SAF Manifesto

The Manifesto of Strict Anti-feminism

Strict Anti-feminism (SAF) is an emerging non-feminist tendency that focuses narrowly on the feminist problem, and downplays public rhetoric about men's rights or male issues. The legacy discourse has become sclerotic, and SAF remedies this by striking out in a new direction.

SAF is the philosophical mandate for a different political worldview. SAF is not a "movement", but an intellectual template governing the formation of movements in the future.

SAF holds that the power to define feminism is a cornerstone of non-feminist identity and non-feminist alterity.

The goal of SAF is to trigger a core meltdown of the feminist worldview and the feminist cultural narrative, leading to a collapse of the feminist power structure in society. 

SAF works independently of nearly all the labels, categories and constructs which have grown up around the subject of men's rights or anti-feminism over the years. SAF dismantles these historical formulae and rebuilds by using parts of them in combination with novel elements.

SAF does not expunge existing feminist-critical frameworks, but operates alongside of them and gradually assimilates them. 

SAF discourse keys upon feminism's wrongs, not the timeworn "men's rights".

SAF assumes a generically pro-male standpoint, but does not specifically promote men's rights. Rather, SAF makes feminism's wrongs universally known, and works to set corrective forces in motion across all sectors of society. Men's rights and male issues are drawn into the conversation gradually and collaterally, as a sub-project of dismantling the feminist power structure.

Those with a men's rights orientation will find SAF culture generally hospitable if they discourse within SAF parameters and don't derail the SAF message.

It falls within the SAF mandate to warn men and boys of the hazards they face under the feminist regime, because this exposes the nature of feminism and turns more people against it.

Likewise, it falls within the SAF mandate to treat most men and boys with brotherly kindness and forbearance. "Blessed are the meek" will serve for a guiding policy, bearing in mind that this maxim does not say "blessed are the wolves in sheep's clothing."

However, SAF undertakes these things with a difference. The difference is, that while recognizing the squalid truth that feminism is a war against men, SAF eschews the androcentric narrative voice (or "male clubhouse" perspective). SAF eschews male pathos and male identity politics, does not bemoan the male condition from a male standpoint, does not say "look what feminism has done to us men". Rather, SAF assumes the ecumenical voice of a Greek chorus: "Look what feminism has done to men, to women, and to the world."

SAF draws no sharp line between feminism and what is lazily called "traditionalism", but considers these to be aspects of an underlying unity.

SAF discourse does not occupy itself with man-woman relationship issues, or unriddling the mysteries which arise in that realm. Such things are feminism's element,  and it is vital to operate outside of feminism's element -- to breathe a colder and cleaner air.  The personal and the political are treated separately, and the nature of SAF is almost entirely political. 

SAF has no time for male-subjective rhetoric about female behavior. Speech that might too easily be construed as "misogynist", is eschewed. This is an aspect of rhetorical discipline, known as "working with clean hands."

To the accusatory question "what are you doing to help men?" SAF replies, "we are not in the business of helping men, but if you insist, we are helping men by taking down feminism." This will properly situate the conversation, so that SAF can get on with its work.

SAF adamantly opposes any tendency to exonerate feminism, to claim that parts of it are salvageable, or to whitewash it in the record of history.

SAF defines the struggle against feminism as a struggle to sway hearts and minds in the theatre of propaganda or public rhetoric. SAF takes this as its principal zone of operation.

By propaganda is meant propagated information of any sort, spread by design - whether publicly, privately, or anonymously - for calculated effect.

By public rhetoric is meant communication known to broad masses of people, whether by design or by accident.

In all propaganda or public rhetoric, SAF strives for a signal differentiation that will carry its message unmistakably, to avoid confusion with superficially similar messages. This is known as separating the signal from the noise.

SAF is not a group of human operators, but a group of ideas which propagate through human operations. No person or group of people literally "is" SAF. Being merely a political tendency, SAF is in no sense an entity with collective accountability.

As an ideoplex or memeplex, SAF ignores and fluidly overspreads the boundaries of recognized human communities. In so doing, it redraws the cultural map and redefines the terrain of battle. The maxim is, that "ideas can travel upon their own legs". This means that ideas may spread through the world with their human point of origin remaining unclear.

As a political force, SAF operates both "on-stage" (visibly or publicly) and "off-stage" (invisibly or privately). The on-stage part is for the purpose of shaping cultural discourse. The off-stage part is for the same purpose, and for the additional purpose of networking, garnering resources, and orchestrating plans across multiple sectors.

Anything that might compromise feminism in any way, either directly or indirectly, is of interest to SAF. Hence, SAF operations may involve a go-between function, in channeling and coordinating non-SAF forces toward the goal of dismantling feminist power.

SAF practice is grounded in several key principles, listed and described below:

~Non-violence: Physical force, bodily harm, or threat of bodily harm, are strictly proscribed and not condoned. Extreme cases of physical self-defense would offer the only exception to this rule.

~Accuracy: Certifiably false information will not be knowingly propagated.

~Non-feminist autonomy: Non-adherence to feminism is a bedrock principle and a fundamental right. People who "say no" to feminism, may operate as an autonomous cultural power, distinct from the feminist power. Separate epistemologies and linguistic conventions will emerge, as will a system of diplomatic protocol to govern relations between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector. 

~Rhetorical Discipline: The art of discreet and politic speech, a sense of when to follow the rules and when to break them, shall be cultivated.

~Counter-aggression: The maxim is, that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. Feminism has been the initiating and primary aggressor in the present conflict, and has set the terms accordingly. Feminist aggression may be met with proportional and analogous counter-aggression, always bearing in mind the principle of non-violence. 

~Distributed resistance: Resistance to feminism, in its many aspects, takes a distributed form. Resistance occurs at many node points, in many cultural theatres of operation, under the guidance of local expertise. A philosophical mandate provides over-arching unity, but there is no central leadership. Innovation is ongoing, with new forms continually emerging. 

~Universal Critique of Feminism: The resistance will crystallize into a counter-culture, existing alongside of the established feminist culture, and gradually replacing that culture it as it disintegrates. This counter-culture shall be marked by a critique of feminism at every level of sophistication. In practice, all feminist claims and theories shall be open to question, and the entire feminist worldview, clear down to its ontological foundations, shall be deconstructed.

Note: the SAF manifesto is still a working document, to be revised periodically until final form is reached.


  1. Yes, this outline makes sense to me. For my role, as much as I may have any at all, my only concern is my lack of experience, so observing the deeds of key actors on our side would be helpful to point me in the right direction. I realise that SAF cannot be a group but knowing who to look up to would help; I'm sure benevolent followers such as myself, could help the cause, so long as they are educated and/ot steered.

    1. Thank you for your measured and thoughtful commentary. I will reflect upon your words and get back later.

    2. You don't need to "look up" anybody, but it does help to be on same page intellectually. The present writing, and others on this website, is meant to be contributory to that effort.

  2. I would make sure the counter agression, where possible, comes from a place of humour and fun. Women will want to be where the party is happening! The feminissts are coming from a place of fear and control, so a good differentiator is the mood we radiate.

  3. My GF wanted help with her University essay based around gender performativity etc etc.

    ...I simply said 'no. I don't do feminism'

  4. "SAF draws no sharp line between feminism, and what is loosely called "traditionalism", but considers these to be aspects of an underlying unity."

    Based on an acute observation.

  5. Hey F, long time no, uh, anything. :) Nice to see your new digs. I was glad to see that you made a point of sectioning yourself off from the manosphere to a degree. I got tired of the pendulum swing the other way and cut ties (so to speak) myself.

    I had a couple questions.

    First: "SAF draws no sharp line between feminism, and what is loosely called "traditionalism", but considers these to be aspects of an underlying unity." Do you have a post where you explain this more in depth? I'd like to see some sort of proof for this, or at least see if we are talking about a superficial traditionalism (e.g. fifties-ism), or the traditionalism that I know (patriarchy) or something else entirely.

    Second, Nothing exists in a vacuum, so when you talk about a non-feminist, a counter-feminist, an anti-feminist, those are negatives, working against something (and certainly not without value). What are you working toward? Do you have a vision of the society that would replace our current feminist one? (If that's beyond the scope of this blog, I still have the same email if you care to answer.)


  6. Hello. put this up about a month ago, it looks like. I have not been paying attention, so I missed it. Hopefully you will drift back in here and see my reply.....