Wordle with “trace”

You wish to achieve a Wordle average in the ballpark of 3.5. The following method works to get that. It is based on the strategy here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oSDhy8GVw9h6CLeEDgrxNOM-LQsNuVsy/view

Your first guess is “trace”. Based on how Wordle reponds, the following database yields your second guess. “B” means blank, “Y” means yellow and “G” means green. Wordle responds with a string of five of these, such as “YGBBY”, or “YYYBB”, and so on. Match up that response with the suggestion from the database.

[1] “BBBBB” “soily”

[2] “YBBBB” “point”

[3] “GBBBB” “lying”

[4] “BYBBB” “sough”

[5] “YYBBB” “shout”

[6] “GYBBB” “butoh”

[7] “BGBBB” “bidon”

[8] “YGBBB” “feign”

[9] “GGBBB” “plush”

[10] “BBYBB” “sonly”

[11] “YBYBB” “spiny”

[12] “GBYBB” “noily”

[13] “BYYBB” “pylon”

[14] “YYYBB” “worry”

[15] “GYYBB” “tardy”

[16] “BGYBB” “arbor”

[17] “YGYBB” “artsy”

[18] “GGYBB” “triad”

[19] “BBGBB” “shuln”

[20] “YBGBB” “slink”

[21] “GBGBB” “twang”

[22] “BYGBB” “dhows”

[23] “YYGBB” “skimp”

[24] “GYGBB” “tiara”

[25] “BGGBB” “blind”

[26] “YGGBB” “draft”

[27] “GGGBB” “islet”

[28] “BBBYB” “muils”

[29] “YBBYB” “clout”

[30] “GBBYB” “pound”

[31] “BYBYB” “choir”

[32] “YYBYB” “court”

[33] “BGBYB” “spunk”

[34] “YGBYB” “crust”

[35] “BBYYB” “monal”

[36] “YBYYB” “tacit”

[37] “GBYYB” “tacit”

[38] “BYYYB” “carom”

[39] “YYYYB” “actor”

[40] “BGYYB” “croak”

[41] “BBGYB” “blips”

[42] “YBGYB” “coast”

[43] “BYGYB” “hydro”

[44] “YYGYB” “chart”

[45] “BGGYB” “amyls”

[46] “YGGYB” “craft”

[47] “BBBGB” “cuish”

[48] “YBBGB” “hound”

[49] “GBBGB” “touch”

[50] “BYBGB” “rebut”

[51] “GYBGB” “torch”

[52] “BGBGB” “crimp”

[53] “GGBGB” “trick”

[54] “BBYGB” “fancy”

[55] “YBYGB” “blimp”

[56] “BYYGB” “march”

[57] “BBGGB” “blush”

[58] “YBGGB” “stack”

[59] “BYGGB” “roach”

[60] “BGGGB” “wrack”

[61] “GGGGB” “track”

[62] “BBBBY” “lined”

[63] “YBBBY” “peels”

[64] “GBBBY” “mened”

[65] “BYBBY” “pines”

[66] “YYBBY” “metes”

[67] “GYBBY” “humor”

[68] “BGBBY” “defer”

[69] “YGBBY” “greet”

[70] “GGBBY” “tried”

[71] “BBYBY” “kneel”

[72] “YBYBY” “pleat”

[73] “GBYBY” “theta”

[74] “BYYBY” “pygal”

[75] “YYYBY” “wheel”

[76] “GYYBY” “karma”

[77] “BGYBY” “bread”

[78] “YGYBY” “great”

[79] “GGYBY” “treat”

[80] “BBGBY” “humid”

[81] “YBGBY” “sadly”

[82] “BYGBY” “badly”

[83] “YYGBY” “heart”

[84] “GYGBY” “teary”

[85] “BBBYY” “coley”

[86] “YBBYY” “solve”

[87] “BYBYY” “chirr”

[88] “YYBYY” “recut”

[89] “BGBYY” “plied”

[90] “YGBYY” “crept”

[91] “BBYYY” “olden”

[92] “YBYYY” “cheat”

[93] “BYYYY” “recap”

[94] “YYYYY” “cater”

[95] “BGYYY” “creak”

[96] “BBBGY” “whelp”

[97] “YBBGY” “vital”

[98] “BYBGY” “perch”

[99] “YYBGY” “retch”

[100] “BGBGY” “wreck”

[101] “YGBGY” “erect”

[102] “BBYGY” “mecca”

[103] “BBGGY” “blush”

[104] “YBGGY” “enact”

[105] “GBGGY” “teach”

[106] “BYGGY” “reach”

[107] “YYGGY” “react”

[108] “BBBBG” “sling”

[109] “YBBBG” “muils”

[110] “GBBBG” “shell”

[111] “BYBBG” “sprog”

[112] “YYBBG” “route”

[113] “GYBBG” “there”

[114] “BGBBG” “ponds”

[115] “YGBBG” “wrote”

[116] “GGBBG” “piety”

[117] “BBYBG” “lambs”

[118] “YBYBG” “blush”

[119] “GBYBG” “table”

[120] “BYYBG” “align”

[121] “BGYBG” “arise”

[122] “BBGBG” “slump”

[123] “YBGBG” “glops”

[124] “GBGBG” “tease”

[125] “BYGBG” “blush”

[126] “YYGBG” “stare”

[127] “BGGBG” “damps”

[128] “YGGBG” “grate”

[129] “GGGBG” “trade”

[130] “BBBYG” “chons”

[131] “YBBYG” “chute”

[132] “BYBYG” “score”

[133] “BGBYG” “spend”

[134] “BBYYG” “blush”

[135] “YBYYG” “acute”

[136] “BYYYG” “carve”

[137] “BBGYG” “chase”

[138] “BYGYG” “scare”

[139] “BGGYG” “naval”

[140] “YGGYG” “crate”

[141] “BBBGG” “piums”

[142] “GBBGG” “twice”

[143] “BYBGG” “force”

[144] “BGBGG” “price”

[145] “GGBGG” “trice”

[146] “BBYGG” “lance”

[147] “BYYGG” “farce”

[148] “BBGGG” “place”

[149] “BGGGG” “grace”

Right-Wing Culture War = Left-Wing Culture War

This is the conclusion I arrived at several years ago, about 2015. Initially, I didn’t know who is worse. But I now regard both as equally obnoxious.
The Right-Wing culture war has notably aligned itself closely with the RadFems (women helpless infants; men are predatory demons & creeps; “keep women safe!”), and pushes “trans ideology is perverting the kids” and various “critical theory”/CRT/”white replacement” conspiracy theories and lunacy. All insane hysteria, paranoia, victim-playing and witch hunting. This also has an antisemitic undercurrent which is obvious (the talk of “Cultural Marxism” was invented by an American far-right antisemite William Lind, and is nothing more than Nazi terminology, used by the Nazis in the 1930s, and the users of this terminology know it as well).
The Left-Wing culture war does the same, except with usually different scapegoats (except they both enjoy demonizing and hunting men), “white privilege”, “defund the police!”, “toxic masculinity”, etc. All insane hysteria, paranoia, victim-playing and witch hunting. As well as vilifying and demonizing men & boys, this also has an antisemitic undercurrent (mainly filtered through Israel-bashing), which is also obvious.

Why Does Chronic Pain Hurt So Much?

Interesting to read Kieran Setiya’s essay about chronic pain (pelvic pain)

It seems I have the exact same thing as Setiya does.
This began suddenly in March 2012 when I was living in Munich. The exact day my unhinged stalker revealed she was following me to Oxford. Knowing I would be there (stupidly I had told her this in 2011), she then applied and got in to a postgraduate course there (where her stalking campaign continued).
This was terrifying. Later that night, I developed a massive need to pee. During the night, I couldn’t sleep. Next day, I was in so much pain I could barely walk. But that day I had to go to a conference, in Vienna, where I was due to give a talk. I took a train there and returned to Munich a day later. Then I travelled back to UK and stayed with a friend in London for a month to get medical help. After various treatments (including the tube Setiya describes, and a prostate biopsy), I got diagnosed with “non-bacterial prostatitis” and “probably due to stress”. I got given various relaxant muscle medications. I still take them.
Before 2010, I was generally fairly healthy. By 2012, I was in almost permanent physical pain and suffering endless terror from my unhinged stalker, Charlotte Coursier.

The Manipulation of Dr Boddington

I’m frequently asked:

Why didn’t they take action against the activist mob, who were distributing slander and libel, a bizarre defamatory hoax?

Because they — i.e., Christopher Shields, Jessica Moss, Bill Child, Frank Arntzenius,  (probably a couple of others, including Cian Dorr, John Hawthorne, John Hyman; later, from September 2013, Ewan McKendrick, at the behest of Shields: they were colleagues at Lady Margaret Hall) — knew they would face a serious investigation of welfare failings, if the facts surrounding Charlotte Coursier’s suicide were revealed in any way. They also knew that other Oxford Philosophy Faculty individuals would be investigated for their sexual affairs with students (Shields, Hawthorne, Hyman: at least two secret “Title IX” style investigations were taking place in 2014). Possibly a police investigation and certainly a coroner’s investigation concerning serious Faculty negligence leading to a student’s death.

So, in order to conceal those facts, they manipulated the mob for months, to run their online campaign against me. This provided perfect cover. It was easy to manipulate Dr Boddington (a paranoid conspiracy theorist) and her crazed student, Brooke Berndtson, as well as the other activists, and to drive them into a frenzy, getting them to believe the exact opposite of what they were doing. It worked perfectly.

They were directly pushing the wild activist mob at every step, to do exactly as they wanted, while saying almost nothing in public.

“You may recall that […] banned you from his flat after you assaulted me”

After this violent woman assaulted me, in November 2010, she went on to stalk me for a further two and a half years, up to May/June 2013. Here are just a few of my attempts over these two and half years telling her to leave me alone and stop threatening me:

Screenshot 2022-06-05 at 01.04.21

On 6 May 2013 and 7 May 2013, she stalked me at my workplace (Pembroke College, Oxford, at a club I created for my students there). I told her to leave me alone (proof: above). Occasionally, people have asked me what I actually wrote. This is what I wrote:

You may recall that [redacted: my flatmate] banned you from his flat after you assaulted me, and the police were called when you began screaming abuse at me.

Here’s a clip from the email itself (you might need to enlarge):Screenshot 2022-06-05 at 01.02.25

Dear Dame Master Lynne Brindley …

This is the letter that my students wrote to Dame Lynne Brindley (the then Master of Pembroke College), after The Brooke Berndtson/Paula Boddington vigilante mob had defamed and harassed me, called me a “murderer”, raised a sociopathic mob, and harassed me and my family out of town (Oxford). I believe it was April 2014. I was reinstated a few months later. The Berndtson/Boddington accusations were all totally fabricated lies.

Screenshot 2022-05-21 at 23.16.44

Eight Years Later

Exactly eight years ago, 26 February, 2014, militant activist student Brooke Berndtson, her mentor Dr Paula Boddington, and the militant activist mob they recruited (including Jennifer Saul, Jacob Williamson, Rachel Fraser, Luke Brunning, Kian Mintz-Woo and others), harassed me, my wife and my young son out of our home, after an eight-month long campaign of defamation, harassment, smearing and online abuse. We were terrified of these gangsters, and their vicious campaign of lying, smearing, harassment and abuse.

At the same time, Paula Boddington, Christopher Shields, Frank Arntzenius and others covered up the violent abuse, sexual harassment and stalking we had endured from the violent mentally unstable stalker, Charlotte Coursier (who, having stalked me for several years, committed suicide when her boyfriend dumped her in June 2013).

This militant feminist witch hunt campaign of lying, smearing, libel, defamation harassment and concealment of the truth is not forgotten or forgiven. It is disgusting vigilante thuggery and lying.

The Alliance Between Conservatives and Radical Feminism

The following are three facts:

  • Conservatives hate MRAs.
  • Conservatives are aligned with the radical feminists.
  • Conservatives and radical feminists overlap strongly in their beliefs 
The first is obvious. As proof of the second, simply read Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Spectator, The Critic, Quillette, Spiked and so on. Every day, this media is filled with radical feminist propaganda. Radical feminism arose from mostly pseudo-Marxist militants around 1970. One these was one Erin Pizzey, who is still extremely left-wing (she supports BLM, for example). She was driven out by conservative feminists because she contradicted the conservative narrative that women are not violent. And immediately, all their radical man-hating policies were implemented by conservative governments, who have been in power for 30 years out the last 43 years. Conservatives will not accept that women are violent.  For conservatives, especially the white knights, and radical feminists believe the same things: women are helpless; men are evil demons; moral panic & hysteria about non-existent “crime”; “keep women safe!”; violence is ok or forgiven if a woman does it; let’s get rid of due process; lock ’em up – this means countless innocent men.

IPV-Related Deaths

Criminologists have only recently begun to study IPV-related deaths, including suicide. (IPV being “interpersonal violence”, a synonym for “domestic violence” or “domestic abuse”.) The findings are that the majority of IPV-related deaths are men. The more recent one found that 61% of the deaths, out of 1470 total covering eight years (North Carolina), were men.

Screenshot 2022-02-07 at 02.04.25

There are two pertinent studies:

Davis, Richard L. 2010: “Domestic violence-related deaths”. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 2 (2): 44-51. (PDF here)

Kafka, J. et al. 2020. “Fatalities related to intimate partner violence: towards a comprehensive perspective“, Injury Prevention 27 (2).  (PDF here)

What is RadFem?

What is RadFem?

RadFem is an Identity Politics movement, which arose in the late 1960s and 1970s, that

  • dehumanizes men & boys — as demonic “oppressors” controlling a “patriarchy” of “male privilege”
  • infantilizes women & girls as helpless infants, “oppressed” by “patriarchy”
  • uses propaganda, media hysteria, moral panic and state/police punishment to control those it vilifies.

Its two main outcomes are:

  • the punishment & incarceration of countless innocents
  • downplaying & excusing of female violence — whether it be domestic abuse, the kidnapping of children and even the murder of children.

Summary: Stalked & Hunted

  • These posts describe my being assaulted, threatened, stalked and lied about by a rapist (Charlotte Coursier) during 2010 to 2013. The rapist was also arrested for harassing my wife.
  • These posts also describe my being (during 2013-14) falsely accused, smeared, defamed, harassed and then (with my wife and small son) chased out of town by feminist vigilantes — Brooke Berndtson, Paula Boddington, Jennifer Saul and other militants.
  • This post describes the false accusations and smear campaign I was subjected to, and my reinstatement in August 2014.
  • This post summarizes my being purged from my job in 2016 by a convicted pedophile, Dr Peter King.
  • Here’s an essay I wrote about being witch hunted, in 2013-14, for The Agonist.
  • Here’s an interview I did with Honey Badger Radio in 2018.
  • Here’s an interview I did with From the Darkness Talk in 2020.
  • Here’s a talk I gave for ICMI 2020 (“What Feminism is Not”).

A Comparison of Something with Something

  1. A family of an academic at The University of Oxford (including a young child) can be intimidated, hunted and harassed off campus, and out of town, by a militant feminist online smear campaign (slandering the academic as a “murderer”), and have their lives destroyed with lies — having been victimized by a violent and abusive stalker with a police record. Not a single word of protest. The university encourages the mob to hunt the victims and does not protect them, despite repeated requests. The victims are cancelled and blacklisted.
  2. An academic at The University of Bristol can be mobbed, and terminated as a result of student activist mobbing falsely accusing him of racial hatred: hardly a word of protest.
  3. A teacher at Eton can be mobbed and terminated as a result of making a video critical of radical feminism, falsely accusing him of something like terrorist activity. He is cancelled. Hardly any protest.
  4. A radical feminist academic at The University of Sussex expresses highly contested opinions about transpeople, and this meets aggressive mob opposition from student (and other academic) activists, demanding her termination for alleged (and untrue) transphobia. This is treated as a national emergency. Huge protests from across the country and the globe.

Why? Why can feminists harass, hunt and cancel the innocent with no protest? But when a feminist academic is subjected to mob demands for termination, there is outrage: this is pure hypocrisy and double standards.

Aldous Huxley: “To Be Able to Destroy with Good Conscience …”

The following famous quote about persecution is from the novelist Aldous Huxley. It is sometimes mistakenly claimed to originate from Huxley’s 1921 novel Crome Yellow. However, that is a misattribution. For one can check the whole text here.

In fact it originates from a special Introduction that Huxley wrote for a 1934 edition of Samuel Butler’s novel Erewhon.

“Men show at least as much zeal in mischief as in well doing, in folly as in wisdom. The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. Men must be bribed to build up and do good by the offer of an opportunity to hurt and pull down. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” (Aldous Huxley. July 24, 1933. Introduction to The Easton Press edition of Samuel Butler’s Erewhon. Pynson Printers, for the Members of The Limited Editions Club, New York: 1934)

(I found this clarification of the original source here.)

Blass’s T

The following Mathoverflow comment, by Professor Andreas Blass (a set theorist at the University of Michigan), regarding the working theory T used by mathematicians in practice is so nice, insightful and apt, I quote it at length:

I apologize for posting as an answer what should really be a comment, connected to one of Jacques Carette’s comments on my earlier answer. Unfortunately, this is way too long for a comment. Jacques asked why we would bother with set-theoretic foundations at all. It happens that I wrote down my opinion about that about 15 years ago (in a private e-mail) and repeated some of it on the fom (= foundations of mathematics) e-mail list. Here’s a slightly edited version of that:

Mathematicians generally reason in a theory T which (up to possible minor variations between individual mathematicians) can be described as follows. It is a many-sorted first-order theory. The sorts include numbers (natural, real, complex), sets, ordered pairs and other tuples, functions, manifolds, projective spaces, Hilbert spaces, and whatnot. There are axioms asserting the basic properties of these and the relations between them. For example, there are axioms saying that the real numbers form a complete ordered field, that any formula determines the set of those reals that satisfy it (and similarly with other sorts in place of the reals), that two tuples are equal iff they have the same length and equal components in all positions, etc.

There are no axioms that attempt to reduce one sort to another. In particular, nothing says, for example, that natural numbers or real numbers are sets of any kind. (Different mathematicians may disagree as to whether, say, the real numbers are a subset of the complex ones or whether they are a separate sort with a canonical embedding into the complex numbers. Such issues will not affect the general idea that I’m trying to explain.) So mathematicians usually do not say that the reals are Dedekind cuts (or any other kind of sets), unless they’re teaching a course in foundations and therefore feel compelled (by outside forces?) to say such things.

This theory T, large and unwieldy though it is, can be interpreted in far simpler-looking theories. ZFC, with its single sort and single primitive predicate, is the main example of such a simpler theory. (I’ve left large categories out of T in order to make this literally true, but Feferman has shown how to interpret most of category theory, including large categories, in a conservative extension of ZFC.)

The simplicity and efficiency of ZFC and the fact that T can be interpreted in it (i.e., that all the concepts of T have set-theoretic definitions which make all the axioms of T set-theoretically provable) have, as far as I can see, two main uses. One is philosophical: one doesn’t need to understand the nature of all these different abstract entities; if one understands sets (philosophically) then one can explain all the rest. The other is in proofs of consistency and independence. To show that some problem, say in topology, can’t be decided in current mathematics means to show it’s independent of T. So you’d want to construct lots of models of T to get lots of independence results. But models of T are terribly complicated objects. So instead we construct models of ZFC, which are not so bad, and we rely on the interpretation to convert them into models of T. And usually we don’t mention T at all and just identify ZFC with “current mathematics” via the interpretation.

The Relations Between Educational Gender Disparity, Gynocentrism and Feminism

Some simple points about educational gender disparity, gynocentrism and feminism:

  1. Educational gender disparity is a widely observed empirical phenomenon across the globe.
  2. The cause of educational gender disparity is gynocentrism, which is biological: this is the automatic preferential treatment, support and protection given to girls over boys. This is observable, globally and has nothing to do with culture.
  3. Feminism is an anti-egalitarian ideology: the conservative, sexist idea that women are helpless infants; and men are subhuman demons, to be jailed.
  4. A feminist is someone who adheres to this sexist anti-egalitarian ideology.
  5. Feminists exploit gynocentrism for their own misandrist, supremacist & power-seeking purposes.

The “Gender Pay Gap” is a Conspiracy Theory

There is no “Gender Pay Gap”, if it is to mean that men and women are paid differently for the same job. This claim is simply a myth. A conspiracy theory and based on no factual evidence. The evidence in labour economics is the exact opposite:
  1. Men work around 5 or 6 hours per week more than women do.
  2. Men and women tend to work in very different jobs.
  3. Women tend to prefer part-time work.
  4. Men and women are paid the same for the same job.
Each of (1)-(4) is a known fact of labour economics.
The end.

Two Kinds of Cancellation

Cancellation can be thought of as coming in two kinds, though the first is a special form of the second: 

  1. TC-cancelled: thought-crime cancelled (tee-cee’d).
  2. FA-cancelled: false-accusation cancelled (facked).

The former are cancellations due to thought crime: some thought they’ve expressed, or because of some words they’ve used. These are tee-cee’d. The second are cancelled due to a false accusation (usually from a woman about a man; there are exceptions) alleging an “event” which did not happen. It is made-up/fabricated. These are facked.

In both cases, the aim of the cancellation mob is, essentially, vigilantist: to obliterate the target: to deny their right to work, to earn a living, to have a normal life, to have friends, and so on.

Examples of Misandry

Collected by Phil Mitchell (see here and see Phil’s blog here):

  1. There’s a violence against women/girls strategy but there isn’t one for boys/men despite males dying more from violence than women.
  2. The offence of rape in England & Wales is worded in such a way where women can’t legally be called a rapist but men can.
  3. “K**l all men” was trending online, & is regularly tweeted. There are more online accounts dedicated to k**ling men than women, & there are many accounts of people saying they are proud man haters/misandrists.
  4. An MP spoke about a curfew for men, based on the extreme harmful actions of the minority of men on the planet.
  5. Headlines are blaming men for the actions of abusive men and are telling boys to stop being boys implying that there is something inherently wrong with being male.
  6. MPs want more shelters for women but do nothing about the fact that there are little/no shelters for men, & they are often seen raising awareness of female victims & dismissing male victims whilst promoting “no victim left behind”.
  7. Crimes motivated by hostility around sex will (on an experimental basis) be logged as hate crimes in autumn. The media has highlighted this in regards to misogyny but not misandry.
  8. UN have more days dedicated to women & ignore days aimed at celebrating men. They highlight international toilet day on 19th Nov, but exclude international men’s day.
  9. Research show how teachers mark boys work differently when they do the same work as girls.
  10. BIGI research says men are disadvantaged in 69% of countries.
  11. Support services use the Duluth model which has been proven to minimise male victims & focus on men predominantly as perpetrators.
  12. Female violence against men is routinely mocked, celebrated & minimised in the media and on TV.
  13. You can buy merchandise joking about harming men and boys.
  14. Social experiment after social experiment shows how most people dismiss the abuse of men. Here are 4 examples:
  15. We have a minister for women’s issues but when it was suggested we have one for men’s issues, insults & verbal abuse followed.
  16. Child rape laws in just over half (33) of the 60 countries in the index lack legal protections for boys… Only 19 of the 60 countries collect prevalence data about boys on CSA, and just six do so on CSE. 
  17. Just 6 out of 60 countries collect prevalence data for boys related to child sexual exploitation 

Feminism is Conservatism

As I explained in this very brilliant ICMI20 talk, feminism (particularly Radical Feminism) is not “left-wing”. It’s right-wing conservatism that:

  • regards women as helpless infants
  • uses moral panic/hysteria to whip up witch hunts
  • regards female violence as unimportant
  • dehumanizes boys/men as demons
  • denies due process
  • punishes & incarcerates men.

Psychopath Brooke Berndtson

On 22 February 2014, my wife, son and I went for a short drive into the countryside near Oxford (to a small town called Witney). When I was there, unhinged vigilante loon Brooke Berndtson sent me, on my phone, an anonymous message calling me a “murderer” (she did this via the academic website academia.edu).

This threatening piece of vicious harassment and libel caused my wife to break down in tears and we reported it to the university (who did nothing) and to the police (who advised us that we might have to leave for our safety). This was near the peak of Berndtson’s insane vigilante campaign against us: a few days later we did indeed have to leave town due to Berndtson’s campaign of harassment, abuse and intimidation.

Screenshot 2021-08-24 at 05.27.01

The Suicide of Charlotte Coursier

Charlotte Coursier was my stalker. She committed suicide in Oxford on the afternoon of 10 June 2013, a couple of hours after her boyfriend, Benjamin Fardell, ended their relationship in London. Subsequent to that event, I was lynched by a gang of lying toxic feminist thugs, though I had nothing to do with it.

Her suicide had three causes:

  1. Her boyfriend, Benjamin Fardell, ended their extremely turbulent relationship (in March 2013, Coursier had an abortion: she believed she had “murdered her child”). He knew she was suicidal; he knew she was being treated at the Warneford Psychiatric Hospital in Oxford for her suicidal behaviour. He knew she had attempted suicide in the past (in Edinburgh in 2008/09: I prevented it, twice). On 10 June 2013, Coursier told Fardell that she “could not live without you”. After he broke up with her in London on the morning of 10 June 2013, she returned to Oxford, to the house she shared with American militant feminist Brooke Berndtson and committed suicide in her bedroom using a scarf to hang herself (Berndtson was in the house when this happened: a fact she later lied about to the police). Coursier’s suicidal behaviour was ultimately a consequence of her Borderline Personality Disorder (she was diagnosed with this in Edinburgh, in late 2011).
  2. Welfare notifications given to the Faculty of Philosophy, and others, about her past and about her violent and suicidal behaviour, were ignored. Specifically, a direct welfare notification about Coursier was given to Dr Bill Child, the Graduate Teaching Organizer. This was made by a friend of mine, Naomi Osorio, who knew about Coursier’s violent past and was on friendly terms with Dr Child. He ignored it. He later lied about this (to Frank Arntzenius), as did Christopher Shields, who covered it up. Welfare notifications were also given to two Thames Valley Police officers: Lindsey Osbourne and Martin Wizard. The first of these officers very specifically ignored what she was told by me. (I have the records.) The facts about Coursier’s violent, abusive and suicidal past were also known to Jessica Moss and to Suzanne Holsomback, since I described them in an email I wrote to Coursier when she began stalking and harassing me again at my workplace: they ignored this.
  3. Coursier got mixed up, in early 2013, with three American militant feminists: Brooke Berndtson, Dr Jessica Moss and Suzanne Holsomback. These activists encouraged her to make literally insane false accusations, and thereby ruined her life. Knowing that Coursier was lying, Holsomback ordered Coursier to “delete the oldest correspondence”. Coursier herself remarked in late March 2013 that Jessica Moss was “not concerned about my welfare”: just a few weeks later, 10 June 2013, Coursier was dead. Berndtson was only a short distance away from Coursier–in the same house–when she took her life on the afternoon of 10 June 2013. What happened between them in the surrounding days has been completely covered up. I suspect Berndtson had a far more direct involvement  than she cares to admit. I suspect Coursier fell out with Berndtson, due to Berndtson’s pathologically insane behaviour and her encouragement to make false accusations. (Coursier was infatuated with me, and love with me, and she was in fact trying to get me to “rescue” her again. Berndtson destroyed this.) I do know that Berndtson initially lied to the police about what had happened, falsely claiming she had not been there.

At the time, I knew of none of these events, since I broke off contact with Coursier after she assaulted me at the end of 2010. What is more, almost all of this was actively covered up by the activists (and by the Faculty Head, Christopher Shields). Consequently, I did not find out any of the above until mid 2014.

Afterwards, I was framed and lynched, with slanderous and unhinged fabrications. We were harassed from our home by Brooke Berndston, who sent me messages calling me a “murderer”. These lies were mainly distributed by Brooke Berndtson, her mentor Dr Paula Boddington, and other militant feminist activists, including Jennifer Saul, Suzanne Holsomback, Rachel Fraser, Jacob Williamson, Kate Tomas and many others. This was all slanderous, fabricated lies, based on not one iota of evidence.

Absence of Basic Moral Concepts in Academic Philosophy

The world of professional philosophy is one that, under the influence of man-hating radical feminist extremism, exemplifies an absence of basic moral concepts:

Decriminalization of Female Violence

The following aren’t examples of complete decriminalization, since, by definition, that can’t be located: the individual is simply let off. Instead they are examples where women receive lenient treatment, or more lenient than if it were a man doing it, for abusive behaviour:

Two Failed Strategies Used by MRM

Over the last forty years, the “men’s rights movement” (MRM), broadly conceived, has tried two political activist strategies. Both of these have been catastrophic failures. This is obviously and observably true. In fact, MRAs are vilified and demonized everywhere, and are very noticeably hated by the political right.

The first strategy was to try to coexist with feminism. Despite feminism being gynocentric privilege and hatred of men, this strategy argued that that peaceful coexistence is possible. It states

There are ‘men’s issues’ and there are ‘women’s issues’, and one can be concerned with both.

This has been the approach adopted by Warren Farrell. It has obviously been a catastrophic failure. The reason is simple. It’s bullshit. There does not exist, in the real world, any such thing as “men’s issues” or “women’s issues”. That is all nonsense American Identity Politics waffle. There is simply feminist hatred of men. That exists. And feminist hatred of men is a “human being issue”, whatever one’s genitals look like.

The second has been to try to co-opt the political right & cultural conservatives to  reject feminist ideology. To be clear, core feminist ideology is this

  • Infantilization of women
  • Dehumanization of men
  • Decriminalization of female violence
  • Incarceration of men.

Obviously and observably, this has been a gigantic failure. Why? Because feminism IS conservatism. It is conservatives who infantilize women; it is conservatives who couldn’t give one fuck about 90% of men and who dehumanize them; it is conservatives who have decriminalized female violence, while at the same time incarcerating millions of men; it is conservatives who are in bed with TERFs—the most fanatical form of feminism.

Feminism is an organized system of conservative gynocentric privilege for women, and sexist bias and discrimination against men and boys—abuse, hatred and prison for men and boys. Core Feminism is endorsed by conservatives, everywhere. They are not your friends. If you do get lynched, they will laugh and throw you under the bus.

It follows that a new approach must be adopted. That approach must identify Core Feminism clearly, and oppose it. That approach must end its moronic, narcissistic war with political liberals and the political left. That approach must stop screeching at non-existent bogeymen, such as “cultural Marxism”, a retarded conspiracy theory invented by neo-Nazi knuckleheads in the 1990s. For when the police arrest you, no one will care if you imagine you have “owned the libs” 30 times on Twitter or Facebook. Likewise, the “woke” are not your primary enemies. It is the “anti-woke” who are your enemies. It is the TERFs, RadFems, and Conservatives who are your enemies.

What Is It Like?

A pathetic post “How What is Like to Be a Women in Philosophy Has Changed Over the Past Decade”, at Justin Weinberg’s agitprop blog, apparently referring to an essay written by a certain militant feminist vigilante liar, defamatory harasser and pro-rape thug, Jennifer Saul. Obviously, women have preferential and privileged status comparable to no other group on earth. Obviously, no accountability exists when women are violent, abusive predators or liars. If it were to be factual, it really should be entitled:

Or, perhaps,

Here, one can read about what it is like to cancelled by thug feminist scum.

Transphobia = Misandry

Transphobia — that is, the demonization of trans people — is misandry.

It is the hatred of men; it is driven by gynocentrism; it is driven by infantilization of women; it is pushed by White Knights and what I sometimes call “weasels” (i.e., men with their tongues up radical feminism’s backside).

Reporting Rape: Told He is Delusional

[From 7news.com.au] “New South Wales Police officer asks man reporting a rape if he is ‘delusional’ or ‘paranoid’”:

“A New South Wales Police staffer has been filmed appearing to ask a man reporting a rape whether he is “delusional” or “paranoid”. The footage was captured by a Sydney man at Surry Hills Police Station and uploaded to social media platform TikTok on Thursday.”

A perfect example of society’s gynocentric misandry. Rape is decriminalized, when women do it.

The Essence of the Problem Faced by MRAs

There is a problem faced by MRAs, which can be summarized simply: gross peer rejection. This raises the question: why?

To begin with, one must identify a common feature of standard MRA outlook, in connection with their political environment, and also one strongly opposing feature of their political environment:

  1. A significant proportion—certainly over 50%, but perhaps less than 80%—of MRAs identify themselves as cultural conservatives; they, therefore, see their enemies as “the left” or “liberals”. (This is completely obvious.)
  2. The central mechanism in society that leads to mistreatment towards boys and men is gynocentrism. The central driving force behind feminism, especially Radical Feminism, is gynocentrism. However, gynocentrism is a core element of cultural conservatism. What is more, gynocentrism is almost certainly biologically innate. So there is a strong, probably innate, disposition or tendency to endorse gynocentric biases, prejudices, and assumptions.

Consequently, while, let’s say, 75% of MRAs wish to see themselves as conservatives, at the very least, 95% of cultural conservative reject—reject very strongly–the Men’s Rights Movement. This is not intended as a moral point or political one. It is a direct observation of fact. It is obvious and can be seen in countless comments made by conservatives, as well as thousands of essays and articles written by conservatives. In short, the problem is:

  • MRM is incompatible with cultural conservatism.

One may observe this visibly, every single day.

So while a high proportion of MRAs (say 75%) see themselves as conservatives, the converse is not true. The opposite it true: a highly proportion of cultural conservatives (say 95%, or more) reject almost all core MRA ideas, especially those surrounding gynocentrism, female violence, due process and the infantilization of women. In fact, they promote gynocentrism, they downplay female violence, they care little about due process (or they actively endorse harsher measures in the legal and incarceration systems), and they engage in constant infantilization of women. Moreover, one sees cultural conservatives extremely closely aligned with Radical Feminism, on all of its core principles.

So far as I can tell, this problem is getting worse, not better. And it will continue to get worse.

The UK’s Genital-Based Prison System

As is well-known, the UK has the largest pro rata incarceration rate in Western Europe. What is more, the UK’s prison system is, essentially, genital-based. Prisons are places where a highly gynocentric, feminist-dominated society puts:

  • vulnerable men & boys who have mental health problems;
  • men & boys who have been domestically abused;
  • men & boys who are innocent victims of false accusations;
  • men & boys  who have suffered child abuse;
  • men & boys who have suffered societal neglect and disposability.

Feminism is Conservatism

No one is more feminist, and more inclined to mistreat other men, than a conservative is. Why? Because:

  • Conservative men are gynocentric.
  • Conservative men excuse and downplay domestic & sexual violence by women.
  • Conservative men consider women to be helpless infants, to be “rescued” by brave white knights (such as themselves).
  • Conservative men endorse the false accusations industry
  • Conservative men openly punish the falsely accused.
  • All modern “vigilante” operations—which routinely target innocent (often mentally ill) men—are run by conservative men.
  • Conservative men align with Radical Feminists on all significant issues.
  • Conservative men tend to be morally Puritannical and therefore their ideology aligns precisely with feminism.

Covering Up Sexual Assault

This sexual assault (and continued sexual harassment and stalking) was reported in early 2013 to three senior figures at Oxford (two of them at Pembroke College).

In late 2013, this sexual assault (and continued sexual harassment and stalking) was covered up by several powerful individuals, who knew precisely what had happened: these are Christopher Shields, Paula Boddington, Frank Arntzenius, Jessica Moss, Suzanne Holsomback and Jennifer Saul.

Charlotte Coursier’s Comment About Jessica Moss

I know, from documents I have seen, that my stalker Charlotte Coursier spoke, sometime in March 2013, to Dr Jessica Moss, who was then the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy Graduate Women’s Officer (Moss is now at NYU).

Dr Moss did not notify me of this contact: this was both misconduct and serious welfare neglect: Charlotte Coursier was a seriously mentally ill stalker, with Borderline Personality Disorder, and was in need of emergency psychiatric attention. This ought to have been apparent to Dr Moss, who should have notified me. Emergency steps could then have taken. Likewise, the Faculty’s Graduate Officer (Dr Bill Child) was notified separately, also in March 2013, that Coursier was seriously unstable, engaged in “violence against herself and others”, had made suicide attempts in the past, and would need emergency “professional help” if she “behaved in any unusual way”: this notification was ignored by Dr Child:

Screenshot 2021-05-27 at 10.49.00

Dr Child simply ignored this notification (and later lied about it, as did Christopher Shields). Instead, Dr Moss passed on Coursier to Oxford University Student Union (OUSU). In particular, the OUSU Vice President ( Women), an American militant feminist activist called Suzanne Holsomback (who later told Coursier to delete her email correspondence).

In a 17 March 2013 email to Suzanne Holsomback, Coursier remarked that, based on her conversation with Dr Moss:

“… when I spoke to her [Moss], her reaction suggested she was more concerned with firing him than with my welfare” (17 March 2013)

Only a few weeks later (10 June 2013), Coursier was dead: she committed suicide when her boyfriend ended their relationship. This outcome was caused not only by her boyfriend’s action (and her pathological BPD behaviour), but by extremely serious welfare neglect and failure to notify me, and could have been avoided if the individuals involved (Dr Jessica Moss, Suzanne Holsomback, Brooke Berndtson) had acted properly: they did not act properly.

Coursier’s comment was written just 12 weeks before her death. It accurately sums up Oxford’s misconduct. This welfare neglect is the exact reason why I was witch hunted.

Culture War is not “Marxism”

Culture War is not “Marxism”, irrespective of the popularity of this conspiracy theory in anti-woke circles.

In fact, it is the exact opposite. For I know many Marxists: all hate the culture war. (Few say so in public. Why? Because they’ll be fired, that’s why.) Marxism is an economic theory: the proles are persecuted by the wealthy bourgeoisie. “Alienation”, “wage slavery”, “false consciousness”, etc. etc. True or false, it has nothing to do with culture war.

Culture War is, essentially, an Anglosphere phenomenon, and, for the most part, it is promoted by rich people, and especially feminists (read The Times, The Telegraph, Spectator, etc.). Plot it on a map of the world. It’s obvious. The exception to this is certain third-world Marxists (e.g, in South Africa, India); but even third-world Marxists often don’t like culture war either.

Dr Richmond’s MOOC Ban

In describing the behaviour of the loon, toxic, defamatory bully Dr Alasdair Richmond (see abusive behaviour to Brian Leiter), I forgot to mention another teeny little fact about his personal characteristics and conduct. A few years back, Edinburgh’s Philosophy Dept set up a MOOC, for its philosophy teaching. This involved online interaction between the teachers and students.

Unsurprisingly to me (as an insider told me), Alasdair Richmond was eventually banned from the MOOC, for being abusive to students.

Academic Bullying: One of the Worst Cases

I describe an example of academic bullying.  This one is not entirely secret, as it occurred in public, and so maybe 20-30 others witnessed it too, including my MSc student, Natasha, who was sitting next to me in the audience of the seminar.

This all occurred in a seminar, at a University where I used to work. The seminar presentation was given by a female graduate student. I’ll call her Jill.

Jill gave the presentaton, and then I hoped it’d be over and we’d all go home or whatever. But then there were 10-15 minutes of questions. These were dominated by a well-known, very famous, female Professor. I am not exaggerating if I say that this Professor repeatedly humiliated Jill, asking questions Jill plainly didn’t know the answer to, or even understand. It was excuciating. I could see Jill on the verge of tears — this continued for about 5 minutes. I not sure if she did actually start crying, but I was near the front, and she had tears in her eyes. It was a brutal humiliation. Not just a single, hard to unanswer question; but repeatedly humiliating the poor girl.

When it was over, I left, with my MsC student, Natasha, who said, “Well, I’m not applying here for my PhD!” And she didn’t.

I didn’t see Jill then for a further five years. But, as it happened, she’d been given a new PhD supervisor. He emailed me a few years later, asking me if I would read one of Jill’s late PhD drafts and go over some parts of it, to do with foundations of mathematics and representation theorems. I did read it quite carefully. I travelled to meet her at the University. After we’d gone over it for about an hour in the University cafe, I meekly mentioned that the last time I’d seen her was when she was “publicly mistreated” by the famous professor several years before. She then relayed to me the outcome: this events had sent her into a deep depression for years. She had put on a lot of weight, and struggled to get back on course. She did, though, with help from her new PhD supervisor. I commiserated and said it that this didn’t surprise me, that I’d been shocked by the event and I was glad she fought back and got through.

Shortly after that, Jill got a Junior Professorship somewhere, at an American University, but I believe she didn’t make Tenure. A few years later, she emailed me after I’d been witch hunted at Oxford, saying she was horrified by it. She said, “How can these people play God with other people’s lives?”. I’m not sure if she’s still an academic.