Sunday, August 23, 2015

Feminist or Non-Feminist? No Middle Ground

We all need to make up our minds. Every last one of us. We are, all of us, either one thing or the other: feminist, or not feminist. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of gray. There are no blurred lines. There is no fence to sit upon.

You are either a feminist, or you are not a feminist. Isn't that simple?

So, what does it mean in practice, to say that you are either a feminist or not a feminist? In practice, it means that you should take one second, at the very most, to make your decision. If I were to inquire, "are you a feminist?", you would respond either yes or no . . . . in a flash!

You ought not to vacillate. If you need to pause and think about it, then you might as well just call yourself a feminist until you finally get your head straight. The force which pulls you instinctively away from feminism ought to be so powerful that it operates instantaneously. It ought to be second nature.

Naturally, we'd rather you were not a feminist at all, but the important thing is to make your mind up. It is not nearly so bad to be a feminist, as to be a fence-sitter.  To be a fence-sitter is to be woefully uninformed about the political situation. Your "middle ground" between feminist and non-feminist is a melting iceberg, a transitory condition that will not last.  It is an illusion, a state of existential dithering, and to occupy such a position is to be a morally two-headed creature with no stable identity -- or if you will, no GPS coordinates on the political map.

The middle ground illusion emerges from the notion that there is a "good" feminism and a "bad" feminism which can be teased apart from each other. That notion is erroneous. The truth is that if you did separate the (ideologically) good from the (ideologically) bad in feminism, you would effectively dismantle feminism altogether and it would no longer operate.

You cannot effectively discard the bad stuff in feminism, and save aside the good stuff in its own heap, and still call that heap feminism. Any so-called feminism extracted by this method would be redundant and superfluous because it would already be covered in a separately existing category -- such as, for example, "egalitarianism" or "liberal humanism." The word feminism would serve no purpose any longer.

The "good" part of feminism is not feminism's defining core. It is the insulation but not the wire. It is a fig leaf or cover story, while "bad feminism" is the real juice, the real nitty-gritty. Any effort to direct attention away from the dark side of feminism amounts to passing the buck.

I would wrap it up tersely, thuswise: Whatever is is good about feminism is not original, and whatever is original is not good.

If you resort to the standard cop-out that "not all feminists are like that" (NAFALT), then you are practicing a slight variant of the same evasionary maneuver we have already talked about.  You are trying to separate the "good" feminists from the "bad" feminists, but this fails for the same reason that we have sketched above. The good feminists are the "good cop", and the bad feminists are the "bad cop" -- but they are both on the same team.

Furthermore you are dodging the question "what is feminism?" because you are actually addressing the question "who are feminists?" Hence, the argument is a deflection. In the end, you see, the real question is not "are all feminists like that?", but rather "is all FEMINISM like that?" This is not a trivial distinction.

So the illusion of middle ground between feminist and non-feminist, springs from an obfuscational distinction between "good" feminism (or feminists), and "bad" feminism (or feminists). The trajectory of counter-feminist analysis will make this obfuscation increasingly evident to the world at large, and the one correct understanding of feminism will emerge slowly into the light of public awarenness. As correct understanding emerges, the illusion of middle ground will  become unsustainable and melt away, and many an existential crisis will be had.

In the meantime, I would like to pose a series of rhetorical questions that will situate the conversation and clarify the nature of feminism in general:

Do you think it is a good idea to drive a wedge down the middle of the human race and alienate men and women from each other?

Do you think it is a good idea, to insinuate that most of the world's problems flow from a male source?

Do you think it is a good idea to treat "woman-hating" as a moral felony, but treat "man-hating" as a social misdemeanor?

Do you think it is a good idea to encourage the growth of fatherless families?

Do you think it is a good idea to prop up your political agenda with false statistics?

Do you think it is a good idea to corrupt the criminal justice system with anti-male ideological bias?

Do you think it is a good idea to "empower" women with no clear limits and no stipulations about using that power responsibly?

Do you think it is a good idea to insult and slander women of conscience who disown feminism or say stiff things about it?

Finally, do you think it is a good idea to pretend that feminism bears no relation to any of the creepy things we have listed here?

All right. If your first impulse is to say "that's not what feminism really is!", then you had best declare yourself a feminist, and withdraw to the private enjoyment of your private understanding.  

As you can see, the decision to call yourself feminist, or not call yourself feminist, is fraught with some very heavy moral underpinnings. It's a decision of serious consequence in either direction -  one that accomodates no dithering, dilly-dallying, or shilly-shallying.

Come now, be a good gal, or a good gent, and hop down off that fence!

Are you feminist, or are you non-feminist? Please make your mind up, and please declare your standpoint frequently, in conversation, when disclosure is the appropriate thing to do.

As non-feminist men and women, the resolute nature of our opposition to feminism is the force-field which binds us together. Regrettably, we don't YET fully agree on what feminism IS. We have not YET reached target consensus. I repeat, not YET. But despite our differences, we are in FULL agreement that a show of solidarity will impress the gravitas of the occasion upon the other side. It will make them sit up a little bit straighter, and it will cause them to moderate their tone when they speak to us. 

Yes. A popular front non-feminist coalition - that's the ticket!

So, are you a feminist? Or are you a non-feminist? That bedrock question is where it all begins.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Can Feminism Co-exist with the World?

The great line in the sand that we now must draw, is the line which separates feminist from non-feminist. It should be self-evident that not everybody on Earth shares the feminist way of understanding the human condition, and that is how we mark the boundary between these two sets of people.

In the last year or two, we have seen a dramatic surge in mainstream anti-feminism. Quite frankly, these new people are just as fed up with feminism as the old-timers have been for years. They feel that feminism has "jumped the shark", and they are getting more and more outspoken about their disenchantment.

Now, since we are talking to the feminists themselves (along with everybody else), we ought to pose a very basic question for their consideration:

"Feminist, what do you intend to DO about this?"

Seriously: what do you feminists intend to do about the present situation? People are getting fed up with you and they are mobilizing, with reinforcements arriving daily. Will you treat these developments with the seriousness they deserve? Or will you schluff it off, act like nothing is happening, and carry on with business as usual?

The present situation is new and different. We're not talking about the so-called "men's rights movement" any more -- it goes far beyond that now. We're talking about a fundamental shift of perspective, and a whole new way of thinking to go along with it.

Let's be clear on one thing for starters: we're not a bit happy about the pernicious effect which feminist innovation has had upon men and boys. Let this be well understood. We know that men and boys are ground zero in feminist plans. That reality is never far from our thoughts.

But our thoughts go further, for we cannot ignore that men and women live in the same social ecosystem. Hence, the effect of feminist innovation does not stop with men. The web of cause and effect spreads in all directions, and if bad things happen to men, surely nothing good will follow for women. So by the end of the day, we are worried about the effect which feminism has upon EVERYBODY. Yes, the entire human community.

You feminists must understand that we outnumber you. That is why we call ourselves the non-feminist majority - because we've got the numbers! Furthermore, you are gravely mistaken if you think we are naught but empty space and empty minds, fit only to be filled with feminism. In fact we are a complex tapestry of life, ripe with meaning and mystery. Get that in your head, okay?

We have eyes -- our OWN eyes, not yours! This means that we are SEEING you, in ways that you feminists cannot hope to see yourselves, and we've got some highly original opinions about what we see. We are everywhere, we are gazing into feminism's soul, and we are discussing what we are seeing there -- whether you like it or not. That's right, the abyss is gazing into you now. How does that feel?

Don't tell us to "look in the dictionary" in order learn what feminism is. You can't put us off with that stale old stuff any more! We can see, plain as day, what feminism is -- after all, we've had half a century to do this! The truth about feminism is not written on a book page but painted on the canvas of this world, in tall red letters impossible to miss. And no, we have not missed a bit of it.

So feminists, we put it to you one more time: What do you plan to do about this?

You are in trouble for a REASON. Your actions and policies, for many years, have brought you to this point, and more of the same will only dig you in deeper. Is that what you want?

We are not feminist, and we will never be feminist. Nothing can make that happen, and if you try to force feminism upon other people you will only make things worse for yourself.

Are you looking for advice? Well here it is, ready or not. Feminism must gaze into a mirror, long and hard, and learn to SEE itself -- for the very first time ever!

Here, let us help. We've got the mirror, and if you just sit still, we shall be happy to hold it in front of your face. In fact, we've been doing that very thing for many years, but you feminists never knew this because you never wanted to know it.

Be aware that the mirror we hold in front of you does not reflect the face that worldly vanity and self-conceit might imagine. No, this is a magical mirror which blows that face away and exposes the naked soul behind it. Feminist, are you ready for such a thing? Are you ready to gaze upon your own naked soul?

We non-feminist men and women understand feminism better than feminism understands itself. You might say, that this is our secret weapon. And yet, ironically, it is no secret at all. Certainly, we have never tried to conceal it. We are happy to share what we know, and we shall propagate this knowledge ever and always.

So if there is any element of secrecy here, it is that feminism keeps this knowledge secret from itself, by a continual and strenuous exertion. Call it willful ignorance. You cannot know what you WILL not know -- for if the will is lacking, the way cannot be found.

Feminists, you might wonder why we address you in this manner. We have suggested, quite simply, that you've lost your way because you fail to know yourselves. Other people can see right through you, yet you persist in not knowing yourselves. For some reason, you prefer to fob that work off on other people.

That's a hazardous condition, don't you think so? It means that other people have got the edge over you, and will steadily advance upon you in the course of time, and gain the upper hand.

Feminists, let me put you straight with some real talk. If you want to stem the rising tide of anti-feminism, there is only one trick that will work. You must alter your behavior in such a way that you don't turn people against you. In other words, you must stop creating anti-feminists in the first place! Now, it is true that everybody is either a feminist or a non-feminist. But while an anti-feminist is still a non-feminist, the anti-feminist has a little something extra. Certain modifications, if you will.

And it's on you, the feminist, to see that those modifications never happen. Only YOU can prevent anti-feminism -- it's your job, not theirs.

You want the tl;dr version? Fine, I'll let you have it in three words:

Listen and believe.

When non-feminist people try to tell you what feminism is doing wrong, you must listen to them, and believe them. You might think that these people "don't know what feminism really is", but I can assure you that they do. In fact they know better than you, what feminism really is. They know this because they know what you refuse to know.

So, sending non-feminist people to the dictionary for the fourteen billionth time won't work. (As if they've never heard that before!).

Calling non-feminist people terrible names like "sexist" or "misogynist" or "rape apologist" won't work -- especially if those accusations are unfounded, which they typically are. It will only work if you are trying to create more anti-feminists -- and for that purpose, it will work like a charm!

Propagating debunked or dubious ideas - such as "rape culture", or  "male privilege", or "patriarchal  terrorism", or the misleadingly-named "wage gap", won't work. Too many people don't believe that stuff any more, so you will turn those people against feminism because you are "repping" for feminism in a very shabby way.

Telling non-feminist women that they are stupid, ungrateful, internalized misogynists won't work. I guarantee that if you don't lay off those women, they will learn to curse you like a pack of bloody pirates. And the last thing feminism needs, is women cursing it like a pack of bloody pirates.

I could go on with these examples, but I'm sure you get the point. Let me repeat: When non-feminist people try to tell you what feminism is doing wrong, you must listen to them, and believe them. You might think that these people "don't know what feminism really is", but I can assure you that they do. In fact they know better than you, what feminism really is. They know this because they know what you refuse to know.  You feminists seem to have an information deficit, but non-feminist people can supply that lack if only you let them.

One more time: listen and believe.

As a feminist, you'll never learn anything new about feminism if you don't listen to what non-feminist people say, and BELIEVE what they say. What makes you so dead certain that they don't know the truth about feminism? Who gave you the authority to pontificate about that? Seriously now -- who gave you that authority?

All right, it's time to wrap this up. Feminism is not the world, okay? The WORLD is the world, and if feminism disappeared into a black hole tomorrow, the world would carry on with no regrets and be none the worse. Nor would life for women take any dramatic nosedive. It would stay pretty much the same, and any slight modification would in all probability be for the better.

So if you're a feminist and you want to keep your religion alive, you will need to make peace with the non-feminist sector. You can't afford to make enemies in that sector. You are not the only game in town any more, and it's time you modified your conduct accordingly.

So don't make enemies. In other words, don't make anti-feminists. If you plan to co-exist with the rest of us, learn to negotiate a balance of power, learn to respect our boundaries, and above all learn to respect our intelligence. When we try to tell you something, listen to what we are saying, and believe that we are serious in saying it. Believe that we mean it, because we surely do.

Listen and believe.

Accept, with a good grace, that the power to define feminism is no longer your monopoly. Accept, with a good grace, that non-feminist people possess the missing information in your understanding of feminism. Accept, with a good grace, that feminism's days of unbridled cultural colonization are over. Accept, with a good grace, that you will not sell feminism to people by harassing and insulting them. Accept, with a good grace, that some people will never embrace feminism, no matter how seductive your marketing plan might be.  Accept, with a good grace, that non-feminist lives matter, and that non-feminist people have an inner life of their own which is precious to them.

Accept all these things, and many more, with a good grace. Then settle down, keep your feminism to yourself, and learn to coexist with your non-feminist neighbors. Is that even possible for you to do?

I guess we'll find out.



 

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

The Non-feminist Revolution will never be Monolithic - and that's not a Bad Thing

The following was first published in July 2012. It is presented here with slight modifications, to reflect changes in the author's thinking.

------------------------------------------------------------

There is a school of thought in male-friendly cyberspace which says "keep it apolitical". What this means is, that pro-male partisans should either stay away from established categories of political discourse (such as right-versus left), or stay away from extraneous issues which do not clearly pertain to feminism, men's issues and the like.

There is also a school of thoughtlessness in male-friendly cyberspace, which flaps its gums about all manner of things only marginally related (if at all) to feminism, men's issues and the like. That is for starters. What compounds the original difficulty, is that these same thoughtless ones voice all manner of indiscreet opinions -- which is politically unwise.

Clearly, these schools of thought are at odds with each other.

And they are quite right. You see,  the point at issue, for them is message discipline -- a department of rhetorical discipline. Message discipline is vital if you would craft a so-called "movement"  (political or otherwise) that draws upon topical issues as a rallying point. If you aim to gather followers and gain traction, you must stick to a pertaining set of issues and govern your tongue when you speak of those things.

That said, and speaking as an outsider, I would submit that the so-called men's "movement" is nothing of the kind. Rather, it is a group of people, largely male, who are talking loudly about a variety of things. But all of this loud talk is like an orchestra with no conductor, where the musicians are out of tune with each other and playing different tunes anyway.

The general public, walking outside the orchestra hall, hears only a frightful racket from within. The bigoted bassoonist, the anti-semitic saxophonist, the conservative clarinetist, the anti-feminist flugelhorn player, the PUA piccolo player, and so on. It all runs together into a dreadful audio slurry.

And so the general public draws its varied conclusions about that sum total of weird noise, and those conclusions are often unfavorable. The general public, you see, deals in generalities and doesn't  generally know what the hell is going on. Some of them may enter the building, and walk around, and talk to the musicians separately, and begin to form a more educated understanding. Yes, many of them do this to varying degrees. But many others never investigate further than the sidewalk and what they can hear from there.

Very well. The "men's movement" is no movement at all, but simply a lot of random motion. And such words as "MRA" and "MRM" are only ad hoc terminology. Figures of speech. Convenience words.  Yet people persist in using these words because they are, well . .  convenient! They simplify discussion, and even render discussion possible in the first place.

But these words also falsify the state of reality, and our enemies, the feminists, capitalize on this. All they must do, is fan the flames of doubt and distaste in the public mind. This, precisely, has been the feminist strategy. A smear job. Moral ghettoization. Guilt by proximity.

Briefly then, whoever simply talks against feminism will be called an "MRA", or a member of the "MRM".

Now, there is nothing wrong with talking against feminism. In fact, talking against feminism is one of the finest things a person can do. It is a noble thing. Feminism is a social cancer, and talking against it is part of the necessary process that will conduct toward the eventual liquidation of this cancer. So by all means, yes, talk against feminism!

By the way, when you merely "criticize" feminism from within feminism, that is not talking against feminism. Talking against feminism means talking AGAINST it, from an alien standpoint completely outside of its perimeter.
 
All hail anti-feminism!
 
But the trouble is, that whoever simply talks against feminism gets shoved into the same box, willy-nilly, with. . . oh. .  . PUAs, expatriate pussy-hunters, conspiracy theorists, racists, anti-government radicals, tea-partiers, bonafide misogynists, and a passel of other people. I mean, people whose philosophical venn diagrams might overlap yours by a narrow slice at most. Admittedly, the inherent goodness or badness of those things will vary -- it is not my point to discuss their inherent goodness or badness. My point is that, like it or not, the words "MRA" and "MRM" have been crammed into the same jar with the motley crew listed above, even if there is no inherent reason why they should be. So if you identify as an "MRA", or even just get identified as one, then you will go there too.

Once more, to get identified as an "MRA" or an "MRM person", all you must do is to talk against feminism. That's it. After that, public ignorance, combined with feminist propaganda, will do the rest.  And presto-chango, you are now a PUA or a Tea Party member even if you never remotely signed up for the likes of those.

Again, let's be clear that talking against feminism is a good thing. The point is, that you can do this either well or poorly in terms of political strategies -- and some people do it very poorly indeed.

But enough for the bad stuff. Now let's talk about sunbeams and silver linings.

I mentioned that the "MRM" is not a movement. That is a silver lining.

So what, then, is the so-called men's rights "movement", if not a movement? Get ready.

It is a microcosm of the human race. In other words, it is THE WORLD.

And so, it is not accountable for itself, any more than the world is accountable for itself. The world is simply the ecumenical human condition, with all of its lights and shadows, in toto. And the ecumenical human condition simply is what it is. We are all part of that ecumenical human condition, but as individuals our liability is limited.

Feminism, on the other hand, may be usefully defined as a movement, and for that reason can be held accountable as a movement. It is a part of the world, but it is not the world -- even though it pretends to be.
 
But no, feminism is merely an interpretation of what the world is, forced upon the world in defiance of what the world in fact is. Alternately stated, feminism is a violation of the natural order and the laws which compose that order.
 
Therefore every natural law or principle which feminist theory violates becomes our enlisted ally against the feminist regime itself.  And so the character of our revolution is not just demographic or political. It is radically primordial. 

Yes, that is us. We are the world, nay, the universe! And we are radically primordial.

In retrospect, we can see that this had to happen. It was predictable. There was a point beyond which feminist innovation could not push without the universe pushing back. And let me tell you, pushback from the universe can be a bitch!

So the "MRM" is not a movement as that word is generally understood, but a primordial pushback against feminism. And this involves a chaotic array of forces that can never be reduced to conventional categories of understanding. New categories are necessary.

Rather than calling the "MRM" a "movement" -- singular -- we should call it a complex of movements -- plural! -- which are now in process of formation. But as a whole, it lacks the structural unity that would subject it to accountability. As I have stated, it is a microcosm of the world, and is no more accountable for itself than the world is accountable for itself.

Feminist smear tricks are not working because anti-feminist numbers, worldwide, continue to swell. Every feminist slander campaign only helps the cause by giving it publicity. People drop by for a closer look, and plenty of them stick around. And then they pass the word along to their friends.

So the microcosm is growing, and merging with the macrocosm. The so-called "MRM", you see, merely represents that portion of the non-feminist sector which has become politically aware of itself.  And the size of the self-aware portion increases on a snowballing growth curve.
 
In light of all this, what does it mean -- and what could it mean -- to keep things "apolitical"? Well for starters, I would call that entire realm of conversation a misunderstanding. For in fact this thing of ours has never been truly apolitical, and never will be. Seriously, what do we understand by "political"? Does politics mean the struggle for power, influence, and self-determination? All right, then how has our project ever been anything other than political? It has been, I submit, political indeed, for it has always focused on power and the accumulation of it by one device or another. Yes, that is what I call politics.

When people talk about keeping the so-called MRM "apolitical", they're voicing a fear lest it be caught up in established categories of power struggle, eventually being co-opted and rendered worthless for its original purpose. This is more commonly expressed, as I myself have done, by saying that the movement will pick up counterproductive baggage and sink beneath the weight of it.

Well in a strange way the good news becomes the bad news, and then the bad news immediately becomes the good again. The original good news is, that our numbers keep growing. Then the bad news is, that in return for the numbers we are taking undisciplined people and their counterproductive baggage on board. Yet directly from this bad news the original good news springs to life once more, namely, that in spite of such inconveniences -- and indeed because of them -- our numbers continue to swell. So the good and bad news feed upon each other like yin and yang.

The lesson we draw from this, is that ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE LIBERATED FROM FEMINISM. Some of these are good people, some of these are bad people, some of these are indifferent people. But they want to be liberated from feminism, and they are worthy of getting what they want. 

Every god-damned blessed one of them.

They needn't do one single precious thing in all the world to earn this or deserve this.

ALL people deserve to be liberated from feminism. Even the worst misogynist or rapist who ever lived deserves to be liberated from feminism.

The whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

All people should, ideally, get the justice they deserve for their misdeeds. But they should NOT get that justice under color of feminism.

They should get the justice they deserve under color of something else -- some other system of  law or morality.

But NOT under color of feminism.

One more time: the whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

And you know what? The whole wide world will wake up to this, and demand it.

Feminism is a worldview slated for extinction.
 
So it is silly to fuss about the ideological purity of any so-called "men's movement", because the whole wide world is coming on board and there is simply no way that the whole wide world can be ideologically pure. Therefore, if some feminist wants to slander the so-called men's movement, you have only to demand "WHICH men's movement??".

And then, demand to be left in peace.

Because in the end,  there is no such thing as the "men's movement". In its own right, it does not exist. So it is up to you to create it for yourself. There are ten, twenty, forty, a hundred different "movements", and when you start your own, that will bring the total to a-hundred-and-one.

What's that, you don't like the baggage that certain people are lugging on board? Fine. Pack your own bags onto your own wagon, and go your own road. With the growth of our numbers, we need no longer cling for dear life to any possible travelling companion. "We" can afford to be choosy.

Understand that every philosophy or life-system which grows beyond a certain mass will fractionate into schisms, and those schisms into schisms. The reason is simple. It is because the system naturally pulls in more and more of the world's variety as it grows numerically. It cannot possibly do otherwise, because the world is never monolithic.
 
But this is a good thing. It is a source of strength and a cause for celebration. To us, it means that our enemy can no longer smear us, because you can't smear something which is spread all over the landscape in the first place, can you? With our growing numbers and our variety of schisms, we are out of the box and we are everywhere, like a wraparound environment. It is impossible to shake a stick at us any more because you can't shake a stick in all directions at once. So by reason of our ambient character we are, or soon will be, in a position to define the cultural ambience and even control the discourse.

The pro-male project as we have known it, is the germinating bud of something larger called the non-feminist revolution. Feminism's war against the world started with the war against men, but that war quickly spread because it was impossible to contain the social toxin it generated.
 
The recent growth of anti-feminist feeling on the political Left signals a tectonic change in the political landscape. It signals that feminism's intellectual reign of terror is weakening among that cohort -- and the implications of such a development are perilous for feminism's power base. But this development, like so much else, was a predictable thing that had to happen and, in the context of primordial pushback, couldn't possibly not have happened.

I would suggest that some may wish to discard the rhetoric of "men's rights" in favor of a strict anti-feminism message:

http://counterfem2.blogspot.com/p/saf-manifesto.html

Very well. Disciplined work lies ahead, but I can see that the field of opportunity is wide open.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Ideas can Travel on their own Legs


It is possible for ideas to appear in the world, and spread, and yet remain untethered to any certifiable point source.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Feminism is a Dirty House, Surrounded by the Rest of the World

The feminists have a high opinion of themselves, but many others don't share that opinion, and those others have formed the project of taking feminism down a few pegs. I will enlarge upon this.

The root of the present struggle is, that most feminists think feminism is the world, or is entitled to become the world. Feminist thinking is triumphalist, transformationalist and totalitarian, and feminism is proposed as a social engineering project that will alter every aspect of life down to the last molecule.

And how do they muster the needful arrogance for such a project? By sheer collective narcissism. They have convinced themselves that feminism is an absolute evolutionary good in terms of what it proposes, and they have based their temerity upon a model of reality that is wildly askew from how the world actually works.

They are gazing at the rest of the world as if into a mirror of their own ideas, so that everything they see reflects only what their fantasy requires them to see. Yes, they are staring at a reflection of themselves, and if that is not narcissism then I have no better idea what to call it.

But wait. On second thought, I do have a better name for it. I will call it feminist subjectivism.

Imagine a house in the middle of a town, with a group of noisy, dirty people living inside. These noisy, dirty people are a continual nuisance with their loud disturbances, and futhermore they are forever throwing garbage out the windows and emptying pisspots in wild disregard to pedestrians in the street below. And from time to time, these people are known to go about in the town spreading gossip and false information, and stirring up social trouble.

I say it is unnecessary to enter that house and go from room to room, or to strike up a fond acquaintance with all of the inhabitants. We are fully entitled to form some evaluation of the house and its denizens purely on the strength of what we can ascertain from the exterior. We mightn't know much, or care to know, about the life within those walls, but that does not compromise the objective truth of what we can plainly see from where we stand. We might even accept that there are some charming, sensitive artists living in that house, without compromising the truth of what we know about the situation in general. Our outside knowledge is as much knowledge, in an absolute sense, as what the insiders might correctively insist on telling us. In our own way, we are as much qualified to talk about those people and their house as they are.

When they presume to tell YOU what feminism is, they are presuming to hold an  authority greater than yours. They are telling you that your wealth of observation and reflection is of no account and may be simply brushed aside.

But feminist house and its inhabitants are not the world, and we are nowise obligated to throw away what we can plainly see about them, while accepting as truth only what they say about themselves. Nor, mark this well, are we bound to unknow what we know about ourselves and accept as truth only what they say about us!

Such is feminist subjectivism: the delusion that only a feminist may tell the rest of the world what feminism is. But as non-feminists -- meaning, as the rest of the world -- we occupy an entirely different epistemic standpoint. And we may speak, think, and draw conclusions with the full authority which our standpoint confers upon us. The feminists have got one hell of a nerve telling us that we don't understand what feminism is, since we can very plainly SEE what feminism is. Yes, they are trying to steal our eyes!

And this gets worse. For when the feminists pretend to a monopoly on self-definition, they also claim an exclusive right to define the rest of the world. And why? Because, in order to make their self-definition operate correctly, they must spin a contextualizing narrative about everybody else. In plain English, they have no choice but to lie about the rest of the world in order to maintain their story about who-and-what they themselves are. It is the classic cycle which any psychologist -- professional or otherwise -- will straightway know for what it is: you tell a lie, then tell a second lie to cover the first, and then a third and a fourth, and on it goes!

That explains why feminism must forever grow and grow in a process of perpetual revolution. In fact, feminism absolutely cannot stop growing until it colonizes every speck of the universe beyond itself. But the time is fast approaching when this growth will become unsustainable. And when that day arrives, the collapse will be breathtaking and, if you are a feminist yourself, harsh and brutal.

Now, one of feminism's greatest tricks was to generate a thorough confusion in the public mind about what feminism IS. That is yet another reason why the power to define feminism has passed into the hands of the non-feminist community: because the feminists themselves will neither coherently self-define, nor take holistic responsibility for the gaggle of voices which claim to speak for their movement. Indeed, they shuck the latter burden quite actively: with so many people earnestly informing you that this-or-that "isn't really feminism", you can never outline a clear target area.

As non-feminists, we may be thankful that we do not share the same burden of self-definition as do the feminists. The reason is, that we are not properly a "thing", but rather an absence -- specifically, an absence of feminism.Unlike the feminists, we are not pushing a thesis into the world, because in fact we ARE the world. And as such, we are not required to justify our existence. Nor do the strictures of so-called morality apply to us, because the world is and always has been a moral spectrum, a goulash of good and evil in every shape you can imagine. We do not intend to make the world a perfect place; we intend only to make the world a better place by ridding it of feminism.

And although we may spawn numerous ideologies and movements in the course of future history, we are not, in totality, an ideology or a movement of any kind, but a force of nature -- a spontaneous and organic uprising of the human social ecology, against feminism and against all the consequences which feminism has inflicted upon the world.

Such, my friends, is the non-feminist revolution.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Political Efficiency of Non-violence

There are many schools of thought concerning revolution, how it works, and how to make it work better. I will discuss two of these, because I put them ahead of anything else you might upon that subject.

First, consider Malcolm X, who famously remarked that "there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution". He was right. Any revolution at all requires violence in the form of violation, meaning a discontinuity which violates a system of understanding or authority. Discontinuity is the operative term because it implies a sudden change of state. First you are A, then all at once you are B. There is nothing seamless in the transition from A to B, and that's what revolution is all about. To arrive at B, you must violate A.

Any revolution worth the name involves, more or less, a paradigm shift from A to B. More to the point, a revolution violates a paradigm by breaking out of it. For example, the American revolution violated the paradigm of the British Empire by breaking out of it.

So how do you break out of a paradigm? The same way you break out of anything else -- by breaking something! And it is violent to break things, is it not?

I admit that Malcolm X could have meant "violence" as a layman would understand it, meaning down-and-dirty physical violence or the threat of such. If nothing else, a confrontation where voices are raised, emotions run high, and somebody finally backs off while somebody else prevails. So as you might conclude, "violence" covers quite a spectrum -- but it always has something to do with violation. 

Next, consider Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence who certainly tried his hand at revolution, although he did this too soon to benefit from Malcolm X's 1963 wisdom. Gandhi faced his share of violence, and violence finally ended his life. Yet he did pull India out of the British Empire by violating the paradigm of that empire. I think it is safe to call this a revolution.

But again, Malcolm X was right -- there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution. Not only are establishments notorious for never giving up their power without a fight, but revolution would not be revolution in the first place if the element of violation were missing.

You must break eggs to make omelettes. 

How did Gandhi make his revolution happen non-violently? The answer is that he didn't, or at any rate, not precisely. Let's look again at Malcolm X's precept. He says there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution, but what are we entitled to conclude from this? I would say, only that no revolution can occur without the admixture of violence somewhere along its timeline.

However, that says nothing about the source of the violence. It does not stipulate that the dissidents should be violent against the establishment, only that violence should occur somewhere in the mix of events. So it could just as well be the establishment cracking down on the dissidents  - that too would count as violence, and would stamp the character of violence upon the revolutionary process.

The non-feminist revolution, like any other revolution, will entail violence because it will entail violation. The ruling cultural paradigm, that of feminism, is to be booted out of our lives -- and that is surely a violation of intellectual protocol, if nothing else. Those on the receiving end (the feminists themselves) will feel this as a wrenching change -- rather like a quantum jump, owing to its discontinuity.

Events at the University of Toronto, in Canada, have been revealing. On three separate occasions, speakers were scheduled to give public lectures on matters pro-male or critical of the feminist establishment. Each time, anti-male crowds greeted the event with behavior that could be described as violent. Their purpose was manifestly political: to block open expression, within the academic community, of ideas that could undermine the accepted ground of intellectual authority within that community. 

Simply put, Toronto was a turf war. The anti-male rioters perfectly understood the critical nature of the conflict. They of course understood the symbolic significance of the occasion. But further, they knew that if the non-feminist side could proselytize unmolested in what they (the rioters) consider "their" territory, it would be a game changer, signalling that the non-feminist side has gained institutional legitimation.

So the anti-male rioters were repelling an attack upon their shore, preventing the enemy from gaining a beachhead that would ease the way to incursions further inland. Their naked fear was evident.

The greatly outnumbered non-feminist group acted with coolness, and did credit to itself. Nothing in their comportment hinted at physical violence. And yet, a rarified form of violence -- a purely cerebral kind -- was at least implicit. It may have lacked noise, blunt force or other such drama, but it was profoundly a violation. A paradigm was openly challenged, and the enormity of this challenge provoked a wildly outlandish reaction.

What prompted all the fuss and feathers? A pair of staid middle-aged writers were making a speech about a serious social problem, namely misandry: the pervasive hatred of men and maleness in the culture at large.

Now surely we ought to look into something like that, and if possible, remedy it. I would certainly think so. Furthermore, I would salute the authors, Nathanson and Young, for their active moral conscience, and I would encourage them to give public lectures every chance they get.

But as we have seen, it is no easy thing to make an openly pro-male speech on a college campus. Many people in those settings simply do not want the possible reality of misandry to be referenced in any way, and if you attempt they will try to shut you up by force.

In other words, by violence. They hate to be told that man-hating exists at all: their screaming paroxysms and their 'Lord of the Flies' stick-poundings bore witness to this.

The anti-male "Femistasi" group in Vancouver was whipped into a similar rage by the statement that men's rights are human rights. Evidently they don't approve of human rights for half the population, and the bare idea of such a thing makes them rabidly angry.

Friends, it looks like we are on the side of Ralph and Piggy. That's the sort of revolutionaries we are.

So again, revolution is a violent process, meaning that violence is involved at every level.

First comes the violence of intellectual audacity needed to break out of a paradigm.

Next, any form of violence meted out by defenders of that paradigm.

And finally, any form of violence meted out by the attackers of the paradigm in response to the defenders.

Such is our template of revolution as extrapolated from Malcolm X, and it is a true vision. It comports with the facts of the world. 

Malcolm X stated the facts, but Gandhi astutely put them to work. He apparently understood that violence in a raw, dramatic form comes at a cost because it can easily make you look like the bad guy. He also apparently understood that abstention from violence virtually never makes you look like the bad guy. He understood that if you confine your violence to only the most rarified forms of violation, you would drive your opponent into an untenable position -- to either inflict raw, dramatic violence at the risk of discrediting himself, or to do nothing at all and leave you free to move your plans forward unmolested.

Gandhi's method, if ideally practiced, is the miniscule violence of a pinprick which ends the life of a balloon: the main violence is the loud bang that follows!

So the principle holds true that no revolution happens without some manner of violence or violation. Feminism, with its genius for playing the victim, seems to have imbibed the spirit of Gandhi in a perverted way. A feminist will use every trick in the book to invert the narrative in feminism's favor, either provoking actual violence from the opposition or elaborately lying about it.

 Such is the art of the threat narrative, and the feminists are past masters of this art.

I think our best plan is to out-Gandhi the feminists. In principle, this is not difficult. We have seen how morbidly sensitive they are, when any threat to their paradigm looms on the horizon. That is when they "lose it", and do unwise things, and make fools of themselves.

And this happens right readily, for the tree of feminist folly is heavy with fruit and need only be shaken. A threat to their paradigm, even a subtle one, is a pinch they will keenly feel -- and keen too, will be their reaction.

Thus far, their reaction has consisted of yelling, pounding, ripping, lying and journalistic smearing. These operations attain a certain point on the violence spectrum, though not, I grant you, the utmost. But as matters predictably escalate, so too will the level of violence.

Such is the nature of revolution. We ought to be on the lookout for this, and what's more, we ought to be careful that none of that revolutionary violence comes from our side.

Let THEM be the violent ones -- that is, let them be the ones who look like the bad guys. They have already damaged themselves plenty, by their behavior, and we know that if we only push their buttons in the right combinations, they'll repeat the performance. They can barely restrain themselves, and not for long.

If the anti-male rioters had been wise, they would have stayed home and let the scheduled events take place in peace. But they were not wise, so they gave the non-feminist side valuable publicity while giving themselves horrendous publicity.

Of course, they were in a bind and they knew it, for if they had stayed home they would have symbolically surrendered the field and admitted the right of non-feminist groups to operate on "their" campus. They knew they had to make a gesture of some kind and so they did, but they made a hash of it and discredited themselves. In the end, they showed the world exactly how much they detested the idea of male human rights.

A word to our side. All who see themselves as part of the pro-male, non-feminist vanguard should openly endorse the principle of non-violence, and reiterate this in a way that the broader public will undoubtedly hear it. And when you form a non-feminist co-movement of any kind, you should state this principle near the top of your manifesto. Nail that manifesto to the wall, so you need only point to it and say: "THAT, right there! That is what we stand for!"

We should repudiate all physical violence apart from what self-defense requires, and we should stand quietly with our arms folded while the other side comes slowly to a boil. Let the world bear witness to this. If there is no such thing as a non-violent revolution, then let theirs be raw, dramatic violence, and let ours be merely intellectual violation that we direct against the feminist establishment and its cultural paradigm.

From such a strategy we can only gain, and they can only lose.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Every Woman must Earn Male Trust by Proving herself Trustworthy

The following comment was posted elsewhere in cyberspace by a certain Nick J. This comment throws an interesting light upon matters of importance, because it underscores in yet another way how the feminists (unlike their opposition) are both greedy and uninterested in the truth. They wish only to tar as many people as possible with the crime of "misogyny", and to make the rest live in fear of getting similarly tarred if they don't self-censor and walk a razor-thin line. The bottom line is, that a feminist will lodge an accusation of "misogyny" frivolously, for any reason that feels the least bit plausible, whereas a non-feminist will lodge an accusation of "misandry" after giving careful thought to the matter:

I have edited only slightly, for clarity:
"I for one believe trust is something that should be earned not given unconditionally. . .

"I find it funny that misogyny can mean anything from hate to lack of trust for women, while misandry's definition is highlighted specifically as hate against men and boys. Trust for men never comes into question. Why? Because only thieves and liars require unwarranted trust, or would put it in the same category as hate. Just more proof that women would rather harbor baseless hate for wide portions of the populace than consider they might be fallible as a sex in their ability to make moral decisions about issues that affect the world outside their own gender."
I would differ with Nick J. on one critically important point. Unlike him, I would not use "women" abstractly, as a blanket term, nor would I say "women as a sex". After all, if a given number of women harbor such feelings, I feel confident they do so one at a time. So in the end, they will account for this one at a time, as individuals. Since I am not a collectivist, it is my practice at all times to judge fellow humans in this manner.

Everything voiced by the present writer in the present statement, is impeccable in its moral principles and in the sentiments it expresses.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

The Road Ahead

If we are to organize the non-feminist revolution from the ground up and make it politically efficient, how might we go about this? A quick brainstorming session brought the following points to mind, and I share these for what they are worth.
  1. Use a "great game" strategy; take the mountain-top view.
  2. Grow a disciplined vanguard or cadre that will spread through many sectors and see to a coordination of effects.
  3. Recruit members in every possible industry, profession, social stratum, culture, religion, walk of life, and so on. Gain the benefit of their local expertise.
  4. Have international reach.
  5. Be "everywhere yet nowhere", in order to present no clear profile. In other words, "we" should not even present as a "we" at all.
  6. Understand the proliferation of sectarian "flavors" as a strength rather than a weakness.
  7. Practice the art of rhetorical discipline, and develop it further.
  8. Eschew excess political baggage and extraneous agendas.
  9. Grow a discursive culture that is inwardly rich, outwardly subtle, and endowed with all needful discretion.
  10. Salvage the wisdom of the past, and jettison the mistakes.
  11. Use a fluid, organic, cellular style of organization. Regimentation is not good.
  12. Think globally and act locally.
  13. Be flexible and innovative; adapt to conditions "on the ground".
  14. As individuals, strive for intellectual growth across a broad range of topics.

Friday, May 1, 2015

What is Post-Argumentalism?

-----------

T
he accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist sector finds feminism to be, on balance, pernicious. The reasons for this verdict are many and have been widely examined. For a start, know this: we mean to draw a line against the encroachment of feminist power into the non-feminist world. Since we find that power pernicious, we naturally find ourselves at odds with almost every aspect of it. This brings us to the topic of the moment: post-argumentalism.

Post-argumentalism is the stage "beyond argument", the stage you enter after you deplete the possibilities of debate or persuasion in a given setting. It is a kind of existential crisis in the face of an intractable other: the other may find your stance unacceptable but you find his equally so - and there you stand!

Since argument has not settled the issue and apparently never will, you are excused from such activity and may henceforth either agree to disagree with the other, or enter a state of "war" with the other.

None of this holds any great mystery. If you have ever dealt with a fanatical cultist or an incorrigibly pigheaded person of any kind, you will perfectly understand the base dynamic. And what is true of a solitary individual can as well be true of an entire group or subculture.

The intractable other that now confronts us is the subculture called feminism. As said, we find feminism pernicious - and that implies that we have already settled the debate to our own satisfaction.

We see no reason to keep arguing in hope of persuading this intractable other - we've long since persuaded ourselves, and that should suffice. We know whose opinion we value, and whose judgment we trust. In all cases we cherish our own conclusion because we deem it best, and if we deemed otherwise we'd have concluded otherwise.

Argument is useless if it never ends, and worse than useless if it puts a freeze on necessary plans and actions. To tolerate such a freeze would seem to imply that we cannot act without a go-ahead from the intractable other. Yet a moment's thought might reveal that the other is likewise constrained by us - and there we stand! How to break free of this impasse? Apparently not by further persuasion efforts.

What are we waiting for? Will another three, five or twelve years of argument finally clear the road so we can set plans and actions afoot? What force - legal, moral, physical or otherwise - prevents us from turning our back and going our way immediately?

Feminism has been a dynamic force in the world, and never shy about setting plans and actions afoot. Nor has it been dutiful about consulting others and securing their agreement to such plans and actions. The point is that feminism itself is post-argumental. Feminism has trodden upon the alterity of the non-feminist sector, and the non-feminist sector may now, by rights, serve feminism likewise.

We should add that feminism is an entrenched system which extends through the social and political fabric. It is a major power structure, individual feminists are stakeholders in it, and if we think the stakeholders in any major power structure will be talked out of their advantage by sweet reason alone, we delude ourselves.

The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber, and air their views in turn until one side says to the other: “Yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will adopt it as my own and rearrange my life according to what it requires of me.”

No, that is not how the world works.

Such being said, our project is not to reprogram the deep ideological conviction of every purported feminist. Rather, it is to make such people modify their outward behavior so that the pernicious implications of feminist ideology will no longer translate into real-world consequences. They can believe any pernicious thing they want to believe, but they must stop acting upon such belief.

In so stating, we exercise a mandate. Such is the power of post-argumentalism – it nullifies the presumptive moral authority of feminism and commandeers authority on its own account. In this way, post-argumentalism is a revolutionary procedure, the starting point for anything at all that you could rightly call a revolution.

Truly, to nullify authority is a rightful deed when authority is intractable due to fraud or villainy. Post-argumentalism makes no fuss about this. It does the job brusquely, unceremoniously, unapologetically. To make omelettes, you break eggs.

Both war and revolution have this in common, that they spring to life when reason and negotiatory discourse prove unavailing. The difference is that war is a contest between parties purportedly equal at the outset, whereas revolution is a contention where an upstart knocks authority off a pedestal.

In the end, both war and revolution are a fight, and both involve the element of violation. The rules of war dictate that the parties violate each other until one side gives up, while the rules of revolution dictate that one system of rules gets violated so another system can replace it.

The non-feminist revolution is both a revolution and a war, and is not undertaken for light and transient causes.

As non-feminist men and women we must ask ourselves: what did we originally hope to accomplish by arguing? Supposing we could have persuaded the intractable other, what did we hope to gain? What did we hope to obtain that we couldn't have gotten elsewise, in due course? What prevented us from simply taking it?

If something belongs to us, it is simply a question of overriding or overruling the intractable other in order to secure what is rightfully ours. Correct? In that case, what is the good of persuasion – to talk the other into giving us what is rightfully ours? To talk the thief into handing back our stolen property?

We know that this intractable other, feminism, is a taker who never quits taking, and gives nothing back at the behest of mere persuasion. We ought to craft our politics in the light of such understanding. In other words, we ought to craft our politics post-argumentally.

We do not argue with feminism, we simply tell it things – and if it will not listen or modify its course, we hold it accountable.