Thursday, May 14, 2015

The Road Ahead

If we are to organize the non-feminist revolution from the ground up and make it into something 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.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Feminist Colonization of Human Communities

The feminist master strategy is to colonize every discernible human group, tribe or community it can lay its hands on. By so doing, the feminists both extend their influence, and destroy another non-feminist power base. The interesting thing is, that they are not particular about who or what they infiltrate. They care only that another power base has been knocked out of commission.

For example, it's all the same to them whether they colonize the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Pagans or. . . . (get ready). . .  the atheists! There is at best a thin dime's worth of difference between a Catholic feminist, a Lutheran feminist,  a Pagan feminist, or. . . . (get ready). . . an atheist feminist! Now, you might think there are critical differences among the aforementioned groups and many others we could name. But if you are a feminist, all of that pales to insignificance in light of the real feminist mission, which is to spread feminist power and control into every discernible human group or community and to render these worthless as non-feminist organizing venues.

So in the end, the Lutheran Church will be colonized by feminists with a radical, innovative theology, and little by little whatever is essential to Lutheranism will be cut out of the loop and discarded, and you will end with something that is "Lutheran" in name only, but certainly nothing that Martin Luther would sign his name to. 

And the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church will likewise get rotted from within, and replaced grain by grain with something completely alien -- similar to the process which forms petrified wood. And you will end with something that is "Catholic" in name only, but certainly nothing that St. Augustine, or St. Benedict, or the Apostle Paul would sign their names to. Nor the Pope. Well no, wait a minute, the Pope will probably sign to it because by then the Pope will probably be a woman, and a feminist to boot!

The Pagans? Goddess worship all the way! The Divine Feminine trumps all! Lunar moonbattery from wall to wall! Again.... you get the idea.

And that brings us to the atheists. Atheists are known for their methodological skepticism, their rationalism, their impartiality, their propensity for logic and the scientific method. All that sort of thing. But wait a minute --just let some little Drama Whore Attention Princess like Rebecca Watson get in there, and watch the fun! And I haven't even touched Atheism Plus and the Femistasi yet, have I?

At any rate, they'll still use their good old Atheistic Skepticism to pound the Lutherans, the Catholics, and every other flavor of Christianity from the outside, while feminist innovation guts those same targets from the inside. Meantime, atheist rationality will go into the icebox whenever feminism or sexual politics are in question, and the atheist community will never-but-never become a non-feminist power base of any sort.

In the end, each of these groups and communities, and many more besides, will be exploited for any feminist purpose that is deemed expedient, crippled as a potential non-feminist power base, sucked dry of whatever is essential to it, and finally discarded as you would toss away a melon after scooping the pulp out.

The "Lutheran" feminists and the "Catholic" feminists would then be so little different that they could roll their churches into one and hardly anybody would make a squeak about it. By then, they would be pagan in all but name, so they could easily invite the officially pagan feminists to join the club. Then they could at last turn their combined howitzers upon the atheists -- whose "rationality" (by now half-rotted from within) would not only be no longer necessary, but a positive hindrance to any projected religion of the Divine Feminine.

The master pattern that we ought to recognize here, is that feminist colonization of any human group, community, club, culture, industry, institution or what-have-you, serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it dismantles non-feminist space. Secondly, it transforms the broader culture by reducing it all to the common denominator of feminism.

Feminism was long ago conceived as a social revolution, and the only way this revolution can ever realize its project of complete societal transformation, is to reduce the entire culture to a fabric of identitarian uniformity. But in a culture as diverse as ours presently is, the only way to make that happen is to take control of non-feminist diversity, module by module. The proposed revolution cannot be leveraged uniformly across a cultural fabric which is so far from being uniform. So feminism is not contradicting itself when it colonizes opposing sides such as atheism and religionism, for in order to conquer both, it must infiltrate both. That way, whatever makes them diverse from each other, can be eviscerated in the only way possible: from within.

Keep in mind also, that feminists are false friends. That should be evident from most of the foregoing, given their long-term strategy of sapping from every community whatever is essential to it. But the betrayal can be even more immediate and poignant, given that even in the short-term they will flagrantly cast you to the wayside once you have ceased to be of use to them.

Here is an interesting PDF file which details feminist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Understand, that I endorse no religious standpoint in this context, but simply present this as documentary evidence in the interest of scholarship:

http://www.catholic-feminism.co.uk/pat3.pdf


Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Essentialism and Constructivism

In the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women's lib era of the '60s and '70s, the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.

Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, we call this school of feminist thinking "constructivism". It is the "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate.

In opposition was the theory we call essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.

The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population -- the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women -- and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.

But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative is that women are "oppressed", and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time -- thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society -- wife, mother, homemaker, and so on.

That is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn't need to "oppress" anybody into doing this.

So essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.

Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn't want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but we digress.

Thus far the story is simple, but now it gets complicated. However, I will do my best to give you the short version. At a certain stage, the feminists and their leftist cohorts introduced a thing called "gender theory". They shanghaied the grammatical term "gender" and pressed it into the service of constructivist thinking by making it mean the constructed male or female roles in society.
 
Meanwhile, the word "sex" continued to mean biological maleness or femaleness. But with both terms in use, a state of muddled thinking arose in the average person's mind. Gradually, "gender" came to be used indifferently in cases where "sex" was meant. The fact that "sex" is also an abbreviated way of saying "sexual intercourse" gave a boost to this tendency. And to this day, even non-feminist men and women who ought to know better will say "gender" when they mean "sex". They have been duped into internalizing the categories of gender theory and thinking like feminists.

When men and women were forced together into the same social spaces, conflicts based on their difference naturally arose. This is what you might predict when dissimilar behavior idioms run athwart of each other. But rather than acknowledge natural difference, the feminists shifted blame for the conflict onto men, and emphasized the need to culturally reprogram men in order to make them more like women. This led to a predictable escalation of tensions, and whenever men acted ornery about the situation, the feminists would cite their attitude as male intransigence.

The weight of evidence -- folkloric, historic, sociological, anthropological, neurological and so on -- does not favor constructivism as an explanation of sexual behavior differences. Indeed, if I were gambling at the racetrack, I would not hesitate to put my money on the horse called "essentialism". Mind you, I am not disputing that men and women are trained into different cultural roles. However, I cannot buy the idea that such training is the sole point of origin for the apparent differences. I believe the differences are inborn, and that cultural training merely "improves upon nature".

Certain old-school feminists, grasping at straws to save constructivism, will acknowledge what I have just described. They will concede that "nature" indeed might play a role in sexual identity, but quickly brush this aside by insisting that training, too, enters into the mix. Then they will build the subsequent conversation around that point alone -- as if it had any real significance. For if the "constructed" part of sexual identity is merely an add-on to what nature has originally set in place, then it is pointless and fatuous to insist that sexual identity is culturally constructed. Indeed, we must enquire why humans would have ordained sex roles at all if nature had not provided a foundation for it.

In fact, if sexual behavior differences arise from nature to any degree, then constructivism -- at least for feminist political purposes -- is done for. You might scrape away the overlay of cultural training, but the natural foundation directly below would always confront you, as if in mockery -- and what would you do about this? And patriarchy theory, which depends upon constructivism, is next up on the chopping block.

As a writer, I will declare my own position. That is, that I don't personally care which of the two theories, essentialism or constructivism, eventually proves correct -- just so I know what is true. The truth is what matters to me. Right now, as earlier stated, I am betting on essentialism because I think the evidence weighs heavily in its favor.

But however this finally turns out, I will insist that everybody live according to the pattern of consistencies which the outcome logically generates. I will demand that such consistencies be assimilated into the culture with no shred of hypocrisy or double-standard. Chiefly, I will not allow any form of "code-switching" from constructivism to essentialism or the reverse. If paradigm A is reality, I expect we as a society shall hew to it through all viscissitudes. I do not expect that we shall capriciously adopt paradigm B whenever it is useful for women or seems to put them in a better light -- although that is clearly what feminism wants for women.

For example, if you enjoy snarking on the theme of "men can't multi-task", then you had better make up your mind to live in the essentialist camp, because essentialism is what you are supporting.

Or if you avow that women are inherently "more verbal" than men, then you should put your money where your mouth is and verbally vote for essentialism.

Or again, if your name is Barbara Jordan, and you declare that women have a capacity for sensitive feeling which men are just not capable of, then you had best declare yourself an essentialist or else retract that statement.

Or again, if you are a great booster of the transgendered cause, then you are co-signing with the idea that there is an independent male or female essence which sometimes gets packed into the wrong kind of body. In other words, you are an essentialist and you ought to maintain that position consistently. This could go on and on.

All right. We know that constructivism gained traction early and logged a lot of miles. Partly, that is because it sounded like a cool idea. It sounded groovy and democratic -- just what the utopian zeitgeist called for! So plenty of people signed on and sopped it up.

Yet there is more to constructivism's staying power than all of that, and nature itself provides this "more". Granted the "essential" difference between male and female is difficult to dispute. However, this difference occurs as a statistical average, or if you will, a norm, from which individual men and women sometimes vary. And so we often encounter women who seem, all in all, rather "mannish", and men who seem somewhat "womanish".

Note that the essential polarity of masculine and feminine remains uncompromised. Yet the presence of such natural deviation clouds the issue and furnishes a rationale for constructivist thinking. The deviation makes it seem that constructivism might be true. There is just enough creative ambiguity or wiggle room for constructivism to shoehorn its way in, with the help of bias-confirmation from people who want it to be true anyway.

Now, we know the feminists love to rattle on about luckless folk who feel oppressed by certain behavior norms. Aye, heaven pity the sensitive chap who wants to wear pink shirts. And spare a thought for the girl who wants to take welding classes with the boys. Well so far as the present writer is concerned, they are both welcome to it. They have my blessing. But apart from that, I'll not march down the street carrying placards on their behalf. They are on their own. And if they seek anything special from me, anything "above and beyond", then they had best make a social contract with me, by proving that they are worth something to me.

The take-away point from all this, is that patriarchy theory sits on a rickety foundation. In order to be true, it needs constructivism. Without constructivism, patriarchy theory is shot to hell. And if patriarchy theory is shot to hell, then the all-important female victim card becomes worthless plastic.

That brings me to the final subject of my talk, which is: the future.
 
The feminist regime has profited greatly by constructivism, because that theory makes it possible to suck a lot of blood out of men in a lot of ways.

With the passage of years, advantages for women have piled up and up. Yet the feminists are still hymning that old refrain about the oppression of women, and they are doing this despite nagging questions about the veracity of it. Well, those nagging questions are set to grow. Long story short: women are now virtually the royal sex in the western world and beyond, and this fact, if it is not yet acidly self-evident to all, is on the way to becoming so. I know a lot of people are blocking that realization, but they can hold out only just so long.

The situation is objectively bad for men. Barring dramatic political action, it will not get better. Nor will it stay the same. Life for men will get steadily worse because the course of feminist innovation (barring dramatic political action) is bound to continue unchecked. Truly, it can do none other. Feminism is not static; its very being is identical with its being-in-motion, and if motion stops, feminism stops. Full stop.

Therefore, feminism will remain in motion. It will grow and develop as always, on a trajectory that can be roughly predicted. Collateral damage from the war on men will spread into the social ecology, and true to form, the feminists will nail the guilt for their own crime upon the collective back of men. They always do that. But we digress.

At some future date, it will be obvious to everybody that men are getting a raw deal compared to women. The rhetoric of oppression, equality, redistribution and so on, simply will not work any more. And when that day arrives, feminism will need to tack to a very different wind if it wants to stay in business. It will never go out of business if there is any help for that, for if it did, the natural configuration of power between men and women would quickly reassert itself -- men would be men again, and women would be women again, and that would be that.

The development of feminism has always involved turning the screws tighter and tighter on men, and for feminism to keep existing as feminism, it would need to keep busy at this. But there must be a rationale for doing so, otherwise a growing clamor for social reform will stop feminism dead in its tracks -- and I do mean dead.

So constructivism will be shucked like an old skin, and a new essentialist snake will emerge! The only excuse to keep oppressing men would be an essentialist excuse, and so the idea will come into vogue that men and women are essentially different -- and that women are essentially better than men. Some combination of propaganda and bunk science will drill this into the culture, paving the way for anti-male "Nuremburg laws" in one form or another. The alleged inferiority of the male sex will become state doctrine, the necessary traitors will be found to enforce the system, and the third-class citizenship of men will become a legalized and normativized fact of life.

We know that a good many feminists are essentialists already, either in thought or in effect. Indeed, the most radical of the radicals are militantly essentialist -- often Y-chromosome theorists -- and talk seriously about culling the male population. Other radical feminists may still be constructivist but they are not the wave of the feminist future. That future can only be essentialist and, at the extreme, genocidalist.

But will that future ever materialize? Certainly, the logic of feminist evolution dictates such a future and will accomodate none other. However, if you want my honest opinion, I think that a social upheaval will collapse the trajectory. That is my prediction, although I can't predict the details any more than I can predict every ripple on a surging wall of floodwater. Yet I can sense that violence is on the way, and that it requires no help from us. Truly, we can sit beneath a tree and play our balalaikas and, willy-nilly, violence will happen. Knowing this, we are left with one consequential power, and that is the power to make our plans by the light of our knowledge.

The only question is, what plans?

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Equality? Or Female Supremacy?

----------

In the present talk we shall discuss the axiomatic counter-feminist equation that feminism equals female supremacism. It falls within the mandate of strict anti-feminism to expose the inner workings of feminism in as many ways as possible, and the present talk operates under that mandate.

So what is female supremacism? It is the moral conviction, openly stated or merely implied, that women are superior to men and that the ruling power in most areas of life ought to be a female power. This is a revolutionary idea because it overturns many things and modifies the details of life in a radical, far-reaching way - more than we have time to describe here .

The accomplished outcome of female supremacism would be a state of female supremacy. Female supremacism and female supremacy are therefore separate things: the former is the anticipation of the latter, and the latter is what the former would swing into practice in real world terms.

I would make bold that female supremacism as a system of social energy is objectively real; it EXISTS; it is out there in the world, ranging freely in one guise or another, covertly or overtly. I can attest from my own observation that many people harbor this culture virus either strongly or weakly. I would further attest that it overlaps with "feminism" , and more than just a trifle.

It is formulaic to declare that feminism "seeks equality between men and women", and whether or not you consider that an honest assessment of feminism, it is the one most commonly invoked. Yes, you hear it all the time. It is what a lot of people want the world to believe that feminism is.

So, if you believe that feminism is "about equality", then you would naturally suppose feminism and female supremacism to be mutually exclusive. Yet counterintuitive as it seems, nothing rules out their cohabitation in the same individual mind. And why? Because "equality" is an essentially contested concept. The possible meanings of "equality" are so varied, so flexible, and so ambiguous that (given the right mental gymnastics) they can easily admit female supremacism in close moral proximity. That is especially true if the thinker does not expressly call supremacism by its correct name, or harbors the doctrine latently, as a logical consequence of unclear thinking in some other area.

Consider also, that feminism is a movement which advocates for women's interests; who would dispute this? And female supremacism, if you wish to call it a "movement", certainly does likewise; how could it possibly do otherwise?

Therefore, feminism and female supremacism converge upon the point of advocating for women's interests. The only difference is that female supremacism, unlike "equality", doesn't sound respectable. Most people would not openly admit to it, but still, for reasons we have suggested, cognitive dissonance can be rationalized. And such being given, the terrain of women's advocacy is left wide open as a zone of conjoined political effort.

So, feminism (arbitrarily defined as "sexual equality") and female supremacism may coexist in the same individual mind—and I have only lightly sketched how this might happen. But the next step up from the individual is the collective: what is true of the individual mind could as well be true of the group mind, for what is a group mind if not (among other things) the sum of individual minds composing it?

It is clear that both equalitarians and supremacists may converge upon the zone of women's advocacy—and that is a lot of overlap. And in the battle for feminism's soul, the question that occupies us above all, is to know which of these principles is constitutive of the feminist movement as a group mind.

Consider once again the uncertainty of the term equality, and its doubtful utility as a category of understanding. A movement built upon the "quest for equality" would be a house built on mud or shifting sand, or worse, a cloud-castle built on thin air. So-called equality, if it is to mean anything at all, must be operationalized; it depends entirely on what is being done, when it is being done, how it is being done, and where you set the zero in the equation. Equality is infinitely plastic in its applications; the goal-posts can always be shifted and the parameters can always be reassigned. It is inherently fickle and flakey.

Now consider the meaning of female supremacism. It is easy to wrap your mind around, and in practice it would offer no puzzling quirks or moral uncertainties. The guidelines would be coherent and crystal clear—reducible to whatever gives women the upper hand in a given situation. Consider also that supremacism in its naked form would be elemental and devoid of hypocrisy, because unburdened by the need to appear respectable.

So which of these two, sexual equality or female supremacism, would compose the stable foundation for a movement?

Clearly, female supremacism would be the winning ticket. And yet, female supremacism sounds nasty. It does not sound respectable, and any movement that openly endorsed it would have a public image problem.

By contrast, sexual equality is a flakey concept that means little if anything, and yet. . . it sounds noble. It sounds lofty. It sounds edifying. And most of all, it is so very unseemly to question it.

A movement built upon either female supremacism alone, or sexual equality alone, would not be viable. But if you roll them up together in the same joint (so to speak), then hey man, that'd be some righteous shit!

The so-called "quest for equality" would fizzle out very quickly if it were not animated by a malignant will. It would not be infinitely greedy; it would not "want it all"; it would be satisfied with a clear, definite list of things, after which it would roll up the tent and call it a day. And more, it is doubtful that such a movement would even get airborne at all when you consider, once again, what an unstable concept this "equality" really is.

Female supremacism, on the other hand, wants it all. It is a malignant will that will not quit, but keeps on coming back for more. It is able to stay the course; it is able to go the distance; it never sleeps and never takes a day off, and ultimately, it will leave no stone unturned! But again. . . it is not respectable.

Or at least, not if it walks around naked.

And that is why the rhetoric of equality is so very, very important: because it drapes the obscene flesh of female supremacism in a decent bathrobe.

So once more, both sexual equality and female supremacism advocate for women; that is where they merge into a conjoined political effort. And their relation is symbiotic. If plenty of feminists did not have supremacist motives, the movement as a whole would have no stable foundation, no cohesion, nothing to give it permanence, and finally it would lack a reliable engine.

Yet if the rhetoric of equality were missing, female supremacism could never travel; it could never leave the house without getting arrested! Equality rhetoric not only veils female supremacism, but permits it to operate almost unhindered in a multitude of forms because equality as a concept is capable of unlimited shape-shifting.

Female supremacism and equality rhetoric: what a team! Neither the bathrobe nor the obscene flesh would log any mileage at all without the other.

So, is "equality" the soul of feminism? Or would that title go to female supremacism? Ask yourself, where does feminism get its real muscle? What is the true animating principle?

Is feminism powered by any so-called quest for equality, and is such a thing even possible considering the vacuity of equality as a concept?

Does the so-called quest for equality exist as anything more than a RHETORIC of equality?

And finally, what does this RHETORIC of equality in fact serve? Does it serve actual "equality" (whatever that is)? Or does it in fact serve female supremacism?

Please think about these questions.

The Non-Feminist Revolution: What is it?

-----------

T
he non-feminist revolution is not a "movement", but a largely unconscious demographic upwelling of resistance to feminism and its consequences.  It is an objectively historical process, of a spontaneous, organic and amoral character. Its center is everywhere, its perimeter nowhere, and its parts do not always accord with each other. We did not initiate or instigate this "revolution". We did not invent it. We merely recognized it in action, and gave it a name.

We have chosen the word "revolution" not because it sounds cool and glamorous, but because no better terminology occurs to us. A revolution is a thing which overturns or abrogates a system of authority, and does so without seeking permission. Indeed, it would be an ironic kind of revolution that would say to the establishment "may I overthrow you?". But the non-feminist revolution is nothing of that sort.

On the contrary, the non-feminist revolution works to reverse the entire spectrum of adverse consequences which feminist innovation has introduced. By this means, it nullifies the feminist project in toto. It works as a primordial energy upon a distributed range of attack points, and not all of the humans involved will intellectualize the meaning of their actions. That is, they might not be aware that they are compromising feminism as such. They might only be reacting to immediate life conditions, yet the combined effect of their actions will undermine the feminist power structure from many directions.

As you might guess, the non-feminist revolution does not compose an identifiable human target group. It has no clear demographic profile and no membership roster. Rather, it operates as a cloud of forces manifesting through human actions whose political linkage is sometimes clear, and other times obscure.

The people lazily called "MRAs" are not the non-feminist revolution, but only a conspicuous vortex within that revolution  -- rather like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. And like the Great Red Spot, the "MRA" vortex will eventually dissipate. Yet the Jovian turbulence that originally spawned it will continue.

The boundary between MRA and non-MRA becomes meaningless when you consider the holistic -- or ambient -- nature of the non-feminist revolution. So-called MRAs are on a continuum with every form of non-feminist reality there is, and the feminist obsession with "MRAs" misses the forest for the trees. This myopia shall be their undoing.

Similar remarks extend to those on the non-feminist side. All presently existing boundaries and categories within the non-feminist revolution are mutable and subject to metamorphosis. Blind adherence to mere labels, political constructs, and “club life”, will doom the adherents to imagination death and psychic fossilization.

The order of the day is to think outside the box.

Ever since recognizing the existence of the non-feminist revolution, our interest has been to harness the disordered energy of it so as to make it politically efficient. To make the non-feminist revolution politically efficient means both to minimize the transit time from a feminist world to a post-feminist world, and to minimize any chaos and human misery that might go along with this.

Once the social death of feminism has been effected, it will be safe to say that the post-feminist goal has been attained. On that day, feminism will have fallen into the same disrepute as racism. We must then see to it that the narrative of feminism's rise and fall is correctly written in the chronicle of history, with indelible ink. A permanent moral stigma shall be placed upon the word "feminism" itself; this word shall be non-recuperable.

The project to harness the non-feminist revolution is broadly termed counter-feminism. It is the mountain top view. The gameboard view. The vanguard view. And yes, a revolution needs a vanguard if it is to be distinguished from chaos. Gut reactions might arise from broad masses of people, but politically efficient plans assuredly do not. Therefore, somebody might as well give it a go. If they don't, somebody else will.

Please note that feminism is a utopian project not unlike the pursuit of a rainbow. Some might call it dystopian in practice, but in the minds of its participants it aims at a perfected future state of life.

Counter-feminism is not utopian. It aims only at the disappearance of feminism and harbors no blueprint for a perfected post-feminist state of life. Counter-feminism considers both feminism and non-feminism to be flawed states, but counts the latter preferable to the former. In the end, the role of counter-feminism is simply that of midwife to a post-feminist consciousness.

The project of feminism is to increase the power of women with no specified limit. More tersely stated, feminism is female supremacism, since that term describes the logical outcome of such a project. However, it is not amiss to suspect that the unconstrained growth of female power will generate natural consequences, and that these consequences are not bound to be pleasant or tidy. This describes the character of the non-feminist revolution -- it is the natural order of life bursting chaotically through the structure of feminist innovation and reasserting itself.

When water breaks through a dam and roars away downstream, sweeping all before it, the scene is chaotic. But it does not remain that way, for the chaos is a healing crisis, the natural consequence of something that should never have been permitted to develop in the first place. And at last, the water will settle down into a tranquil stream again.

It is even so with the non-feminist revolution and its chaotic manifestation. Forces of nature can be that way, especially when they are unnaturally pent up in defiance of common sense. These things are predictable.

Social revolutions follow a similar pattern -- it is best to initiate reforms well before the crisis comes to fever pitch. If you wait too long, you get dérapage. You get Jacobinism and Sansculottism and reigns of terror and all manner of beastly untidiness.

Let it be our endeavor, therefore, to ease the transition to a post-feminist world and to keep the bad stuff to a minimum. Let us reduce the non-feminist revolution to the most politically efficient order possible.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Men can stop Rape? Precisely how?

Our wise and wonderful friends, the feminists, have a wise and wonderful saying that you have undoubtedly heard. Yes. In their wonderfully wise way, our feminist friends have made known to us that "men can stop rape."

Now, you might wonder if that maxim contains any wisdom at all, or then again, you might wonder if I am only being a wise guy. So watch closely. I am going to insert this wondrous wisdom into the bench-vise of intellectual violence, cranking the jaws tighter and tighter until the specimen cracks open and parts fly out upon the floor. That way, we can scrutinize them. You would remark nothing phallic in the manner of force applied to the task.

Very well, keeping hard logic on track in the spirit of rhetorical discipline, what does it mean to say that "men can stop rape"? On the face of it, very little. And yet quite a lot. But here, let me break it down by stages, sparing no pains either to myself or to my audience. Everything in this examination turns upon two major points, or rather questions: who or what is "men", and what does it mean to say that men can "stop" rape? I will address these points in order.

To address the first major point, the subject noun "men" is the plural of "man" -- meaning an adult male human. So if we say that "men can stop rape", we must understand that more than one adult male human is involved in the projected action. This plurality of male participation may be classified under a dual heading: men severally, and men jointly.

To speak of men stopping rape severally: almost any man is theoretically able to stop rape, either by personally ceasing a rape action once started, or by intervening to terminate such an action. And any number of men, at separate times and places, will have the like capacity. So even if these men act alone and unknown to each other, they are endowed with the same potential -- to either personally cease a rape action, or intervene to terminate one. Therefore it is permitted to class these men as a set or ensemble, from whence we may fairly conclude that men severally can indeed "stop rape".

And to speak of men stopping rape jointly: if two or more adult human males happen upon a rape action in progress, it is possible for them to intervene and terminate this by acting in concert. Since they are more than one in number, it is here permitted to say that "men have stopped rape" rather than "a man has stopped rape." In the unusual case of gang rape only one man at a time is raping. Hence it is theoretically possible that his gangmates will have a change of heart and intervene jointly at any given moment to stop him. So again it is permitted to say that "men have stopped rape."

To sum up, I have noted that "men" is the plural of man. I have further noted that "men" can have two distinctly different senses, so that the possibility of a solitary male stopping rape is not excluded. And I think that exhausts the possible meanings of "men" in the statement "men can stop rape".

But a final nuance bears consideration. It is possible not only for men jointly or severally to stop a rape action in progress, but for them to intervene in a scenario in order to forestall a merely contemplated rape action. That is to say, the parties would intervene in the scenario before the would-be rapist had effected penetration. In such case it would not be correct to say that they had stopped rape, but only that they had prevented it.

The matter thus far given, is laid out with monotonous clarity and thoroughness. It merely states something that most people could work out for themselves if they would so inhumanly tax their own mental endurance. All in all, it does not meaningfully advance the project of human understanding. It is trite. And it has no utility. Yet the subject of the talk is important. So I have treated it, accordingly, as a matter of import.

I will now address the second major point, referred to in the beginning. The verb "to stop" must be disambiguated even as the noun "men". I paved the way to this task in the first part of the talk, when I sketched rape scenarios. But now I must take it a step further. The proposed or imagined project of "stopping" rape may be understood under a dual heading: concretely stopping it, and abstractly stopping it.

We have already made clear what it means to concretely stop rape. It means to either personally desist in a rape action, or to compel somebody else to so desist. We have also underscored the distinction between stopping rape and preventing rape. The talk can now move forward in the light of these understandings.

So, to abstractly stop rape does not mean to stop a precise episode of rape, but to make rape vanish as an earthly phenomenon. Thus, to declare that "men can stop rape" might also mean that men can terminate the very existence of rape. But if you think for a minute, you will see that "stopping" rape in this existentially global way can only mean preventing rape -- any rape -- from ever getting started in the first place. That is what it would take.

So it is easy to see that if "men" are to make rape entirely stop existing on earth, they must operate preventatively. Very well, how might they go about this? Briefly, in one or both of the two ways which follow.

The first way, already touched upon, is that men would physically intervene to prevent rape from happening. Now, if this is to be effective toward ending the very existence of rape, one would need to mobilize enormous numbers of men for the task, and to organize these men for both patrolling and intelligence-gathering purposes. (Spying, in other words.)

Effectively, one would need to create an anti-rape police state. I am sure that most feminists, male and female alike, would find nothing to not like about such a scenario. The female feminists would find ample opportunity to make life miserable for men in general, while the collaborationists (and their white knight helpers) could make life miserable for particular classes of fellow men whom they wish to bully.

The second way, would be for men to never attempt rape under any condition. This would count as prevention by self-restraint, and it would occur through moral persuasion, simple fear, or a combination of these. Either way, the operative force would be mental pressure to not rape.

To make such a thing happen, one would need to launch a preventative teaching campaign, a preventative terror campaign, or both. Theoretically, if men en masse were sufficiently lectured, or terrorized, they just might never commit any rapes -- and so rape would cease to exist as a phenomenon.

And so we could say that "men" had "stopped rape" -- meaning that they had stopped rape in the abstract by preventing rape in the concrete occurrence. But please note that men could effect this only as a joint project. They could not do it severally. For although it is possible for a solitary male to intervene in a concrete rape episode, and stop it, it is not possible for a solitary male by any personal action short of magic, to abolish rape in the abstract. He, as an individual, has no such capacity. That would be a manifest absurdity. So if you confront some individual man with the imperative that "men" should stop rape in the abstract, that man would be quite within his rights to say, "don't look at me. I am not 'men'!"

Now, concerning anti-rape moral persuasion efforts: these are already underway, since anti-rape preaching and pedagogy -- targeting the young especially -- have been a great industry for many years. This can certainly be ramped up a lot more.

As for the terror campaign: that was earlier sketched, in part, when we spoke of an anti-rape police apparatus. Another way to foment terror, is to lubricate the criminal justice machinery with more innocent blood by making it easier to obtain rape convictions.

Feminists similar to Catherine MacKinnon are working hard, mostly behind the scenes where they can't be seen, to make this dream come true by securing the necessary innovations in the legal system. The beauty of this strategy is, that even though it would punish a lot more actual rapists by locking up everybody who got hauled into court in the first place, it would be effective as terror EVEN if none but the innocent were destroyed.

Eventually, men would shun the company of women altogether for the sake of their own survival, so that in theory no women would get raped. Of course, this does not take male-on-male prison rape into account, but since the feminists don't care about that, I'm sure they'll be happy with the solution. As for the collaborators and white knights, they won't care because they think that false rape conviction only happens to proletarians, losers, and assorted goofballs -- people they are willing to throw under the bus, in other words.

Very well. I think I have squeezed everything that you could ever hope to squeeze from the feminist wisdom that "men can stop rape" -- unless somebody can think of anything I missed. It is difficult to understand why they keep saying this, since what they are saying is either insignificant or morally grotesque. Personally, I think it is just a way to rape your mind.

We have done the diligence of writing this because it falls within the mandate of strict anti-feminism to expose the character of feminism in every way possible.

Gendercide: Men More Likely than Women to be Targeted in War

Some people, as we are too well aware, insist that women are the primary victims of war. And yet that picture is shot full of holes, busting out everywhere you look. Witness the following citation from an article published in the highly reputable New England Journal of Medicine. The subject is civilian deaths in the Iraq war, and the highlightings are my own:
"Among victims of known sex — that is, those identified as male or female, regardless of age — the proportion of female civilians killed varied according to the weapon used, as did the proportion of children killed among victims of known age. Because the media may tend to specifically identify female and young victims more readily than male adults among the dead, which could inflate our findings for the percentages of female civilians and children killed, these findings should not be considered absolute proportions; they are, however, relatively robust indicators of the varying demographic characteristics of civilians killed by different weapons. Female Iraqis and Iraqi children constituted the highest proportions of civilian victims when the methods of violence involved indiscriminate weapons fired from a distance: air attacks and mortars. That air attacks, whether involving bombs or missiles, killed relatively high proportions of female civilians and children is additional evidence in support of the argument that these weapons, like mortars, should not be directed at civilian areas because of their indiscriminate nature.
By contrast, the methods that resulted in the highest proportions of male civilians among victims of known sex were the relatively close-quarter, precise methods of gunfire (91% male civilians), execution (95% male civilians), and execution with torture (97% male civilians). Execution with torture, the most intimate, brutal method of killing, was used the most selectively against male (rather than female) civilians and against adults (rather than children). By nature, execution is precise and deliberate — the highly controlled, usually planned killing of a captured person. The character of this form of killing, combined with our findings that a great many civilians were killed by execution, in many events, with strong selection according to the sex and age of potential victims, supports the assessment that executions have been applied systematically and strategically to civilians in Iraq."
The full article is available from the following link:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0807240

A PDF version is available here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/360/16/15850.pdf

So, did you catch that? It says that female civilians are killed mainly by indiscriminate "dumb" weapons such as bombs and artillery, but when the killers are up close and able to choose their victims, they are far more likely to kill men—and overwhelmingly more likely to torture them!

To put this another way: the "weaponistas" in Iraq who kill or torture civilians in war would much rather NOT kill or torture female civilians.

Looking at the broader picture, in the Iraq war overall, male civilian deaths appear to outnumber female civilian deaths by at least 4 to 1. The following report, compiled from the years 2003-2005, bears witness to this:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/pdf/
a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

Yes, I know. Some she-ass is going to pipe up and remind us that it's mainly men who are doing this killing. But in conclusion: information of the kind shared here should be widely pointed out to the general public, because it chips away at the feminist idea that women are uniquely oppressed and violated in the world. 

In other words, it shoots holes in the feminist version of reality, and that's the main thing we need to be doing.

This is not to lament what is happening to men, but to undermine feminism by undermining the ideological paradigm it is built upon. Hence, the present blog post falls within the mandate of strict anti-feminism.