elam, please stop this nonsense and leave the MGTOW alone, you are not, and cannot, be a MGTOW as long as you are married. You must accept that simple fact. You risk alienating all of the MGTOW who will not stand for your shit.

Posted in Men's Rights | Leave a Comment »

11 September 1857: Mountain Meadows Massacre

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.11

So, who knows, generally, what happened on 11 September 1857, 157 years ago?

The Mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, certainly know what happened their, because that slaughter of innocence was all about the Mormons.


The brief explanation is that there was a wagon train that had departed from Arkansas in April of 1857. It was referred to as the Baker-Fancher party that was emigrating to California. The wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and almost all of the party was slain, except for 17 children.

This  massacre was called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It has been estimated that 137 men, women, and children were killed on 11 September 1857, approximately 35 miles from Cedar City, Utah. Those 17 children, under the age of seven, that were not killed were left alive because they were sufficiently young because they were “too young to tell“. They were spared and taken in by Mormon families in Southern Utah. In 1859 those 17 children were reunited, by the Federal Government, with their extended families in Arkansas.


The Baker-Fancher party was very well outfitted with travelling carriages a large herd of 1,000 cattle and  oxen, and numerous horses. They had gone through Salt Lake City around 4 August 1857 to resupply. They had apparently gotten permission to rest in Southern Utah for several weeks to resupply and graze their cattle and oxen before continuing on their way to California.


But, for some reason, which I will explain, they decided to murder everyone in the wagon train. However, it wasn’t as simple as you might imagine, the Baker-Fancher party was well armed and well provisioned. A band of Mormon militia, under a flag of truce, had lured the disarmed members of the wagon train from their fortified encampment and accompanied by some Paiute Indians, or Mormons dressed as Paiute, had massacred them.

“The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands without a parallel amongst the crimes that stain the pages of American history. It was a crime committed without cause or justification of any kind to relieve it of its fearful character… When nearly exhausted from fatigue and thirst, [the men of the caravan] were approached by white men, with a flag of truce, and induced to surrender their arms, under the most solemn promises of protection. They were then murdered in cold blood.” William Bishop, Attorney to John D. Lee.


So, why the hell did the massacre occur?

Aside from the fact, that in my opinion, the Mormons are bat-shit-crazy. It was all about Joseph Smith and Missouri.

See, the Mormons had been persecuted since they had first formed a religion. However, in looking into Joseph Smith and his antics, the persecution of the Mormons was, in my opinion, entirely justified. Let’s face it, Joseph Smith was a con-artist, an asshole, and a dickhead to everyone that did not believe in his bullshit.

It was during the Missouri Mormon War that had caused all the problems. Apparently The Mormons were at war with the state of Missouri (I am dead serious). The story is that Joseph Smith had threatened Governor Boggs, and Governor Boggs had replied with that threat with Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order.

 “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description“.

Apparently, Boggs had taken the threat by Joseph Smith, reworded it and passed the executive order to apply to the Mormons. That executive order, written in 27 October 1838, was rescinded on 25 July 1976.

Now, there were some rumors that some members of the Baker-Fancher party were from Missouri. That’s it, the Mormons knew that Missouri is the state north of Arkansas, someone got their mind that maybe someone on that wagon train is from Missouri, so lets kill them all!

Yes, I am dead serious about this. This has got to be the stupidest reason in the world for a massacre. But, it is the Mormons, so go figure. And, yes, I really dislike the Mormons, as I had lived in Salt Lake City, Utah for FIVE YEARS!!!!!


In closing, I have referred to the included links, above with some additional source being:


Posted in Mormons, Mountain Meadows Massacre, religion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

My Problem With Atheism+ version 1

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.09

My Problem With Atheism+

Kevin Benko

Sep 9, 2014

Disclaimer: Note that I had a stroke three years ago, and it has taken me a great deal of time to write this post. And while this posting is partially about Atheism, it is also about feminism, thus, I have posted this on two separate blogs. Also, I have problems communicating (Aphasia), so if I have gotten confused in my writing this post, you may to look at it in the future if I have made any changes.

 I, like so many other people have a big problem with what is known as Atheism+, hereafter referred to as Not-Really-Atheism.

I will be talking with my particular problem with Not-Really-Atheism, while of the many other people have their own reasons for not liking Not-Really-Atheism, that is of no concern for me.

First of all, for those who have been living under a rock since the dreaded elevator-gate thing, let me discuss what happened with elevator-gate, and how Not-Really-Atheism was formed, in my opinion.

Rebecca Kay Watson, who you see a picture below acting like a slore at an Atheist conference with dollar bills being stuffed in her, insubstantial, cleavage. Now, when at an Atheist conference, a man asked him in the elevator if she would like a cup of coffee with him, she became outraged. She had claimed that “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.” However, in my opinion, the guy was just asking to have a cup of fucking coffee. Also, from her appearance, she is no prize, even without her attitude. She went onto say that she felt threatened by advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women.


Again, this was only because the other man had asked Watson if she wanted to have a cup of coffee with him.

Now shortly after that elevator-gate thing exploded, a movement started to grow within Atheism which had named itself Atheism+ , or Not-Really-Atheism. Jen McCreight started Not-Really-Atheism, a self described feminist and atheist. However, in my opinion, based on the official definition of Not-Really-Atheism, if we ignore all the extraneous nonsense, it is supposed to be some sort of “new Atheism” that is, essentially Atheism PLUS:

  • they care about social justice,
  • they support women’s rights,
  • they protest racism,
  • they fight homophobia and transphobia,
  • they use critical thinking and skepticism.

Now, I have three problem with this definition of Not-Really-Atheism.

First, Atheism is the null hypothesis concerning the existence of god. And that is all that it is, there are no other restriction, guidelines, or rules concerning Atheism. And, as far as I am concerned, all that other nonsense in Not-Really-Atheism is not only extraneous bullshit, it is also detracting Atheism as it has cause some conflicts between Atheism and Not-Really-Atheism.

Second, that last item has got to be a typo of some sort, because the last thing that Not-Really-Atheism proponents do is think critically or skeptically. First off, on “freethought blogs” they heavily censor their posts to the point where if you actively disagree with the Not-Really-Atheism party line, you will be booted from their forums. If you don’t believe that absolute fact, ask Thunderf00t, from youtube.

Not-Really-Atheism almost seems very cult-like. It is starting to behave like some sort of quasi-religious movement.

My third problem of the definition of Not-Really-Atheism is that it really is a part of the feminist movement. It looks like Atheist Feminism, to me. I kid you not. Some of the speakers in Not-Really-Atheism, Richard Cevantis Carrier, for example, have essentially admonished non-Not-Really-Atheism Atheists with some less than pleasant words. And those words were if they were coming from the feminist handbook. Following the announcement of Atheism Plus, fellow freethought blogger Dr. Richard Cevantis Carrier posted an article titled “New Atheism+ ” in which he expressed support for the idea and came forth with the view that anyone not immediately supporting (despite it still being quite unclear as to what it was) it were engaging in “douchery “.

So, in my opinion, Not-Really-Atheism is a parasite on proper Atheism, and it is sucking the life out of Atheism. In my opinion, there may be a war brewing as Atheism versus Feminism.

I think what the problem is that Not-Really-Atheism isn’t anything about Atheism. It is not about thinking critically and skeptically, it is about “social justice”, it is about feminism, but, and make no mistake, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

See, Atheists are supposed to have intellectual veracity, evidence, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and skepticism. Now there some people who do not deny that god exists, but that they do not like what god has to say. In my opinion, that is the heart of the matter. The Atheists that have a null hypothesis concerning the existence of god, versus the so-called Atheists who do not like god because he is a dick. That is where the divide between Atheism versus Not-Really-Atheism begun, and exists.

The Not-Really-Atheism is like choosing the faith that they want to hear. But it is not an acceptance of objective reality, but of agreement with the option that they agree with based upon emotions.

Atheism is a search for objective truth, weighs the evidence and finds evidence of of a deity lacking in veracity. Atheism is the acceptance of what is and the rejection of belief in those things that are not supported by evidence. And that is all Atheism is. Atheism is not by the appeal to consequences inherent of the religious community. Particularly with a rigid set of rules, society will collapse. Now while there are people who do need those rules, Atheists recognize that others are able to police their own actions. Atheism really doesn’t care about that at all, Atheism is only about a lack of evidence, and everything else is vacuous.

Atheism is not the appropriate place for people who dislike the constraints and requirements for religious dogma. Atheism is not a safe port in a storm for feminists, homosexuals, social justice warriors, those who have been oppressed by Christianity, Judaism, are Islam. Atheism is not for people who want to eat shellfish, eat bacon, have premarital sex, and it is not about preaching about belief systems that have oppressed people over human history. All of those things are appeals to consequences, and Atheists don’t, or shouldn’t, care about those types of issues.

Now, the consequence of Atheism are, in my opinion, better than the consequence of religion. And that is all concerning the arguments for or against Atheism and religion. It is like an argument against evolutionary psychology because it could be used to justify sexism. And that argument is all about emotion rather than rationality. That is a vacuous argument, and a real Atheist will, or should, say that.

So, all of those emotional appeals have no place within Atheism. Atheism is a commitment to the objective truth and reality, and nothing more. It has no room for emotional appeals of any sort at all.

Atheism is about objectivity and reality, not about consequences. Atheism is about facts, not feelings. Atheism is about evidence, not about the greater good.

Additionally, if compelling empirical evidence existed that theism created more just and prosperous societies that Atheism does, I would still be an Atheist. if compelling empirical evidence existed that Atheism was responsible for increased rates of poverty, crime, suffering, anti-social behavior, violence, war, improper grammar, bad hair, and STDs, I would still be an Atheist. If research into behavioral biology revealed that all the horrible things that had been done in the name of religion had been done in name only, that the flaw resided in human nature and not god, I would still be an Atheist.

Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god.

And any other reason to embrace Atheism is based on a logical fallacy. And the most popular fallacy is an appeal to consequences.

Unfortunately, this logical fallacy had opened the door when Watson, and her elevator-gate debacle happened, when McCreight created Not-Really-Atheism, and when proponents of Not-Really-Atheism, particularly Carrier, walked into Atheism with the realm of emotions. That was when Atheism was at risk from the feminists.

And the sad thing is that the Atheists opened that door willingly, and in my opinion, that door has never closed, and it may, possible, never be able to be closed. And the Not-Really-Atheism will always talk about how harmful religion is, rather than how irrational religion is. And that harm that religion has caused is not evidence of anything. And I think that Atheism has forgotten that simple fact ever since the Not-Really-Atheism has infested Atheism.

The fact that religion is cruel, harmful, and mean is of no consequence to Atheism. Because it is an irrelevant fact, because it is not based on objective facts. However, the cruel nature of religion has caused many people to embrace Atheism, and that appeal to emotions has allowed the Not-Really-Atheism to knock on the door. Ant the Atheists that opened the door has very probably ruined Atheism for a long time until someone, somehow, can manage to close that door on that emotional fallacy.

Make no mistake, Watson and McCreight did not embrace Atheism because of their skepticism. They didn’t embrace Atheism because of empirical evidence of god does not exist. Rather, they embraced Atheism because they do not like the way that god treats women, and their denying the existence of god means that, through Atheism, they do not have to put up with it. And, as a bonus, they can embrace Atheism and not have to get rid of their own ideological beliefs. And their entrance into Atheism, through Not-Really-Atheism, is just giving god the finger.

So, when the Not-Really-Atheism people came into the open door to Atheism, they let in all the people who do not think in a rational manner, rather, they let in a whole bunch of people who really do not understand Atheism at all. And now, there is a religious sect within Atheism, sad to say. And Not-Really-Atheism is still ruining Atheism, and while it may, hopefully, just scream and die, the damage is continuing today, as they try to destroy Atheism, burn it down, and salt the earth and replace it with Not-Really-Atheism.

And that Not-Really-Atheism sect is using the same tactics that the religious preachers use to keep their member in check, to police their own members: shunning, ostracism, othering, harassment, whispering campaigns, censorship, witch hunts, blacklists, vague feelings-based admonishments like “you just don’t get it”, accusations of sinfulness , or imputations of malice in reply to request for evidence.

Feminism is a belief system that does not care about how the real world operates, they don’t even, really, understand any position other than their own. It denies objective reality and an adherence to the unfalsifiable. Feminism does understand the facts of anything, as they are only concerned about how they feel about the thing. Subjectivity trumps objectivity, emotion trumps rationality, and belief trumps evidence.

And the Atheists have invited all that crap into their house, via Not-Really-Atheism, with open arms. Atheism, some of you, have asked for it! And now we are all stuck dealing with it.


File translated from TEX by TTH, version 4.05.
On 9 Sep 2014, 12:03.

Posted in Atheism, feminism, philosophy, reason | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

My Recent Battle With systemd

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.06

I have recently battled with systemd. Systemd is a new init system that has been introduced into the Testing branch of Debian (Linux). Now, prior to that, Debian was running under sysvinit until about 2-3 weeks ago. I had blindly installed it, then I had looked online about it, and it sounded somewhat grim.

For those who wish to look into systemd, I would suggest that you look at the following URLs:

Some of those links are good, but most of them are opposed to systemd.

Now, as I have had a stroke, I do not have the cognitive faculties to deal with anything too new to me. And for me, systemd is too new for me to evaluate. However, in my two to three weeks of dealing with systemd, I have noticed some unfortunate behaviors. When I restart my computer, it needs to perform a fsck and it tells me that I hardware system time is probably wrong. Now, I don’t know why that happened after I had upgraded to systemd, but I have noticed it, as I have 4 hard drives of 1-3 TB each, and it takes me a while, even under EXT4. And it pisses me off. In addition, I have noticed that the old commands I have been using forever have changed, and that pisses me off. and when the system reboots the load on my computer is pretty sizeable, around 9-12. YEAH. Really. And I have an AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor, and 11.74 Gb of memory. So it is not the fault of the computer, it handle anything except systemd.

Well, yesterday, after asking a question in the IRC and having been referred to a URL ( I tried to remove all of systemd and replace it with sysvinit. For the most part it was successful, however, I still have three packages that I cannot get rid of: libsystemd-id128-0, libsystemd-journal0, and libsystemd-login0. Now, I don’t know what these libraries are for, and it may need to be there, but unless I want to remove about 400+ packages and reinstall them, they are probably going to have to stay, for now.

So, while I have gotten rid of systemd, it did cause me some concern, but I think it was the best for me.




Posted in Debian, Linux, systemd | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

My Half-Sister Is A Psycopath

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.08.21

I kid you not, my half-sister, Leeann Dilliard Garton, is a legitimate, honestly, psychopath. I didn’t realize that in April 2013.

See, here was my situation in April of 2013:

I had had a stroke in September 2011, my cognitive faculties had taken a hit, and I was not able to take care of myself for about a year. My ex-wife divorced me in April 2013, and at that time, I was planning to move to Fargo, North Dakota. However, my ex-wife had tried to prevent me from living on my own, so she had talked with some of my relatives to see who would take me.

The deal between my ex-wife and my half-sister was that I would move to Schnecksville, Pennsylvania for a few years. My sister was supposed to provide me a room for two years, food, and a home for my cats. However, I didn’t last there for even four weeks. My half-sister told me to get out after three weeks.

So much for me staying there for two years. Now, I didn’t upset my half-sister in any way, shape, or form. I pretty well kept with myself and left everyone alone so as not to interfere with anyone else. But, yet, she threw me out for no reason which I understand. My half-sister fed me only one meal in those three weeks. This whole situation was entirely unfair to me. She was the one that had asked me to move into her house, she was the one who had agreed to let me live there for two years, she was the one who told me that she would feed me, she was the one who allowed me to drain my money in moving there and the Evil Bitch From Hell threw me out.

I had no other choice but to use my last resort, I moved into my Mothers house, and stayed there for six months until I got my SSI/disability.

So, while what I have said has no bearing on my claim of her being a psychopath. However, I had noticed some things about Leeann weren’t quite right. My mother had never referred my half-sister by her name, Leeann Dilliard Garton, but she always referred to her as The Evil Bitch From Hell, based at her actions that she had witnessed over the past twenty or thirty years. Actually, everyone that has known her for a few years starts calling her The Evil Bitch From Hell. While my stroke left me relatively unfazed, however, I had made some observations and had written them down in my notebook, and after poring over my list for several months, referring to the DSM, and speaking with people, I have come to the conclusion that my half-sister, Leeann Dilliard Garton, is a psychopath. Now, I do NOT say she is a sociopath, I do NOT say she is psychotic. I really mean that she is a fucking psychopath.

Now, I am approximately 1400 miles away, in Fargo, North Dakota. So, I think I am mostly safe. Additionally, I may have a stroke, but I am still dangerous when people push.



Posted in cats, counseling/therapy, disability, Divorce, ethics, freedom, legal, medical, mental health, morality, philosophy, psychopathy, rant, reason, stroke, values | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.07.26

Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists

John Hembling (JtO)

4 June 2011

 I had seen the below following posting only a few days ago, and I think that this particular text needs to be read by more people, thus I have slightly reformatted the text, but it is the words written by John Hembling, although I agree with all of it.


Where is the counter argument?


I’ve been an outspoken Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) for a few years now, and I’ve noticed that despite the overwhelming opposition to any argument for male rights, there are no substantive counter-arguments. No arguments whatsoever. Opponents of men’s rights have no trouble reciting false facts, debunked talking points, fabricated studies, and obvious lies in support of their religion of female victimhood and male villainy, but lies are not arguments. They’re just lies.


  •  1 in 4 women is raped, sexually assaulted, battered or abused – is a lie 1
  • The wage gap – is a lie 2 3
  • Women’s historical oppression – is a lie
  • Rape culture – is a lie 4 5
  • The inherent violence of masculinity – is a lie
  • The inherent goodness of femininity – is a lie
  • The idea that feminism is about equality – is a lie


By contrast, whenever I or any other MRA fields an argument in defense of men’s rights, or critical of feminism, it is never met with a counter argument. The arguments of MRAs are met with accusations, shaming language, insults, threats, blackmail, violence, censure, censorship, cooked up criminal charges, vandalism, imprisonment and other calumny.

My article critical of the institution of marriage was answered by feminists  accusing me of being gay,
… of being bitter, of having a small penis, or social ineptitude, of financial impotence, of living in my mother’s basement, of body odour, and of tenancies to hatred, violence, and pedophilia. Of those critical of my article, none actually addressed the substance of the argument made. None.

My article deconstructing the feminist goal of reversing the burden of proof in accusation of sexual assault was met by feminists who called me a rapist, a bigot, a woman beater, a loser, a violent criminal, and a sociopath. Not even one criticism addressed the substance of my article, and Jessica Valenti likely still wants women to be killed.

One of the first articles I wrote exploring the relationship between central banking and the funding stream of organized feminism was answered by a feminist on a different continent whose best rebuttal was to re-present each point of my argument – leaving out, and adding, key points to make them easy to refute in a straw-man attack – then to call me a stalker. A stalker on another continent.

In response to my arguments, I have been variously subject to shaming attacks, censorship, straw-man arguments, false accusations of violent crimes by people thousands of miles away, accusations of pedophilia, of rape, denounced as a psychopath, a serial killer, as maladjusted, as a loser, as a racist, and all manner of villainy. Almost none of my philosophical opponents have fielded anything approaching a substantive argument, or have addressed me with anything except lies and abuse, and a few threats of death too.

I won’t make any pious declarations of my own lack of violent, criminal or
deviant behavior. Why bother? I also will not shut up and go away. I will never shut up.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

What I will do for my loudest and most amoral critics is to offer a few suggestions:

  • Admit that your position is unethical, and that you are purely self centered
    and devoid of anything like an ethical compass

  • Admit that your continued insistence on women’s eternal victimhood is designed
    to take adult agency away from the members of the sexual demographic you
    supposedly care so much about

  • Admit that you want to force women’s and men’s behavior into a mode of compliant
    service to your own greed and sadism

  • Admit thatyourethicis built on lies and violence
  • Admit to yourself that even though you lack the muscle and the courage to commit
    violence yourself, your philosophy depends absolutely on violence done by others
    on your behalf

  • Admit that those who do violence on your behalf, when they have scrubbed the
    field of anyone who dares to disagree – those enforcers will turn on you

  • Recognize that whenyourpoliticalwillhas been imposed by force on everybody around you, you will discoverthatyouare locked into a tiny cage as well
You see, I recognize that in spite of my optimism and my repeated attempts to open dialog or discussion with the ideological opponents of the men’s rights movement – there will be no civilized discourse between us. The reason is that feminism’s active proponents have no interest in truth, nor in justice, nor in human rights, nor in protecting anyone from harm, least of all women.


Despite a nearly omnipresent narrative of “protecting women” mainstream feminism is a sham which depends on escalating social carnage to maintain a control on public conscience and to secure streams of funding.

I recognize that the opponents of the men’s rights movement are organized,

…violent, hateful bigots, and the only reason you cannot be correctly called criminals is that your ideology now controls the courts, and thus the definition of what it means to be a criminal.
I also recognize that soon, individuals doing nothing more corrosive than simply speaking out, will soon be named criminal.

A man I held in high esteem recently died, and I will repeat a statement of his now. “When your conscience says the law is immoral, don’t follow it.”

Past and present efforts to silence, shame, marginalize, and subvert the efforts of men’s rights activists demonstrate that what we are saying about our opponents, the enemies of human rights, is not exaggeration, or conspiracy theory, instead it is understatement.

I’ll restate what I said earlier.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

The fact that shutting me up, and shutting up other MRAs is a major goal is illustrative of just what we oppose. The truth does not require state funded enforcers. Now, in addition to not shutting up, and in light of my, and other’s increased understanding of just who and what you are who oppose the men’s movement – namely that you are violent, lying hypocrites lacking interest in truth, and consumed with a self serving philosophy which relies on escalating harm to those you pretend to protect. I don’t mind telling you, I am no longer here to debate, or to reason, or to converse, or to hope you may be reached by logic or evidence.

I am here to fuck your shit up. And in that, I am not alone. Now I don’t mean to stoop to the use of lies or violence. You are practiced at those tactics, and frankly, I don’t need them.
You may also wonder, what can a few disgruntled MRAs do that you should be concerned about? And to that, I can only say – watch, and learn.






File translated from
version 4.03.
On 26 Jul 2014, 13:37.

Posted in Men's Rights | 1 Comment »

Thinking About LaNeige

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.05.19

As I had previously blogged, on 23 of April 2013, I had put LaNeige to sleep, as he was diagnosed with liver cancer. I am also thinking about Mister Fluffy, who is nineteen years old, and he will probably be dying soon. However, Mister fluffy is still relatively happy, alert, and aware, but he is an ancient cat, and he will die in the near future.

Unlike LaNeige, whom I had let live too long and was in pain for about 3-4 months, I know better now, and I am almost always checking on him to make certain that he is not in pain. So im almost always checking on him to make sure he still breathing and not feeling any pain. I only wish that I had been kind enough to put LaNeige asleep when I had first recognized that he was in pain.

Now, I have a surgery that I need to have, but I cannot have the surgery until Mister Fluffy is still alive, since he is so old that when it is time to die, it will be, hopefully, quick, and I cannot ask anyone to check on Mister Fluffy when I go into  surgery, since Mister Fluffy really doesn’t get along with other cats, nor other people.

On a positive note, my impending surgery doesn’t really need to happen any time soon, since I have been needing the surgery for approximately nine years, so a few more years isn’t going to do anything I haven’t dealt with for nine years already.

So, I check on Mister Fluffy far to often to check and see if he is feeling pain, and he doesn’t seem to feel pain yet. But I think that Mister Fluffy is a bit irritated with me looking hard at him several times a day to see that he is still OK.


Posted in cats, ethics, morality | Leave a Comment »

Bagels: You Are Probably Doing It Wrong

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.05.12

Once upon a time, a bagel was generally made in a particular way, until bagels became more prevalent. Then they stared to make bagels the wrong way.

The wrong way to make a bagel:
A bagel is cut in half, lengthwise and the bagel is toasted. That’s it, it has, essentially, been delegated to being a piece of fucking toast. In my opinion, this is the incorrect way of preparing a bagel. It is a quick and nasty way of making bagels.

The right way to make a bagel:
You are supposed to heat an oven to approximately 350 degrees Fahrenheit and throw it in the oven for approximately twelve minutes, cut the bagel lengthwise, add either butter, cream cheese, or cream cheese and lox (cured and cold smoked salmon). The end result is chewy/doughy inside and crusty on the outside. Any other way is WRONG!


Posted in food | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: