Tuesday, April 14, 2015

An Introduction to the Sector System

The feminists have a peculiar idea that they are the world. They must be disabused of this notion -- slowly, pitilessly, painstakingly. For there is another world, a world beyond feminism, a world with a sovereign life of its own. However, the feminists don't want to think about this, and that is why we say that feminism thinks it is the world.

But again, there is a world beyond feminism -- and we are that world.

The project of feminism, as we all know, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit and no clearly stated plan to cease operations at any discernible time. In pursuit of this project, feminism has for many years conducted a campaign against men and all things male, on all fronts large and small. Men as a class have been targeted for hostile actions meant both to deprive them of the tangible and intangible goods of life, and to redistribute those goods to women.

So in practice, the effect of feminism is to promote the ascendency of women, and make the ruling power in most areas of life, both large and small, a female power. We don't enjoy sounding melodramatic; we are just telling it like it is. The feminist project has taken great strides, and further progress is clearly projected. For that reason we conclude that feminism is a female supremacist project, and for all purposes indistinguishable from female supremacism.

Understand, that we do not say feminism is similar to female supremacism, or contains an element of female supremacism, or has a female supremacist aspect. No, we say that feminism and female supremacism are one and the same object; that the terms may be freely interchanged. And frankly, if you could expel all of the female supremacism from feminism, then "feminism" would become a paltry, vanilla sort of thing that would melt back into the terrain of liberal humanism and cease to be salient.

Our decision, to make feminism and female supremacism interchangeable terms, is a linguistic fiat. We, by our good sovereign pleasure (and backed by long, hard study of reality) have ordained it so. We have made our linguistic choice well knowing that we ride roughshod over the linguistic choices which others have made. Still, nothing prevents those others from speaking in their customary way within their own speech communities.

We understand that not every self-identified feminist identifies subjectively as a female supremacist. Nevertheless, we recognize feminism in toto to be a female supremacist project on an organic level -- and that every human participant in the feminist project is a contributor to this; a supporter of this; an enabler of this.

The project of feminism, again, is to increase the power of women with no proposed upper limit. The effect of this will be to drive a wedge between men and women by generating a disequilibrium of power. So it is accurate to say that the purpose of feminism (read: female supremacism) is to make men and women "unequal".

Now, the project of counter-feminism is, to isolate feminism in order to make it available as a target of social and political operations. The first stage in this project is the rough cut. To isolate feminism is to recognize it as recognizable, and we make it at least roughly so when we recognize that feminism is one thing, while the rest of the world is something else. At any rate, we have taken the critical first step in so doing, and further steps may follow by way of refinement.

The rough cut establishes the sector system, meaning the division of the world into a feminist sector, and a non-feminist sector. This foundational binary composes the bedrock for an entire way of working and thinking. Little wonder then, that we call it the bedrock binary.

So, the non-feminist sector is a sovereign zone of existence, inhabited by a range of entities, communities, and forces. What all of these have in common is that they do not partake of feminism. The sector is not merely "not feminist" in a statistical-demographic way, but in a primordial way; it represents everything in the universe which lies beyond the explanatory competence of feminist theory -- in sum, all the forces and principles of that realm. Viewed in this context, feminism is very small and non-feminism is very large. Indeed, feminism is like a transient pattern of ripples upon a timeless river.

Female supremacism is nothing if not a war against men. However, in waging war against men, one engages a bigger chunk of the universe than just maleness. I mean, that politically organized anti-male aggression has a collateral effect upon the world at large because it generates fallout; because it transmits ripples from one end to the other of the social ecology. This is consequential for men and women both. And a lot of women will not want those consequences, because you might say that feminism hurts women too. Such women will know very well how to maximize their advantage when the time comes.

So it works out that the feminist war against men generates consequences for more than just men. This means that feminist anti-male aggression is, in the long run, aggression against the non-feminist world as a whole -- meaning anybody or anything which might, directly or indirectly, pose an obstacle to feminist plans.

Feminism then, is pernicious to the rest of the world. So again, our master strategy is to ISOLATE FEMINISM. And having once done this, to commence operations that will dismember its effective power on earth. Our establishment of the sector system sets the process in motion. For it is a gesture of surpassing importance, to affirm that feminism is a definite thing, and that WE are a sovereign thing apart from it and in no way subservient to it. This, at least, begins to isolate feminism.

And the question "what is non-feminism?" will naturally arise. This will trigger the question "what is feminism?". In other words, it will establish the necessary frame. For we know that not every self-declared non-feminist would give the same answer. No -- not every non-feminist would agree on what feminism is!

Or at any rate, not yet.

But as non-feminist, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminist. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. So we can agree that the word itself is contaminated, and that we ought to place a social stigma upon it. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution.

Under the feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will obtain. Call this situation F. Under the non-feminist system, an imperfect set of worldly conditions will likewise obtain. Call this situation N. As non-feminist partisans, we claim that situation N is preferable to situation F, because it will generate less human misery in the long term. Our view is not utopian; we aspire not to a perfect world, but to a less imperfect one.

Having concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our combined operations.

Target consensus, accordingly, reminds us that feminism equals female supremacism. Counter-feminist analysis concludes this, and we assert that no other analysis will generate effective political traction. You may agree, or not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. And if you are serious in opposing feminism you cannot avoid asking how feminism relates to female supremacism.

How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their manner of co-existence? Are those two things at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other? Are they part-and-parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how precisely does female supremacism factor into your political calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?

I have met certain people who avow that they are not feminist, yet voice no objection to feminism as such. In fact, some of their friends are feminists -- wouldn't you know it? These gentry are practicing, as it seems to me, a misguided liberality or open-mindedness -- as if they are merely Quakers and the feminists are merely Amish, and naught of greater import hangs in the balance. I cannot, by any trial of intellectual pressure, make them agree that feminism and female supremacism are the same thing. And when I enquire to know what they think feminism is, they respond with platitudes.

Yes. There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro and anti. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clich├ęs and marked by the shallowness of their political understanding, and their understanding is often saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They can't see that their middle ground is only a transitory condition, that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be forced off their fence and compelled to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.

So target consensus is the goal of shared understanding to which we, as non-feminist partisans, direct our endeavor. And the process of reaching this goal is called clarificatory discourse. In pratice, clarificatory discourse amounts to intellectual crystallization through broadening circles of discussion. This generates social mass, or if you will, "gravity" -- which, in the end, establishes non-feminism as a factor in the equations of power.

Target consensus makes female supremacism the point of conjunction for all non-feminist understanding of what feminism is. This permits us to differ at least somewhat, and to benefit from the creative flexibility such difference affords, while sharing a foundational understanding upon points where misunderstanding would compromise our work.

So once again, our master strategy is to isolate feminism. And to do that, we must clarify the basis of a distinction between feminist and non-feminist -- both in order to know what feminism is, and to know what we ourselves are by knowing what we are not. Having reached that point, we are finally in a position to go forward with any project of a political nature that might occur to us.

Feminism thrives on fuzzy categories. It is a fuzzy category itself, and embraces many fuzzy categories, and fuzzy ideas, within itself. To put that another way, feminism has fuzzy borders because it merges so gradually with the non-feminist world that it is not clear where feminism ends and non-feminism begins. This state of things has arrived by a series of steps, and shall be reversed by a series of steps. So our first order of business is to make the fuzziness into something solid, or as we say, to collapse feminism's fuzzy borders. That is what it means, in practice, to isolate feminism. By creating a clear border, you create a clear target that you can operate upon.

We have already spoken of the rough cut, which establishes feminism and non-feminism as the bedrock binary from which our subsequent understanding grows.

Next, we reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of the feminist worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminist, we understand that you cannot begin within feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to feminism as a necessary first step; you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint, and proceed from there. As the feminist Audre Lorde famously remarked, "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

As non-feminist people, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we do not reach our conclusion through any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage the issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.

You don't need to read every feminist book ever written and refute it line by line. You have NO legal, moral or intellectual duty to do any such thing. They'll just write more books anyway, and then what will you do?

The point is to stop arguing with them on their own terms. Instead, locate their intellectual weak spots and drill, drill, drill! Pick your battles wisely; many are not worth fighting. And don't fight your way out of quicksand in which you are not standing! Stand clear, and force them to come out and engage you on ground which you have chosen. We don't owe them any answers, but they owe us plenty.

We "study" feminism only as one might study a machine or a complex system with the intention of wrecking it. The classic advice to "know your enemy" means knowing him the better to wreck him.

You might think that the best way to learn what feminism is, is to ask a feminist, right? WRONG. That is one of the worst ways imaginable, and if you follow that road you it will lead you hopelessly astray. In fact, feminism is a system of obfuscatory rhetoric, intended to camouflage the advancement of female supremacism. There is a perennial tension between what we are told that feminism is, and what we can SEE that it is. So we map the term "feminism" to a certain objective pattern of things that we see in the world. That is our path of knowledge. And we are aware that it overwrites much of the feminist narrative.

Clearly, feminism for them is a journey, and most of their talk is about the smaller points of scenery and navigation upon that journey. By inviting us to partake in their talk, or expecting us to do so, they imply that we have consented to take the same journey ourselves. They have hauled us aboard their train, and permitted us to wander up and down the train as it hustles us along. And so, for example, if we agree to explore the merits of one brand of feminism against another, we are only exploring different locations aboard the train, possibly in search of the first-class car so we can travel more comfortably to a place where we never wanted to go. So, if we truly don't want to go where the train is taking us, we have two choices: either jump off, or take control of the locomotive.

Yes, whenever a new philosophy or belief system gains ascendency in a society, it will fragment into a variety of sub-systems which are more-or-less at odds with each other. Accordingly, those who originally opposed the new system as a whole are obliged, willy-nilly, to "pick the lesser of two evils" by taking sides in the conversation that follows -- and this validates the conversation as a whole. So, regardless which side prevails, the broader frame of the new system cements itself.

Very well: for nearly half a century, the feminist strategy has been to draw the rest of the world into a feminist conversation. We must now undertake slowly and patiently to reverse that, and undo that. We must sabotage the entire conversation, and do this radically. We must inaugurate a counter-narrative that will confront the feminist narrative along a broad front -- in its entirety! -- and systematically dissolve that narrative like an acid.

Non-feminism is not a ideology or a movement, but merely the rest of the world -- the part that wants to live unmolested by feminism. It is no duty of yours, as non-feminist, to defend your lack of feminism. It is the duty of any feminist, however, to LEAVE YOU ALONE, and to leave the rest of the world alone. Failure by any feminist or feminist group to do so, will be considered an act of aggression -- as likewise the entire history of feminism, especially since the 1960s, has been a cumulative and sustained war of aggression.

Non-feminism has existed for the entire history of the human race. Feminism is very, very recent -- even if the elements of it were always present in undeveloped form. Most recent of all, however, is the political coterie known as "MRAs" or men's rights advocates. They are a colorful lot, and they certainly have their share of foibles. Some of them are transcendental geniuses while others, it pains me to say it, are flat-out idiots. In fact, they represent the full gamut of human nature in all of its lights and shadows -- they are nothing if not human! In that respect, they mirror what the world contains.

But unlike the feminists, they do not pretend to "be" the world. Nor do they even pretend to "be" the non-feminist world, for indeed they are not. In fact, they are just one among a variety of working parts in a developing global organism called the non-feminist revolution. And yes, they play a catalytic role.

But the men's rights cohort of the non-feminist revolution has been hyped to a degree that is politically counter-productive. Furthermore, the feminist-versus-men's rights script is an inefficient dichotomy which serves poorly as a foundational construct. Feminist-versus-non-feminist is a more robust platform. You can build up from it, adding layers as needed.

And there is no "MRA movement". That "movement" exists only in the feminist imagination: they invented it as a trick to ghettoize anybody who speaks against feminism. For the rest of us, it is merely a figure of speech, a shorthand for talking about something too large and complex for words. After all, we can hardly escape the necessity of talking. Let it be so, and let the other side chase shadows.

We understand "non-feminist" to mean "against female supremacism", and we set the burden upon any self-declared feminist to show that he or she is not a female supremacist. At the same time, we make clear to them that they can shrug off that burden by simply discarding "feminist" as a self-appellative. Yes, we make it easy for them. We do not ask them to give up their personal beliefs about anything at all. We ask only that they stop sticking the word "feminist" to themselves. And if they will not agree to this, we classify them as doubtful or suspect people.

We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of an autonomous power with regard to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a position. A number of behaviors, by any feminist or feminist group, will be considered discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.

Under the feminist regime, the non-feminist sector has been nothing. Henceforth, the sector must assume its rightful place in the sun and become something.

This concludes the present treatise upon the sector system.

Further Notations on the Moral Anatomy of a Hate Movement

Man-hating both drives feminism and glues it together.

Man-hating spans a full continuum, starting with minor dissatisfaction (the most common) and ranging clear up to white-hot, vitriolic  animosity. Feminism captures this energy and uses it to align female loyalty. Man-hating operates as a lodestone toward which the milder forms of feminism orient themselves. In the absence of this Central Attractor the feminist project would disintegrate and dissipate.

At the lower end of the scale you would hardly call it hating and yet, owing to it, a fair number of otherwise well-disposed women have stuck the feminist label to themselves. Such women would earnestly deny that feminism is a hate movement, and they will typically regale you with statements like “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!” Individuals of this sort may be styled as weak feminists.

Strictly speaking, the term 'weak feminist' indicates nothing inherently derogatory, but simply an unstrong attachment to feminism's occult core, or root.  Still, the radical strong feminists are quite right to view such persons as useful idiots or shills.

The base-level man-haters drive the movement as a whole. They impart to it a primary direction, a particular velocity, a spin. The psychic cross-section of the movement has a concentric schema, with the more numerous weak feminists inhabiting the weak force-field near the perimeter. Radical man-haters dwell at the high-energy core - the actual root of the movement. (Radical means “of the root”, for which reason we call a “radical” feminist a root-feminist.)

I would make bold that man-hating is what brought the root-feminists to feminism in the first place - that their animus toward the male sex formed the historical precondition for their decision to call themselves feminists. Such being given, it is not amiss to wonder about their probity and their policy.

Perhaps you have experienced their icy politeness; they're like rattlesnakes who have attended charm school for one or two semesters, where they learned not to make that uncouth buzzing noise. In the star chamber of their minds they have passed judgement by virtue of a hidden standard - a silent, one-sided game whose rules they've not had the goodness to make clear to you. Yes...they've got cards they aren't showing. And no...they are not mellow hippies!

The fact that some feminists are extreme man-haters makes it unnecessary for all of them to be so. The rest are free to voice milder shades of dissatisfaction because someone else is doing the dirty work. Thanks to such combined operations, feminism in general remains on track toward the occult goal of female supremacy.

The presence of both weak feminists and radical feminists permits the movement to play the game of “good cop-bad cop” toward the male population.

The man-hating radicals, being smaller in number, are obscured by the cloud of weak feminists swirling around them. Swirling around them is an apposite phrase, being connotative of gravitation.

You might ask why man-hating should be considered feminism's occult core, given that man-hating is quickly discoverable by anyone who cares to look. The thing to understand is that man-hating as such is not the thing which is hidden. Rather, what's hidden is the naked fact itself that man-hating as such is indeed the core of feminism. Cognitive fragmentation is how this hiding happens.

In computer terms, man-hating is the Unix kernel of the women's movement, encompassed by all manner of shells, directory trees, file paths, programming environments, application softwares and aesthetically pleasing graphical user interfaces. In the present context, it is as if the almighty kernel were pretending to be just another text file.

Being dense and heavy, the man-haters sink to the center of the movement like lead weights. In that narrow space they quickly gain the companionship of kindred spirits and the communal reinforcement such companionship offers.

And they have rude intentions on a grand scale. If you are male, they view you abstractly -- as a “problem” to be socially engineered or managed, a contradictory baby-man, a dangerous animal needing to be carefully watched, a glorified juvenile delinquent for whom it is permissible to “make plans”. In no case do they look upon you as a rational being endowed with freedom and dignity who must be consulted or engaged in dialogue.

The world indeed contains feminists who view you in such a light, if you are male. They are a thin wedge of the female population, a less thin wedge of the feminist population, but either way they unquestionably exist and they’d rather you didn’t.

And they have no trademark physical personna. Radical feminists don’t often walk around with signs on their backs (although I once saw a bumper sticker that said “Now you know what a radical feminist looks like”). Most are well able to blend with the landscape and operate incognito. This they do skillfully; they’ve had practice. The person ahead of you in the checkout line might be one of them.

Feminism has reached its current station owing to a considerable passion and a considerable drive. It is no exaggeration that women who either strongly dislike men, or adhere to some theory of abstract male guilt, have furnished the most powerful sector of this “drive”. You'll never convince me otherwise.

If it feels a bit strong to call feminism a hate movement, consider that this much at least may be fairly admitted; that denigration of men is a recurring motif in the speech and writing of many feminist leaders. Such being granted, we might pose a question or two. How deeply does such animosity inform the movement as a whole? And would the movement have any salient character at all if such an element were lacking? Realistically, how long would the feminist movement remain in motion if man-hating somehow evaporated from the world? If you insist that feminism means something respectable, then feminism simply does not parse.

The leading spirits of the feminist movement have pissed a continual stream of corrosive anti-male diatribe for many years, with proof of their venomous disposition abundantly stockpiled. And man-haters of less celebrity but no less malice occupy the movement from top to bottom. If we call feminism a hate movement we do so because we have difficulty understanding what else puts the “move” in the “movement”. The movement moves because hateful people are setting their shoulders to the wheel and pushing hard. It moves by virtue of hate, therefore it qualifies as a hate movement, being nothing less than hate in motion. This makes at least as much sense as any contrary explanation, and probably a good deal more.

Man-hating has never operated on the mere fringes of the women's movement; never has it been marginal. (Even the freak-prophetess Valerie Solanas could be described as faux or pseudo-marginal; in fact, she has gotten plenty of endorsements by more respectable pundits, even if many affect to hold her at arm's length.) Man-hating, man haters and man-deprecators have been front stage center since the early days of women's lib in the 1960s. They have stated plainly and repeatedly that they intend revolution, not reform. So it would be painfully naive and fatuous to say, “oh, but look at all the nice feminists! Look at all the noble things that are happening! Oh, please do accentuate the positive!”

Many a weak feminist might concur, let us say, that Andrea Dworkin was something of a nutter. Yet we are bound to wonder how many times a day she, this weak feminist, unconsciously paraphrases Andrea. Dworkin, in common with her various radical sisters, generates memes into the surrounding culture space much as a star generates a stellar wind.

If you still balk at calling feminism a hate movement, you will surely not dispute that the hateful part of it may be so characterized. Regrettably, that hateful part constitutes the most vital, structurally consistent and far-reaching part -- by far the more revealing index of larger developments. The unhateful or comparatively less hateful part provides the inertial mass, consisting as it does of segments who feed off the ideological direction of the misandrically biased leadership. These segments ought to start distancing themselves, else their silence equates to acquiesence.

The drivers are typically the driven. Of a certainty, man haters are the most driven of all feminists. Hate-filled people on the whole are driven people, hate being a tremendous rocket fuel.

This fact ought to command our interest. To say the least, it is significant that hate is such a tremendous motivator in the world generally. And while anybody is free to assert that the women's movement is motivated by “love”, that idea is a clinker. It strikes a wooden note. If hatred of the male sex did not play a decidedly central role, where would be those ad nauseam iterations of “one in four, one in four”? Where would be the vim and vigor in those “take back the night” rallies? What would be the emotional provenance of the infamous expression that “dead men don't rape”? Where would be those horrendously inflated bulimia/anorexia statistics, with the implication that “men” are somehow to blame? Why would the two Lenores, Walker and Weitzman, have written such shabby books as “The Battered Woman” and “The Divorce Revolution” ? Why would those who publicly challenge the truth of feminist DV statistics sometimes recieve death threats?

Maybe someone else can answer; I'm having a tough time of it.

Again: What is this thing called Patriarchy?

This article digs into the feminist theory of "patriarchy" and works to untangle the web of deception surrounding it. The talk does not reach clear to the conclusion that patriarchy is a feminist codeword for male power, but it clears some of the obstacles in the way of that pivotal insight.
 
T
he word 'patriarchy' is a crucially important bit of feminist jargon. Without it, the women's movement would be plodding through snowdrifts up to its waist. But with it, the feminist propaganda machine becomes a virtual snow-plow barrelling down the interstate highway.

Patriarchy is a reality model which women's movement polemicists have cobbled together in order to establish a kind of "feminist privilege". The bothersome task of confronting men as distinct individuals can be largely set aside thanks to the patriarchy model, which vastly facilitates feminism's anti-male agenda and shores up feminism's ideology.

If Patriarchy didn’t exist, it would be necessary for a feminist ideologue to invent it. And even if it DID exist, it might be too small for the role assigned to it - in which case it would need some inflating. Either way, creative growth would be a requirement.

“Patriarchy” functions as a prosecutorial device, making it easy to gather all men into a single barrel where they can be more conveniently shot. It is far easier to batch process men than to assay their guilt one individual at a time—which is a virtual impossibility in any case. Such is the cornerstone of feminist policy. If you wish to hit far too many innocent targets, and if you wish to do this really, really fast, then collective guilt is the way to go.

Used in this manner, the patriarchy hypothesis is morally indistinguishable from: “Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!” And who among us, in moments of exasperation, has not been overcome by that feeling? I know I have.

In the beginning, feminist ideology found its advance thwarted by commonsense objections of every sort. Feminist thinkers needed to rationalize their movement's many contradictions, and to that end they devised larger explanatory models to reconcile the contradictions. Most philosophical systems or worldviews operate much along this line. Feminist polemic grew by extensions of ad hoc hypothesizing; soon it arrived at the patriarchy hypothesis, a jellyfish in a starched collar which became the granddaddy of all feminist construction scaffolds—a kind of unified field theory of male perversity.

On close examination, we discover two important things about 'patriarchy' as a concept:

1.) It displays coherency when too narrowly defined to be broadly useful.

2.) It displays incoherency when too broadly defined to be narrowly useful.

Tersely: Latitude of utility varies inversely to coherency of definition.

Feminist ideologues promulgate the patriarchy model nonetheless, because they are banking on the average person's lack of analytical discernment—rather as if they were tossing a mind rape drug into the cocktail of common discourse. You might wake up with a nameless, creepy feeling, but you aren't necessarily aware that you've gotten screwed under the cover of mental darkness. Such is indoctrination.

All things considered, it’s hard to know how radical feminism (and consequently any feminism) would get along without the patriarchy hypothesis. For certain, it would be slow sledding.

Patriarchy is beyond all doubt a CONSTRUCT. This can never be refuted and the proof is simple: patriarchy cannot be weighed, measured, or instantiated in physical space; you can’t shake a stick at it, you can’t bounce a ball off it, and above all you can’t find it in the phone book. The word itself points to no discoverable object. Patriarchy is not demonstrably a thing, but only an inventory, a description, an interpretation, a reification, a rorschach, a face in the clouds, a face on Mars, a trick of the light. In sum, a mental spook.

You cannot "fight" "the" patriarchy any sooner than you can duke it out with a heatwave mirage or a hologram. You cannot, by literally or figuratively flailing your fists in any manner, inflict damage on something insubstantial. But have a care! for while you are quixotically thrashing in all directions, there's a good chance you'll wreck something REAL, and that's where your real grief begins. You will run your karma over your dogma and reality will appear on your doorstep waving a bill of damages.

So what do I mean by a “construct”? I mean something that was put together by an act of human mentation, or less charitably, imagination. Here I mean a rhetorical construct—a device intended to persuade, indeed to overwhelm or intimidate, the listener. The patriarchy construct is built from a selection of observables that have been linked as in a dot-connecting exercise, on the predicative assumption that they are congenitally related. Whether they genuinely are thus related could be a matter for investigative discussion.

The most plausible manifestation of this thing which they are pleased to call patriarchy lies within the realm of administrative control structures, namely, that from a general survey of appearances, it would seem that men occupy administrative posts disproportionately to their comparative number. If patriarchy means anything at all, it would need to mean this before it could usefully mean anything else.

This would constrain the term and its permissible range of usage. Still, it is possible to stretch the definition, like Humpty-Dumpty playing with silly-putty, so that the word becomes shorthand for a melange of behaviors in which certain males at various times have been known to occupy themselves. Such appears to be the strategy that feminist theorizing employs.

In this manner, feminism extracts the larger conclusion that men in general conspire to oppress women in general—a leap of staggering enormity that ought to give us pause.

Some will object that I am misrepresenting the feminist position. But I would ask, “which feminist position? And which feminism?” The objection is only a variation on “not that kind of feminist”. However, it is precisely “that kind” of feminism which I have in view here; not the nice sort of feminism but rather the bottom-line sort which runs the business.

The idea that men in general conspire to oppress women in general, belongs to the man-hating category of generalizations. As such, being closer to the heart of what a man-hating movement "really" preaches, it seems a more reliable gloss upon the occult ideology of feminism as a whole. So even if I do misrepresent the feminist position here, it is with the smallest possible degree of misrepresentation. Anything else would be a greater misrepresentation.

Do I mean to conclude that patriarchy “doesn’t exist”? No, not exactly. The word patriarchy certainly exists: Patriarchy. See? I just wrote it!

Likewise the patriarchy construct exists; it is alive and well for those with wheels in their heads, those who chatter glibly about patriarchy this and patriarchy that as if they were talking about something unitary and tangible—as if "patriarchy" were an established fact beyond dispute, like heliocentrism or the Rock of Gibraltar. They are merely stating their opinion as objective datum, and they don't realize how fatuous they sound. I could liken them to a religious zealot whose everyday conversation—even at banal moments—is peppered with allusions to the Holy Ghost.

Patriarchy, supposing that there geniunely is such a thing, has never been a purposefully organized political movement springing into existence at a discernible historical moment, with clearly recognized leaders, with dues-paying organizations, with membership rosters, with published philosophical tracts and tomes, with knowingly crafted agendas, with evolving pedagogic traditions, with lobbyists, with advocacy groups, with teach-ins, with seminars. . . . For a number of reasons, it is at least problematic whether patriarchy even exists—among others, because it is difficult to comprehend exactly what is intended by that term to begin with.

But we face no such difficulty in regard to feminism, which is, on the order of phenomenologies, a clear, tight, discrete and chronologically bounded thing. We know who Simone de Beauvoir was; we know that she published her book in 1949, and we can fairly accurately trace the career of influence that it followed. Likewise, we know who Betty Friedan was, we know when she published her book, and we know that certain people read it and were moved to do certain things. And we know who Kate Millett was, and who Germaine Greer was, and how they augmented the developing action inside the mixing bowl.  And we know what the Redstockings Manifesto is, and who wrote it, and where the saying originated, that "the personal is political." And we know what the National Organization for Women is, and who its leaders past and present have been, and we know some of the things which they have said and done and written. Finally, we know about people such as Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Harriet Harman and, heaven help us, "Ginmar". All of these things and more, we know with a pretty fair certainty.

As regards patriarchy, we can discover virtually nothing of similarly satisfying definiteness. Patriarchy is like a big wooly phantom, a cloud, a colossal mountain of soap bubbles that appears mighty impressive from a distance until somebody informs you that the main ingredient is air. There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as a Book of the Patriarchy, or at least nothing expressly so-designated. And whereas feminists know they are a part of feminism, so-called patriarchalists know nothing of the sort with regard to patriarchy, or at any rate didn't until feminism introduced them to the idea of patriarchy, thereby planting the suggestion in their heads. If in the future somebody publishes an Offical Book of the Patriarchy (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise), we'll owe indirect thanks to feminism for its existence.

My point is this: That feminism exercises a far, far stronger claim upon the category of existence than patriarchy does. It is at least arguable whether "patriarchy" exists. But in a postulated future, supposing feminism to have triumphantly inaugurated female supremacy over all the earth, there would be  no question that "matriarchy" exists.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

The Non-feminist Invasion of Feminist Mind Space

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

At the heart of the non-feminist revolution lies the project to take back control of the cultural narrative from feminism. We call this project the battle for feminism’s soul.

To take control of the narrative means, among other things, to shove a completely new conceptual reality into the feminist mindspace with no prior explanation or preparation. For them, it would be like walking into a movie halfway through — although that comparison hardly does justice to the radical nature of what we are proposing.

The point is, that they have had more than enough time to tell the rest of the world what “reality” is. The time has come for them to shut up and experience life on the receiving end. It is now their turn to wonder what in heaven’s name is going on, and be impolitely told to “get with the program.”

The treatment that we would dish out differs little from how they have treated the rest of the world for half a century. Henceforth, every settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of ideas like it was just any old thing.  They will be critiqued, problematized, made light of, or best of all ignored when they try to express themselves. No more epistemic privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they shall fare. They will lick it up, and they will like it.

We advocate this as a policy, consistent with the doctrine of post-argumentalism. Post-argumentalism proposes that argument or debate has no primacy among the methods we might use to move our project forward. Post-argumentalism further proposes that argument or debate, although useful in combination with other methods, is by no means imperative to the realization of our ends.

For in the end, we are not obligated to argue with a bully, a tyrant, or a lunatic. We do not delude ourselves that if we craft our words well enough the bully, tyrant or lunatic will suddenly understand us, admit that we are right, and begin to act differently. That realization is a truth which sets us free. So we are free to block their power unceremoniously, by walking away from argument altogether and moving ahead with our plans.

Those who specialize in argument, debate or explanation are certainly free to set up shop doing what they do best, according to their several areas of expertise. It is not good to waste any natural talent you might possess. But we have understood that argument or debate are not the main engine that will press matters forward. Recruitment, networking and mobilization will do that, independently of whether our enemy is persuaded or unpersuaded.

Very well. We have drawn our conclusions, and we claim the right to state them freely and to assume that others are up to speed about what we are saying. We cannot be bothered to attach a full explanatory essay to every word or concept, every time we use it, in our spoken or written communication. So in true post-argumental fashion, we do not argue the merit of our discourse by explaining it. We have explained it for years already, but to deaf ears, so it is time to move ahead.

We must assume that our foundational ideas have already been sufficiently established by an accumulated history of explanation, and that adversaries will make some effort to learn the basics before they converse with us. We must assume that the laborious work of establishing our ground of meaning has been concluded, and that we may now discourse with that agreeable speed which is properly the life of conversation.

So any feminist on earth must either sink or swim in the ocean of ideas that we will generate. If we graciously stop to explain, it is more than our duty requires, and gratitude is in order. But we won’t slow down for them, and we will unleash a torrent of new jargons, new concepts and new frames of reference that will leave them mentally adrift and bewildered, as if the ground had been ripped from under them and they were bobbing in zero gravity with no idea of up or down any more.

No doubt they will find this disturbing, and will experience something like culture shock when they realize that their reactions are not automatically shared, and that people not only don’t know what the hell they are talking about, but are rudely telling them so!

Such is the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace.

Feminist ideology has been broken to the ranks, and must share the stage with everybody else. Nothing about the customary feminist discourse will be shown any deference, any leniency or any right of way through any discussion whatsoever. Feminism does not “own the conversation,” and does not set the rules for any conversation where non-feminist participants are present.

Granted, where none but feminists are present it may be said that they are “in the feminist clubhouse,” and may order the conversation as they see fit. But in the forum of humanity, it behooves them to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and “do as the Romans do.”

More and more, feminism’s realm of thought and discourse will implode, and it will be as if the floodwaters were breaking through the barriers from every direction, sweeping away every vestige of narrative privilege they have ever enjoyed and placing them on a footing of conversational “equality” with any male rights agitator, or any non-feminist Joe and Sally, they happen to encounter.

They can barricade themselves in the towers of academia for a while, but in the end the towers too will crumble and be swept away, and they will have no choice but walk through the world to the beat of a timeless drummer whom they can no longer ignore. Either that, or go crazy and do something stupid.

So . .  I would prepare for that day, if I were them.

I really would do that. . . . if I were them.


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


(Note: This article is also available in Romanian.)

What is Feminism? Or: the Battle for Feminism's Soul

What is feminism? What ISN’T feminism? These are vital questions, and controversy has swirled around them for years. This controversy is no storm in a teacup, for I can assure you that much rides upon the outcome.

When a non-feminist encounters a feminist, the mood is sooner or later bound to get testy. To state that another way, each party carries a psychic atmosphere of her own, and these atmospheres are bound to clash. The encompassing social ambience will not accomodate both of them; one or the other must yield. As they say in the old western movies, “this town ain’t big enough for both of us.”

The unspoken tension between feminist and non-feminist will eventually come to a head and show itself openly. This regularly happens in a small way, in the social microcosm. It has not yet happened in a grand, conclusive way, in the societal macrocosm, although it is our job to accelerate the arrival of that day. But on whatever scale it occurs, the confrontation rides upon a mutual assessment between these two parties or, if you will, between these two principles.

Hence the typical pattern of interchange between a feminist and a non-feminist. The non-feminist will make known her feelings about feminism and the feminist will, mildly or otherwise, “get defensive”. So what is happening in these discussions? Clearly, the talkers are talking past each other because they are talking about two different things. The feminist’s “feminism” is NOT the same thing as the non-feminist’s “feminism”. Each conversant has a different mental picture of what the word feminism signifies in real world terms.

The non-feminist looks upon feminism as the less desirable option; that is what makes him not a feminist. Meanwhile, the feminist looks upon feminism as something sacred, and for that reason looks upon the non-feminist standpoint as akin to sacrilege. Please bear these points in mind.

Again I put it to you: what is feminism, and what ISN’T feminism? We need to address that pesky little question with exactitude in order to reach any over-arching conclusion about feminism’s desirability or lack of it. Therefore feminism, the object under examination, must be pinned down, immobilized, and forced to become a definite something; only in that way does it become examinable and susceptible to evaluation. So answers need to arrive, and they need to arrive from authoritative sources. Consequently, the question of authority itself comes to the fore, as does the question of questioning authority.

Briefly then, who has authority to tell the world what feminism is or is not? Does the feminist have such authority? Does the non-feminist have such authority? Or do they each in their own way have such authority?

In the present talk, my contention is that any person at all may at least presume to speak with authority on the question of what is or isn’t feminism. Anybody may set up shop in this trade, and there are no licensing requirements. Self-declared participation in feminism itself is no prerequisite for this. If that word (feminism) points to any discoverable object at all, we must allow that the pathways of discovery are manifold and not subject to any monopoly. Anybody may compete in this market, although success will vary according to the governing criteria. So, it is the governing criteria which are now under consideration.

“But wait!”, I hear some feminist interject. “Only a feminist has any true authority to say what feminism is or is not, because only a feminist has participated in feminism and truly LIVED feminism. No outsider has any authority to tell ME what feminism is or is not!”

I would reply, that your communal experience among self-styled feminists grants you no authority but to speak of what you and others underwent in your time together, and what you felt and concluded from this. Your particular viewpoint and your especial path of knowledge are in no sense privileged. Neither is it taken on faith that you would evaluate your position honestly. Hence, your authority is merely clubbish, a compound of social memories mingled with selective awareness and possibly wishful thinking. And while these club memories might constitute authority of a parochial sort, there are other forms of authority, from other sources, which must not be neglected. Do not forget that others can view your club from an outward aspect—does that count for nothing?

“But wait!”, I hear that feminist interject again. “I have studied feminism for years, and I have read all the books, and I have earned a degree in women’s studies. Don’t tell me your authority equals mine, mister!”

I would reply, that if in addition to hanging out with supposed feminists, you boast of a scholastic or intellectual authority, you must remember that you aren’t the only one who can read books and think about things. Others, very different from you, are avid readers and thinkers also—and they do not have the same emotional filters that you have. So they are free to follow their own unblinkered genius, to quaff from fountains of knowledge that would not occur to you, to generalize, to factor-analyze, to string the dots together and formulate conclusions that might differ markedly from your own.

“But wait!”, our feminist chimes in for a third time. “I am a WOMAN! How dare you tell me what feminism is or is not!”

I would reply: “Quite right, you are a woman. And I am a Sagittarius.”

And I repeat: ANYBODY may presume to say what feminism is, or what feminism is not. It adds no weight to your claim to merely call yourself a feminist. It gives you no head start in the game. After all, anybody can say “I am a feminist”. Talk is cheap, and whether you call yourself a feminist, or call yourself a two-headed Patagonian, has no bearing on your claim to expertise.

And again I say, that a lot rides upon the outcome of this controversy. We must eventually decide in very exact terms what feminism is or is not, and the question is so important that I have given it a special name which hints at the magnitude of it. I call this question the battle for feminism’s soul, and I wish to make known why I do so. As I have already suggested, we seek not only to discover what feminism IS . .. but to determine whether it is right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, noble or ignoble.

Up until now, the feminists have claimed a monopoly of discourse in this realm, thought-policing the avenues of conversation leading into it or out of it and transforming the world of respectable mainstream opinion into an echo chamber where only feminist questions are permitted to be raised, and only feminist answers permitted to be formulated. Not surprisingly, the feminists have concluded that feminism is desirable and honorable. However, they have consistently shrouded in fog the plain and simple definition of feminism, making available so many so-called “answers”, and such inadequate ones, that there is effectively no answer at all.

And that, I submit, is the weak point where we as counter-feminist seekers of truth must conduct our drilling operations.

Which indeed we have done. And after years of work, we have concluded this: that the “nice” parts of feminism are not feminism’s soul, because they do not quintessentially belong to feminism. Rather, they belong to the world at large, and to the realm of liberal humanist bromide. They belong to the generally received body of traditional opinions about fair play, common decency and the like, and if they were broken loose from feminism they could just as well sail under their own flag. Certainly, they don't need some new-fangled monikker like “feminism”.

And yet, they serve feminism as a masking device because they obscure the vital presence of that OTHER feminism, the not-nice kind whose sole purpose is to boost the female-supremacist agenda.

Yes, we have concluded that female supremacism is feminism’s soul. For it is indeed, by any measure, more significant, interesting, original and consequential than liberal platitudes—and politically more profound in its implications, by an order of magnitude.

Already, I can hear a howl of protest. “No! That’s NOT what feminism really is!”

And I would reply: “Bad luck! You’ve had YEARS to tell the world what feminism really is. Now it is the world’s turn to tell feminism what feminism really is!”

The battle for feminism’s soul, is the battle to define feminism’s core minima in both a moral and practical sense and, by so doing, gain effective control over feminism’s narrative in pragmatic, real-world terms. It is the world’s turn to tell feminism what feminism is, and this will come about by shifting the center of narrative authority away from feminism itself. If you are a self-declared feminist, your supposed “inside” knowledge of feminism is worth no more than the “outside” knowledge which others can provide —THEIR knowledge can be as  revelatory as any other.

Accordingly, the nasty bits which outsiders may remark about feminism are not regrettable, accidental, outlying features. They are as much a part of “real” feminism as anything your friendly neighborhood Earnest Feminist would urge you to believe. If these things are feminism’s “excrescence”, it is because they have been excreted, or forced out from the center, which makes the center their point of origin. Accordingly, our task as counter-feminist propagators of knowledge is to factor feminism’s excrescence into its essence. Or as certain wits and wags will be quick to say: to feed feminism its own shit!

Yes. The world has long been an object of the feminist gaze, so it is time to flip the script, and make feminism an object for the world. They have been gazing into the abyss long enough; now the abyss is gazing into them.

Such is the battle for feminism’s soul.

Friday, April 10, 2015

The Birth of the Present Crisis in the Death of the Social Contract

The anti-male nature of the state voids any social contract binding upon men. Consequently, feminism has no ground of moral authority, a male citizen has no political obligation toward women as a class, and any man's transaction with any individual woman is governed only by a moral law within himself. This is a delicate state of affairs, and it makes the present writer feel ambivalent. Certainly, one could wish it were otherwise, but it's just the way things are. I will now enlarge upon these deeply consequential matters.

Consider: by what objective law or principle are you obligated to treat other people decently?

In fact there is zero law or principle which compels you to be anything but a cutthroat. None. What. So. Ever. True, there are some clever philosophical arguments to that purpose, but finally, these all come down to some form of instrumentalism, based on a hypothetical imperative, where people jointly agree to maximize their advantage and minimize their disadvantage so they can all get along and go on propagating the species. "Social contract" is a name that we give to this ideal state of life. 

Now, that is all good and dandy until EVIL SUPERMAN comes along. Evil Superman, you see, doesn't care a fig about your social contract because, being a superman, he can do whatever the hell he wants, and being evil, he has no scruples about doing whatever the hell he wants -- which includes rolling you into the tarmac if you try to stop him.

To say "that is not nice, Evil Superman," is not a philosophical argument that cuts any ice at all, for Evil Superman is more of a philosopher than you are, when he bounces back with "so what?" You can even admonish Evil Superman that God will punish him, but you cannot force him to either believe this, or to give a snap about it if he did. "Why should I care?", he might very logically rejoin. And you cannot answer his "why". You will never answer it because he will always flip it back at you!

You can never prove that morality has any other value than an instrumental value inside a particular social contract, or meta-contract. And the idea of so-called "conscience" is pure delusion wrapped around mere artifact; it is not independently real. In the end, the only thing keeping people morally in line, is the deeply implanted conviction that it will benefit them, for instrumental reasons, to play by the rules. And in theory, Evil Superman is always free to smash those rules because he has either the power or the will to do so.

Now, any social contract -- in other words, any society -- can only remain effective if enough people feel that their gains either balance or outweigh their losses. Correctly understood, a social contract is naught but a precarious web of superstition, a magical balance of poise against counter-poise, of give against take -- a binding miracle that holds people spellbound by a kind of psychic juggling trick.

All in all, a social contract is a structure which an architect or engineer could figuratively understand because, like a physical structure, it needs the right configuration of stress-forces in order not to collapse. So to make a social contract fail, and bring about the collapse of its accompanying social order, it is needful only that the amassing of grievance gain a critical threshhold among certain social cohorts. Such an accumulation of stress in key sectors will eventually rip the fabric and jeopardize the integrity of the whole structure.

Yes, when critical numbers of people within a social order think they are getting a raw deal, it erodes their sense of political obligation toward that social order, and puts them in a mind to tear up the social contract and scatter it to the wind. You would say that the spell is broken, that the binding miracle no longer binds them. And when matters reach that stage, it is predictable that freaky consequences will ripple through the social ecology.

Understand, that Evil Superman is not a person, but a primordial force embodied in persons. This primordial force is "super" because it is superior or super-positioned -- meaning above or beyond. Evil Superman is not God. He cannot literally do anything, but can do many things that you cannot or would not do, because he is unbound by certain constraints which bind you. He is above or beyond those constraints.

Evil Superman is "evil" because he is not bound by the social contract which configures your morality. He may or may not chose to do anything "bad", yet the sheer possibility of this is ever-present, as a shadow, from one moment to the next. So in the end, there is but a whisper of difference between Evil Superman and an independent moral contractor.

Let us now speak of feminism. Feminism is Evil Superwoman. And as an independent moral contractor feminism has created -- in the name of women! -- a zone of moral privilege called womanspace. And true to form, feminism has plowed its own furrow at cross-angles to what others have plowed, obliterating this and plowing it under. Such is the super-positionality of womanspace, which presumes to be above and beyond. Feminism, the Evil Superwoman, has created womanspace -- in the name of women! -- in order to place women above and beyond.

Womanspace -- as the product of Evil Superwoman -- is above and beyond moral accountability, and specifically, moral accountability toward men. And by that fact alone it fatally compromises any social contract involving men that you might care to postulate.

All of this is interesting enough, I daresay. But it gets better. For Evil Superwoman has not only created womanspace -- in the name of women! -- but furthermore harnessed the instrumentality of state power in the service of womanspace. This effectively taints the apparatus of government with moral unaccountability toward males, and so negates the entire state order as a postulated ground of moral authority. By this I mean specifically that if you are a man, you are perfectly right not only to disrespect the state order, but to repudiate the entire social contract which underpins and is underpinned by it.

Such has been the course of feminist innovation: to dissolve any social contract binding upon men, and turn every man into an independent moral contractor -- particularly in his dealings with women. It is ironic that feminism's effort to "collectify" men in the name of a certain politics, has ended by radically freeing men as individuals, and opening their future horizon to a politics that is scarcely imaginable.

But the future is apt to be scary. For the objective course of feminist innovation has led to dangerous levels of male grievance. Worst of all, is that so many of these men, especially the young ones, have no idea what is happening. They are aware that they are being shoved into a hole -- but they can't articulate those feelings.

And they are oblivious to the larger picture: they are politically naive, lacking the needful analysis that would make the operative forces apparent. Consequently they are stumbling in the dark, in the grip of unbridled emotions, rightly sensing that they ought to be hitting at something, but unaware what the correct target might be. It is a frightful thing for all concerned, when Evil Superman, as a primordial force untethered from any social contract, incarnates himself in the benighted flesh of feral masses.

When the binding miracle of the social contract has ceased to bind us, all hell breaks loose until a new contract settles into place. In the interim, independent moral contractors hold sway. They may be "evil" or otherwise, as their nature or circumstance inclines them. But they are governed by a moral law within themselves, and their behavior toward the world is governed by instrumentality or by form. Find the ones you can work with, and make friends with them. And finally, understand where the true battle line is drawn: between feminism, and the rest of the world. I, the present writer, know which side I am on. And I hope that you, the present reader, are likewise informed about your own position.

Feminism's Motivational Sequiturs

Let's talk about  feminism's motivational sequiturs.

Sequiturs are things which follow or "hang together" as a chain of logical consequence: "if A then B, and if B then C".  Motivational sequiturs do the same, but in a way that maps an underlying psychology of intention.

Feminism's motivational sequiturs lie buried under the apparent non-rationality and incoherence of feminism's visible manifestations. These sequiturs of motive, which operate at feminism's core, are are informed by the following tacit presumptions:
A. Men as a class are collectively accountable for a host of violations against women as a class.

B. Given that men are collectively accountable in the manner described, the localized guilt or innocence of any individual male has reduced significance.

C. Given that women are collectively violated in the manner described, the localized guilt or innocence of any individual female has reduced significance.
If you grant these presumptions for the sake of argument, you will see that the items entail each other as a chain of logical consequence. The motivational sequiturs emerge when you realize that feminism implicitly seeks revenge. That is, revenge may be named as a feminist motivator. But revenge against whom? Revenge for what?

Answer: Against "men", for something that "men" collectively have done to "women" collectively. Or so the narrative would have it.

In other words, feminism's revenge is the revenge of one Collective (women), against another Collective (men).

Understand, that under any collectivist scenario, customary models of assessment which assume individual identity and agency will suffer infringement. The extent of such infringement depends on how deeply collectivism has been instilled into the broader culture. In practical terms, it means that they will push things to a prudential limit - meaning what they can prudently get away, often with a barely restrained "champing at the bit" to push things even further.

At a THEORETICAL limit, if women are collectively the "victim", then by the terms of the alien logic in question no individual female can be held accountable for her behavior - for that would compromise the internal unity of the paradigm.

So in summary, the innocent female Collective cannot (if ostensive consistency were valued) be assembled from members who are either 1.) guilty, or 2.) morally accountable for themselves in any way.

Note that accountability entails the power to make any moral choice at all - meaning, to be a moral agent. The alternative to being a moral agent is to be a moral robot, an automaton, a toy of some mysterious "fate".

Accordingly, the Innocent Female Collective we are describing can only be a set of moral robots. Were it otherwise, it would be inconsistent with itself, thereby compromising the internal unity of its paradigm. Understand that we are not now interrogating the  truth or falsehood of that paradigm. We are simply explaining its internal logic.

So the only way to sustain the paradigm is to abrogate the idea of individual moral accountability altogether. So by the terms of the Innocent Female Collective paradigm, every woman ipso facto becomes a moral robot. And, I might add, an innocent moral robot - even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence could enter into the composition of a moral robot. But remember, we are only laying out the internal logic (such as it is) of the paradigm. So bear with me.

Must individual accountability as applied to MEN remain in effect? Even though it is nonsensical to suppose that guilt or innocence enters the composition of a moral robot, is it the case that men too are moral robots? Note that a guilty Collective cannot by its nature encompass members who are even potentially innocent, since to allow even potential innocence defeats the purpose of collective guilt.

So it must perforce be the case that men are guilty...but if guilt implies choice, how can such a thing be? It doesn't appear to make sense, but this is emphatically not my own thinking which I describe, so I am not responsible for that. Thus, it would appear that men are somehow "guilty moral robots". Non-sensical as that may sound, the collectivist guilt paradigm requires it.

Feminism's paradigm deprives everybody - men and women alike - of moral agency. Is THAT the epistemic consequence feminism wants to live with? Even if it leads feminism into trouble? Even if, somewhere down the road, this idea becomes a political stumbling-block?

However, I pass that by....

Feminism's motivational sequiturs are continually working beneath the surface to actualize occult ends through a variety of conflicting means. We have spoken of this elsewhere, as the drive for female supremacy. We have touched upon it also in our discussion of "cognitive fragmentation".

Many things contribute to female supremacy in the long run, even if they are doctrinally conflicting. All that is needed is for each item to enhance the worldly advantage of women in some manner. When you strip away the contradictive bits, you find that the various items share a core agreement in that they all point toward the goal of "more for women". Anything that puts women more at ease in any way puts them at an advantage - which in turn makes them more powerful, both personally and politically. And empowerment of any sort cannot but boost women closer to a state of supremacy - or autocracy of the female will, if you will. As a German feminist , Renate Solbach, remarked, "whatever is of use to women is a good thing."

For nearly half a century, feminism has been walking a fine line of respectability. They cannot openly beat the drum for female supremacy - that wouldn't sound nice. Granted, a few feminists are honest enough to show their hand - but only a few. A greater number will say incredible things that seem to condemn men to the doghouse, but they have plenty of wafflebuggery and piddle-paddle to explain why they don't actually mean what seem to be saying, and that if YOU think they actually mean what they appear to mean, then the fault lies with YOU. Finally, the largest and least vocal number will act innocent and say "I'm not that kind of feminist; I don't hate men; we're not all alike; don't be judgmental!"

Little by little, feminist ideas have seeped into the culture at large - a mainstreaming effect. Alongside of such seepage has come substantive political victory and power gain. Those two things - the seepage and the political gain - are mutually reinforcing and mutually propellant.This has led to an emboldenment of the more radical spirits who, having once tasted the comfort of a growing power base, have made bold to speak more rashly in the belief that the culture at large is finally prepared to hear such things without raising any fuss about it. And to a degree, they are correct in this assumption - although they are courting trouble nonetheless.

Even so, when the radfems get ahead of the curve and become intemperately overconfident and frankly embarrassing - which they tend to do - the less radical ones will try to hustle them out of sight and put a more respectable face on the movement. In this way they hope dampen the suspicions of the world even while feminist machinations continue to creep in the night.

The point is that feminism's motivational sequiturs are always chugging away like an unfailing engine, and always deadly consistent in what they aim to accomplish even when they hide behind a smokescreen of incoherent tendencies and declarations of innocence.

Feminism's occult unity of purpose operates like a submarine, sometimes diving deep and other times surfacing for a spell. We need to recognize it when we see it, and educate the rest of the world to such powers of recognition also.

For example, during the Duke Lacrosse affair the submarine broke surface in its glory and ploughed the swells many a day in blazing sunlight for all the world to behold.

Other times, you'd scarcely know it. Perhaps it is only a bit of deck or a periscope that appears, and only for a moment in the murky light.

Finally, there are long spells where we can only rely on counter-feminist sonar - which, happily, is good and getting better! As the war escalates, we'll want to to drop our depth charges with greater and greater precision.

In summary: Feminism strives continually toward the goal of female supremacy, based upon a theory of collective guilt which is philosophically unsound and apt to trigger a paradigm meltdown at some future date. However, feminism manages its affairs rather effectively for the present by generating a cloud of confusion about its activities in order to cloak the advancement of its designs.
 ----------------------------------

(Note: This article was first published in early 2007, at least 3 years  before the word "hypoagency" popped up on everybody's linguistic radar screen.)

The Occult Nature of Feminism

The following is one possible definition of feminism:

A special advocacy movement for women which incorporates hatred of the male sex as an occult driving force.

Such characterization begs justification—a task (one of several) which I have set for myself. I am aware that many self-described feminists see themselves as people of good will and would feel aggrieved by my clear description of feminism as a hate movement. I understand their position and get no fun from trampling on their susceptibilities, but a higher imperative operates here: the truth must be told even if it stings.

The present description of feminism, as I hope to show, comports very well with the pragmatic truth of our world. Feminism deploys estimable principle as a kind of window dressing or rhetorical skin. To peel back this skin and probe the concealed workings of the underlying organism shall be our present endeavor.

To begin: feminist ideology is incoherent. It has meant so many things in the mouths of so many women's advocates that it appears to mean everything and therefore nothing. But not quite nothing; women's advocacy is a constant, even if a colloidal suspension of mutually exclusive things are advocated. Feminists themselves have admitted that there are "many different feminisms" and I shall not dispute them. I believe they speak accurately.

From feminists themselves I have only heard one declaration that comes near to a coherent description of their movement, namely that it seeks "equality" between men and women. This desired outcome of sexual equality appears to be the sole wire connecting the many beads of women's advocacy. Otherwise the women's movement appears to be a free-for-all, a scattered constellation of clutter with no particular center and no especial perimeter. I say appears, and my choice of words is considered.

The principle that feminism seeks sexual equality should theoretically instill coherence into the movement. Yet given that equality is an essentially contested concept, lacking coherence outside the realm of mathematics, it offers nothing better than mud beneath the mud. "Equality" emerges as a fuzzy, shifting object—one that can never be entirely nailed down because men and women can never be fully "equal" in every possible situation or every conceivable nuance of meaning which the word might be understood to convey. Consequently, the feminist ideologues can go on churning out new demands for "equality" until hell freezes over—a bottomless bag of tricks!

So much for coherence. Our examination leaves only the aforementioned rhetorical skin, a mere surface coherence which upon closer inspection proves disingenuous. We end with a nagging suspicion that feminism preaches "equality" only for public relations' sake while covertly meaning something altogether different.

This altogether different "something" is what presently holds our interest. I shall contend that, despite appearances, feminism does in very deed embody a deep organic consistency. However, the plan of this consistency cannot be clearly exhibited until we brush aside (rather brusquely) what feminists say about themselves and see the facts flat-on, with vision unencumbered by doctrinaire models of political discourse. From such scrutiny a picture emerges. Not a pretty picture to be sure, but one that explains the world in a way that is usefully frank, and frankly useful.

Feminism hides (occults) its nature by what we shall term cognitive fragmentation.

Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism pretends to be many different things so that the controlling core of the movement appears to be just “one kind” of feminism among many. This follows from our earlier statement that feminism lacks coherence.

Feminism embraces many jostling particles which by logic ought to exclude each other. Yet certain binding forces prevent the mass from flying altogether apart. These binding forces keep feminism compact enough to operate as a political entity on the field of power.

By means of cognitive fragmentation, feminism turns what might seem a drawback into a distinct advantage. Cognitive fragmentation means that feminism appears to be this and this, and that and that, and that other thing over there too! No end in sight! Consequently the movement can work on a hundred different projects from a hundred different directions, with each module enjoying immunity from most of the others. Thereby the movement as a whole gains deniability. The right hand "knoweth not what the left hand doeth" or else pretendeth not to know.

Yes, feminism harbors many schools of thought and shades of opinion, many sects and coteries. Often these appear harmless; when their adherents are challenged regarding the occult nature of feminism as a whole they can easily pass the buck by declaring, “oh no, I’m not that kind of feminist!”—a perpetual round-robin of “they went thataways!” The radical feminist “bad guys”, so it appears, are always just over the hill. Then they're over the next hill, and the next . . .

Yes, the world contains many kinds of feminism—some better, some worse. And it contains many kinds of feminists: we could measure the feminist population purely as a cross-section of human nature without even taking ideologies into account. And a reasonable thinker might well expect to find, somewhere in that woodpile, a veritably “bad” feminism along with a number of correspondingly bad feminists engaged in its practice. This does not broach the borders of the fantastical. To suppose that such bad feminists veritably do exist, neither violates the strictures of probability nor warps them by a single iota.

It is critical to understand that feminism did not float down from heaven on a gold plate. Feminism is by every measure a product of the human condition on planet earth, complete with the trimmings you might expect. The dirt, the deceit, the sham, the shadows, the smoke, the mirrors . . . and all the rest.

The phrase "not that kind of feminist" has revelatory importance because the speaker confirms the existence of "that kind of feminist" in the first place. Even feminists themselves acknowledge "that kind of feminist" as a real part of the world.

Feminism occults its operative core by making that core appear as only one “kind" of feminism among many. You are encouraged to ignore it, to overlook it, to lose track of it, to think positive thoughts—while scanning the entire smorgasbord of feminisms in a distracted manner . . . .

Cognitive fragmentation literally fragments the knowledge of the observer, placing the observer in a state of false consciousness as concerns feminism—unable to cognize its occult unity. Think of this as a variation on "divide and rule"—feminism divides itself in order to rule the target's mind by dividing his awareness.

Cognitive fragmentation operates also within the mind of the individual feminist, as a prophylaxis against cognitive dissonance.

Here is the modus operandi, as trenchantly as can be stated: any critique of feminism will be met with either screaming histrionics, or a cool assurance that the critique is invalid because the thing it criticizes isn't really feminism. Feminism is adept at sliding out of its skin like a snake and slithering away intact.

Granted that many feminisms exist, it is remarkable how they all appear to converge toward a realization of female supremacy, as if this were a one-point perspective goal on the time horizon. One might suppose the feminists to have agreed upon a division of labor. Whether this happened on purpose or whether it “just happened” seems a point of secondary interest. Either way it happened and keeps happening.

Anything that seeks "more for women" can be harnessed to the wagon of female supremacism. Even if the "more" in question seems innocuous and not the least man-hating, it can theoretically put women in a stronger position—which marks a step closer to the goal! Man-haters are fine with that sort of thing.

It requires no particular audacity to see a conspiracy in all of this. Etymologically, to con-spire means to breathe together—although a metaphorical kind of breathing is meant, suggesting a group of people mutually attuned to the point of synchronous aspiration. If conspiracy seems too strong a word maybe “connivance”, “collusion” or "complicity" would be more to your liking. Whatever your preference, you will find it illuminating to understand feminism as an affair of kindred minds working in concert across a range of vocations. To understand it otherwise would favor an imbalance of probability.

This range of vocations gives the feminist machine its orchestrated character, its pervading sense of holographic globality—which to the average male feels like something condensing from the air and percolating from the cracks in the earth. It is the feeling that plenty of ordinary men got during the 1990s, of being backstabbed or violently ambushed for no rational, discernible reason. One day the average fellow woke up in the middle of a Kafka novel. Everyman as Joseph K.

At an extreme, feminism's mission will be accomplished when any woman has the power to lead any man around by the nose—anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Which is to say that any third-rate female could lord it over the finest man who ever lived. That is what they really want, and all of their activisms, all of their insistences, all of their campaigns both large and small, point incrementally toward the fulfillment of this goal, however far in the future such fulfillment may lie. That this goal will never in all likelihood be realized, matters not; they can still dream of it and plunder aplenty along the way.

Yes, the world contains many different feminisms and they all belong to the same elephant. A blind man would overlook this.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Nobody is Born a Feminist

Feminism has co-opted femaleness in order to wriggle its tentacles into every possible crevice of life.

Women's movement heavies have been known to assert that "all women are feminists", much the way that sophistical theologians would have you believe, for a hundred obscure reasons, that everybody is a Christian whether they know it or not. To insist that all women are feminists is equally sophistical. It is no different than making Bolshevik interchangeable with Russian, or National Socialist interchangeable with German.

Feminists claim to speak on behalf of all women; they wish to make female interchangeable with feminist in every way imaginable. Their motive is not far to seek; by nailing womanhood and feminism together , they would make feminism unattackable because any attack on feminism would be taken as attacking women, and whoever made the attack would be branded as either a misogynist or a gender traitor.

A lot of women know intuitively what is going on with this ideology that pretends to speak on their behalf. That, among other reasons, is why they reject the feminist name for themselves. They realize, if only half-consciously, that it would suck them into a sinkhole.

"Womanhood" is a mystical fuzz-word dear to poets, preachers, psychologists and anthropologists. Yet we are safe to say this word has biological implications, denoting as it does the posession of uterus, vagina, ovaries, mammaries, and the XX chromosome set. More tersely, womanhood means biological femaleness as a prerequisite to meaning anything at all.

By contrast, feminism is an ideology - a collection of ideas that have been selectively strung together. Females are a birth group, but nobody is born a feminist. So it is easy to see that femaleness and feminism are completely different things, and that their order of difference is qualitative. Biology versus ideology - what could be more qualitatively different than that? Hardware versus software - what could be more qualitatively different than that?

If you insist that every man is a potential rapist, then I would insist that every feminist is a potential Lorena Bobbit. But please note that while feminists are talking about men (a birth group), I am only talking about feminists (an ideological tribe).

Feminism is an ideology. Feminism is an ideology. Feminism is an ideology.....

Repeat this until you are sick of it. Then take a break. Then go back and repeat it some more.

The particular catnip that feminism dangles is: power over men. How many women wish they had more power over men? You don't even need to be a feminist to find that thought tantalizing. After all, it's only human nature, and women are only human. Are they not? Does any feminist wish to dispute the generalization that women are human?

So if the undisciplined conviction gets abroad, that feminism is "anything you like, honey!", women in droves will fall into line with feminism's lodestone whether they know it or not. This is yet another way that feminism marries itself to womanhood. I don't think it's funny.

When the line between feminist and female becomes unclear, anti-feminism will morph into misogyny by default. The separation will no longer be scrupulously noted, and a net growth of actual misogyny will be the predictable outcome. More and more naive males, casting about for something on which to target their growing frustration and malaise, will indiscriminately target women when feminists in particular, cleverly hiding behind the skirts of womanhood, are the actual culprits.

And this, I submit, is feminism's master rape strategy—to validate its own presence on earth by driving the wedge between the sexes deeper and deeper and blaming this on men through propagandistic sleight-of-hand. It's the old gambit of precipitating a crisis so that you can step in and manage that crisis, and thereafter turn your management into a permanent position.

Are you a good woman looking for a good man? Are you a good man looking for a good woman? Either way, feminism wants to set a river of poison between the two of you so that you will never find each other!

What does "Patriarchy" REALLY Mean?

What do the feminists really mean by the term "patriarchy"? When this word rolls off a feminist tongue, what does it specifically refer to? Is it possible to discover what they are talking about in terms of the utmost clarity, simplicity, and above all usability, and reduce it to a formula that will smack the nail bang on the head every time?

Understand, that we wish to unpack the occulted lexical thread of signification which the word patriarchy carries throughout ALL examples of feminist rhetoric. When THEY talk about patriarchy, THEY assuredly mean something particular, something consistent, something examinable, something that would manifest their devices if it were brought to light. From the highest towers of the academy to the lowest reaches of the pop-feminist gutter, they all talk about "patriarchy", and in their varied accents they are all referring to the same thing. It is to this thing specifically that we direct our enquiry, in order that we may know it and name it and decode feminist speech by the light of it.

Here is the secret: When feminists speak of patriarchy, all they are really talking about is male power. It's just that simple. All of their circumlocutions dance endlessly and evasively around this—that patriarchy is exactly synonymous with male power, neither more nor less than male power, and that in all cases the terms patriarchy and male power may be interchanged with a negligible adulteration of meaning.

Try the experiment yourself. Find a piece of feminist writing where the word patriarchy occurs; replace this word with male power; see if it makes any fundamental difference. Also, see if it throws an unexpectedly revealing light upon the matter, yielding a sense and consistency superior to the original version.

If you wish, replace the word patriarchy with the simple word "men", and it will yield similar results. I know that many feminists have denied that patriarchy equals "men", but think for a minute: is not bare existence in itself a form of power? Tell me who has more male power: a man who exists, or a man who doesn't?

No feminist understanding of "patriarchy" makes any ultimate sense if you divorce this word from the idea of male power. If you aren't talking about male power in some way then you are wasting your time talking about patriarchy in any way whatsoever. Let that thought be your femspeak decoder template.

Feminist answer experts, seeking to confuse the issue, might reply that patriarchy is male power plus something else. Maybe so. But if you subtracted the male power part, the "something else" part wouldn't stand up any better than an empty gunny-sack, whereas the "male power" part
even by itselfwould remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.

Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of does no better than make "something else" to be a form of male will-to-power emanating from the allegedly "constructed" nature of maleness in the first place. But this is a completely circular explanation that will never boost the discussion beyond square one, so we might as well scrap it. Besides, the whole mess boils down to male power anyway, so that in the end all you are really saying is that patriarchy is male power plus male power.

So in the end, you can't go far wrong if you simply set "patriarchy" equal to "male power". You'll go further wrong if you select any other option.

It follows that any feminist who talks about "ending" patriarchy or reducing it in some way, is also talking about ending or reducing male power in some way.

So what does male power mean? It means: any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to possess.

And exactly what is this thing called...power? That is a very good and very important question.

In the realm of human affairs, as near as we can make it, power is a substance compounded of two ingredients: IDENTITY, and AGENCY.

Identity means the sum of all factors, both mental and physical, which identify you as a discrete center of conscious awareness in contradistinction to other such discrete centers.

Agency means your capacity to either effect or prevent change through the exercise of your volition.

Let that sink in. Take a break for a few minutes, if you want to. Get away from the computer. Go outside , look at the clouds, listen to the birds, enjoy the fresh air.

Very well, you are back. Let's recapitulate.

Patriarchy is a feminist code word for male power. Male power means any power of any kind which any male citizen might happen to posess, and power specifically means identity plus agency. So in practice, the feminist keyword patriarchy maps to the identity and agency of any male citizen.

Gentle reader, you as a person posess identity and agency. In other words, you posess power. You mightn't think you have enough of it, but you do have some. And so long as you have some, you have freedom. Again, possibly not enough for your liking...but some. And some is always enough to get you started
enough to leaven the dough, you might say. Be glad of it, and work intelligently with it.

Let's see how feminism enters the picture. Feminism is an anti-male hate movement, and it is perfectly natural that when you hate something you will seek to deprive it of power
the more the better. We have equated power with identity and agency, and so have the feminist ideologuesalthough not necessarily in the same terms. Still, they have copped the base mechanics that we've outlined here. They know it instinctively.

In order to undermine male power, the women's movement over the years has set afoot a variety of actions, both large and small, tending to vitiate the identity and agency of men. Indeed, nearly everything which feminism has accomplished has made some contribution to this overall effect.

This "campaign" has cut a gradual, descending swath from the macrocosm to the microcosm, from the political to the personal
striving always toward a finer granularity of control, a greater concision of shades and subtleties in the realm of daily life.

Dry alterations to the fabric of law and the outward form of institutions didn't satisfy them for long
they thirsted for the essential juice of life, and in particular, the life juice of anything male which crossed their path. The last thing they wanted was a workplace or a world filled with insouciant, free-spirited, self-esteeming men and boys. Something had to be done to correct male joie de vivre and male autonomy.

Men were to be subjugated, but if they didn't know this, and if they didn't act like they knew it, then the whole thing would be pointless. It was necessary, then, for the reach of matriarchy to become omni-locational and all-pervading
like the ideological presence of a totalitarian social order.

So, it was and continues to be important to the feminist effort that every possible shred of male identity or agency be appended to the shadow of ideology in some manner. ANY speck of uncolonized male space or male autonomy constitutes a bit of turf still in the grip of patriarchal power. Or at any rate, that's how they see it.

Case in point: what is a "sensitive male"? For starters, it is a sexist expression in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist expression. This is a VERY exact paralell. If somebody employs the term "sensitive male", or worse, calls you one, then you ought to feel seriously offended.

Beyond that, a sensitive male is simply an emotional puppet whose strings are available for any woman to pull, whenever and wherever. In short, a man curiously lacking in power; a man of abbreviated identity and agency.

Sometimes they will rate you on whether you "know how to cry". Reason being, that if you know how to cry then it follows that you can be made to cry. That's what they are really looking for in the long run. And here's an extra thought that occurred to me: how would you like to be told that "it's okay to cry" by the very same person who made you want to cry in the first place? You'd be damned if you'd give them the satisfaction, wouldn't you?

These examples are given because in my opinion they implode the circumference of male power about as far as it can be pushed, at least in the daily realm of social interplay. Even to a point where the drive for control reaches straight into a man's inner world, breaching a barrier which civil propriety forbids should be violated.

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Know therefore that your coolness, aloofness, guardedness, your methodological skepticism, or even your native lack of response to certain stimuli which others might find compelling, are all vital elements of your identity. Your agency. Your autonomy. Your. . . . manhood. In other words, your male power.

Oh, very well then, call it patriarchy!

Ha! And you thought that "patriarchy" was just a one-size-fits-all guilt-o-matic gizmo designed to put men eternally on the defensive while giving women a carte blanche moral advantage in any given situation!

Well it is that indeed. But as you can see now, it goes deeper. . . .