CF is More Predictive than Prescriptive

At its core, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive: it may be reckoned as a prediction-driven political formula which undertakes to foretell the course of developments, to spot emerging trends, and to harness the energy of these things in a profitable manner. Counter-feminist prediction is built upon a close analysis of feminism's occult operational structure, and takes into account both the constraint which that structure imposes, and the consequences which are likely to arise from it.

As we never tire of saying, certain things may be predicted. Men as a group have felt the revolutionary impact of the women's movement over the last forty-odd years, and it would be predictable that male behavior on average would show evidence of this. The opposite—that male behavior on average would show NO evidence of this—would not be predictable.

Continued unchecked growth of feminist plans and policies—in the form of perpetual revolution—will predictably force a growth of dysfunctional behavior among the male population at large. The dysfunctionality will take many forms, only some of which can be directly traced to feminist influence, with the bulk of it owing to secondary environmental pressures which feminist innovation has originally set in motion.

Eventually, the growth of perpetual revolution will culminate in the rise of oppositional forces. How? What forces? The short and simple answer is, that perpetual revolution will force the growth of its own contrary energy—which will eventually take the form of political consciousness among a much larger group of men than at present.

All of this comes into focus when you consider that perpetual revolution operates contrary to nature. Nature has an elastic limit which dictates how far it can be distorted. Once approaching that limit, perpetual revolution slows to a crawl. Finally it hits a brick wall and can travel no further. And as I have explained elsewhere, perpetual revolution cannot stand still: whether moving forward or running in reverse, it is imperative that perpetual revolution remain in motion. Therefore, when forward momentum is blocked, perpetual revolution can do none other than run in reverse. And when that happens, it is no longer devouring the world but rather devouring itself—which is a limited and self-defeating food supply.

It is worth asking why feminism, being contrary to nature, can even make such headway in the world at all. One explanation is, that feminist polemic cuts a swath through its challengers because it seems morally intimidating . Yet the only reason it seems morally intimidating is because it presents a tangle of incoherency, and incoherency cannot be rationally answered! One is overpowered by lightning-swift illogic, and rendered voiceless.

Feminism is "incoherent" because it tells a hundred different stories about itself, and those stories very often contradict each other. In fact this is very clever, because the mass of contradiction makes a perfect smokescreen! However, once feminism's hidden coherency is drawn to the surface by means of counter-feminist analysis, the shabby trick is seen and the power of moral intimidation vanishes.

This lack of rationality or coherency deserves a closer look. It is in fact the irrationality of a cancer—a neoplasm. Upon reflection, it is not so much irrational as driven by an alien logic. It might not seem "rational" that a neoplasm would destroy the host body and thereby destroy itself also, but when you consider that this is exactly the nature of a neoplasm, it makes perfect sense! It is what neoplasms do—they destroy their host surroundings and eventually themselves. No point in asking why. It is simply a neoplasm's natural purpose to behave so, and there is nothing irrational about fulfilling your natural purpose: you mustn't expect a cancer to think the same way you do! It is fully coherent within itself, upon its own terms—even if those terms are not openly admitted!

The foregoing has been a digression, but it helps us to understand how the world works. And understanding how the world works acquaints us with certain patterns and cycles that are likely to recur.

Feminism, by reason of its deception, advances a greater political distance in the world than might seem credible if mere honesty were the only force in effect. But finally, the order of nature—by which I mean especially human nature—rises up to challenge feminism's passage in the manner which I have outlined. It is important to recognize that the cleverness of feminism's deception will not check the eventual uprising, for once a certain tipping point has been reached, the developed oppositional energy will IRRESISTIBLY force its passage through the inhibiting overburden of alien logic. Reality is pushing back against actuality! Two different logics, mutually alien, at a point of confrontation where logic is annihilated as a channel of transaction, leaving only brute force to settle the issue. And this outcome, as I have explained many times, is apt to be ugly—a blind explosion of pent-up fury punching its way out of a box! For there is nothing civilized or even entirely "rational" about punching your way out of a box. Truly, it is a messy and destructive endeavor- but when you reflect that confinement to a box can only breed ignorance, and that ignorance can only breed ill-advised action, that should come as no surprise.

My advice to everybody everywhere, is to stand well aside when the predictable punching gets started! Do this, and you'll have naught to fear. Admittedly, those who have a vested interest in "the box" will be unhappy about the turn of events, but I am trying to warn them also—since they are the ones most likely to be in harm's way! Forces of nature are not to be trifled with.

So once again, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive, and it foretells the growth of dysfunctional male behavior due to the direct or indirect influence of feminist innovation. Counter-feminism asserts that the growth of feminist plans and policies operates contrary to nature, and that sooner or later this growth will encounter the brick wall of natural constraints, which will in turn reverse the energy of feminism's perpetual revolution, forcing feminism as an ideology and as a movement to consume itself.

The elastic limit of nature logically encompasses the elastic limit of human nature. Specifically, people—meaning men at first, but more and more women also as time goes on—will either rebel openly against feminist requirements, or quietly subvert the more indirect forms of feminist influence. This will be like the construction of countless roadblocks both large and small, directing certain traffic back to its point of origin.

We need to understand why counter-feminism is more predictive than prescriptive. The expression signifies that counter-feminism merely sees but does not summon what it foretells. To predict a thing means only to bespeak its arrival in advance, whereas to prescribe a thing means to issue a command or at least a suggestion that the thing should happen. The distinction is crucial.

Allow me to explain. In theory, it would be possible for the present writer, or any other activist in the Movement, to simply retire from the game and "disappear". It would even be possible for all of us at once to hang up our spurs and say "que sera, sera"—what will be, will be!

And what might follow? That is a question of the first importance, and our answer takes the form of a prediction: the feminists, after a fleeting interval of puzzled silence, would simply pick up their tools and take up where they left off. Perpetual revolution would go right on as if nothing had ever happened! For that is exactly what our movement means to them: nothing! Or at any rate nothing more than a speed bump. And so it is for any mechanical device of any sort: the device predictably does what it does, and whatever is extraneous to it means nothing to it - except where this might randomly factor into its calculus of operations.

Perpetual revolution (the true powerhouse of the femplex) is preeminently such a device. And being such a device, it would go right on blindly poisoning the world against men and driving the wedge between the sexes deeper and deeper. It would do this because, being what it is, it could do naught other.

Up to the present point, this is all highly predictable. And the next stage is equally so. Among other things we could foresee a continued growth of dysfunctional male behavior. Moreover, a disappearance of the activist element would accelerate such growth by removing a natural set of brakes.

And so I pose the question one more time: what would happen if the present crop of men's activists and agitators elected to retire from the game and leave it all in the hands of "blind fate"?

I will tell you: the same thing all over again! A fresh crop of activists, agitators, bloggers and similar characters would rise up in the field and commence the cycle anew! Think about it: predictable forces generated the first awakening of male political consciousness, and those very same forces would generate another awakening through the very same archetypal patterns of occurrence. There would be nothing at all "blind" about such "fate".

What happens when you prune the tree? It puts out new shoots!

It is really just that simple.

Yes, the awakening of male political consciousness is a force of nature—like water finding a natural egress when it builds up past the point of containment. You cannot stop it.

History will repeat itself as often as necessary, and suppression will ultimately fail. You might in theory quash the MRAs with clever propaganda, but such a victory would only be a stop-gap because the underlying conditions which created MRAs in the first place would only generate more—especially if those conditions got worse, which they predictably would. New preachers and agitators with new arguments would unfailingly arise, and kickstart the cycle back to life. As ever, men would initially recoil against the toxicity of their social environment with no radical insight concerning the what and why of it all. But again as before, a certain number of cognescenti would connect the dots and learn to identify feminism specifically as a source of the poison. And of that number, a smaller number would again commence speaking out and sharing their realization with others. And the realization would propagate geometrically among widening circles of hearers.

The awakening of male political consciousness will happen again and again; the continued growth of feminist innovation will invariably trigger this awakening whenever the objective nature of the world becomes so evident that the more perceptive cannot fail to make note of it.

One thing is certain: the feminists will never change. Come hell or high water, they will move forward with their plans. They will not amend their dispositions; at best they will seem to pull in their horns and govern their tongues for the sake of propriety when failure to do so would politically compromise them. But they will continue to creep in the night—whenever possible stealing a march under cover of darkness. As always, they will practice "taqiyya", and when nobody is looking they will quietly smuggle in the parts of their machinery and bolt these into place; they will continue working doggedly to consolidate their position on every possible front.

All of this we know with moral certainty, for it is predictable. Yet we know with equal certainty that the feminists cannot keep their game rolling forever. We know that their fate is sealed, that their game must sooner or later collapse. For what is written is written, and can only be postponed—repeatedly perhaps, but each postponement will exact a greater toll than the one before it, until finally the game implodes in futility.

We know that the awakening of male political consciousness has already happened. And having once happened, it will continue on an accelerating growth curve when the pioneering thinkers and explainers pave the way for those who follow. And if all of this revolutionary activity be somehow suspended, renewed feminist innovation will simply bring the pot to a greater boil, whereupon a renewed upwelling will again force the lid.

Male political consciousness is bound eventually to reach a critical mass. This can happen either sooner, or later. But for the good of all, we should try to make it happen sooner. That is what my conscience tells me. I say TRY to make it happen, and by that I mean a rational, purposeful effort.

And here we arrive at the difference between prediction and prescription, for the things we are describing would happen all by themselves. People such as the present writer would prescribe absolutely nothing; we would merely sit back, watch the parade, and say "I told you so!". We will only have predicted these things; we will not have summoned them into existence.

If feminist evolution continues on its present trajectory these things will happen anyway, and CF would raise no finger to counteract these developments if such effort would seem to validate feminism's game. By that I mean that we would eschew any rhetorical posture that might strengthen feminism by deflecting accountability away from it, or might seem to infer that others have a duty to make good what feminism has made bad. For example, they may insist that we as men have a duty to 'oppose misogyny'. We would respond that not only have they got no business telling us what our duty is, but given that a continued growth of feminist plans will naturally generate more misogyny, it is accordingly their duty to regulate their own political behavior in that regard and not foist their work upon others.

No, it is not our responsibility to shoulder the burden for what feminism has wrecked, but only to assist in providing a clearer view of the wreckage. We will hold the lantern while the feminists do the clean-up work! For such work requires an honest light in order that the shape of things be accurately discerned.

Yes. Counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive. This does not mean that counter-feminism makes no prescriptions, but rather that its prescriptions are informed by its predictions, guided by them, driven by them, contextualized by them, and in nearly every way dependent upon them. And the fact that we predict more than we prescribe makes us the "messenger" whom they cannot ultimately shoot.

CF maintains that the Movement of Men is a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population, and that this uprising will at times include some unsavory people doing unsavory things. How on earth can a movement involving potentially half the human race remain morally pure like the driven snow? The notion is quixotic! However, the fact that unsavory people are reacting in unsavory ways to the unsavory consequences of feminism's unsavory machinations in no way compromises counter-feminist analysis, but rather confirms and strengthens it. And if such folk be apprehended in their unsavoriness, it is only a matter for the police and does not implicate the male population at large. That is how it must be, because any feminist effort to deflect blame onto men as a group would only result in more dysfunctional male behavior, and more trauma for society as a whole when the consequences of such dysfunction ripple through the social ecology.

We may expect male dysfunctionality to assume many forms under the distorting pressure of feminist innovation. Not all of this would involve violence, but all of it would tend to the entropic degradation of the world, and be marked by a state of false consciousness. I mean that men and boys would behave in chaotic or entropic ways because, for want of a guiding theory or conceptual roadmap, they wouldn' t know what else to do! They would not recognize what was being done to them and, for want of an identifiable target, they would lash out randomly. This would be unhealthy for society and we could anticipate, in consequence, much suffering of the innocent.

Suffering of the innocent does not please me, and I would like to keep it to a minimum.

Male dysfunctionality and male political consciousness stand in diametric opposition ; they repel each other. And the good news is, that with the growth of the latter the former quickly finds the door! To become politically conscious, men must become acutely aware of the interests that unite them as a group, and they must understand that political warfare is being waged against them. Thus enlightened, men may combine their strength in the service of a common good and to the disservice of an objectively real enemy.

That objectively real enemy is, of course, feminism. NOT feminism as feminist theory defines it, but feminism in real life terms as the lantern of our accumulated study and experience reveals it.

So long as men and boys remain in a dysfunctional state of false consciousness regarding their objective political situation, we can predict chaotic social outcomes and suffering of the innocent. And the longer the growth of male political consciousness is postponed, the worse this will get - and it might get truly nasty! Although male political consciousness will blossom eventually, and quite spontaneously, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to accelerate the growth by deliberate effort—by preaching—and to reduce the lag time as far as might be feasible.

That is what my conscience tells me. As if there were any question what a man of conscience should do!

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


Note: This is the latest in the 'CF' series of articles - which explore the meaning of counter-feminism as a body of theory. The previous installment - from May, 2007 - can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/ytxupz

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Que sera, sera!

Qui sait?

NYC Attorney Challenges VAWA in Federal Court

I have recently gotten an interesting e-mail from Jim Peterson of Veterans Abroad:

"Hi CounterFeminist: Although this should have happened in early 2006, someone has finally found the courage to do his own challenge against parts of VAWA, which is what IMBRA is part of. Here is the complaint and the press release. Let’s hope the judge is fair. Roy might need help in terms of expert witnesses, such as the stories of other men who have been hurt by VAWA. Recall that the two challenges against IMBRA were done with lawyers who didn’t feel any personal interest in the issue. This guy has skin in the game."

Of the three PDF files that were attached to this message, I share one in its entirety, below. This summarizes (without legalese) the salient facts of the case:

"ROY DEN HOLLANDER - Attorney at Law
545 East 14th Street 10D, New York, NY 10009
Mobile 917 687 0652
Tel. & Fax: (212) 995-5201
rdhhh@yahoo.com

"Federal lawsuit charges parts of the Violence against Women Act are unconstitutional.

"Attorney Roy Den Hollander filed on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, a suit in the U.S. Southern District Court of N.Y. attacking sections of the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) and other U.S. statutes for violating the Constitutional rights of American men who marry alien females.

"The defendants are the United States of America, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office of Immigration Review, No. 08 CV 01521. Roy Den Hollander is the sole plaintiff. 1

"The VAWA infringes American men’s rights to freedom of speech, freedom of choice in marital relationships, right of access to deportation proceedings, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

"The unconstitutional statutes, enacted at the behest of the feminist lobby, create a fast track to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship for alien wives or ex-wives of American husbands whenever the alien female alleges abuse. Once she mentions the magic words“battery” or “extreme cruelty”, the Government institutes secret, “Star Chamber” immigration proceedings to determine whether the citizen husband is responsible, and, if yes, grants the alien female permanent U.S. residency. The American husband or ex-husband receives no notice of the proceedings, has no opportunity to defend his name, and the Government’s findings of abuse are based almost exclusively on what the alien female says.

"The feminist lobby created the statutes in order to deter American men from looking overseas for wives. If a man’s marriage to his foreign wife doesn’t work out, the alien female can accuse him of “battery” or “extreme cruelty” and he will have no opportunity to prove his innocence. The husband is barred from the proceedings that are conducted behind closed doors and any evidence that the Government might receive from him is discarded. So not only is the husband presumed guilty, but he’s not even allowed to prove differently.

"The feminists didn’t create these statutes out of bleeding hearts for alien wives but to intimidate American men into shopping at home for wives. If an American wife accuses her husband of abuse, he at least gets his day in court and the abuse has to fit specific legal definitions. But under the VAWA, a husband can be found guilty of “battery” and “extreme cruelty” for anything from an “offensive” remark to felony assault.

"While the VAWA wouldn’t send an American man to jail or fine him—not yet anyway, his rights are violated with impunity and his reputation destroyed. Both his alien wife or ex-wife and certain feminist groups can release what happened in the secret proceedings, and in New York State, the husband will have no recourse to a defamation, false light or prima facie tort cause of action no matter how false or harmful the accusations against him.

"Even terrorists have more rights than American men accused of abuse by their alien wives."
-----------------------------------------

1 Den Hollander is the same attorney who brought a class action suit against various nightclubs in NYC for discriminating against men during Ladies Nights.

On the Futility of Conversing With Feminists

The feminists cannot be pried apart from their fixed ideations and dogmas. One may certainly undertake to display by reasoned steps the folly of their doctrines, and indeed plenty of us have talked ourselves blue in the face - or typed ourselves into carpal tunnel syndrome - in the course of such efforts. Within our own sphere, we've grown painfully wise to all of this over the course of time. We at first believed that we could somehow convince them of the heinous error of their thinking, or if not convince them at least confute them and shame them into silence. But alas, the contrary outcome has rewarded our labors. Their obstinacy grows steadily more entrenched even as the baneful effect of feminist theory and its practical application becomes apparent, and "throwing facts at them" is consistently and perpetually to no avail.

By virtue of our long-standing debates with feminists and collaborationists, we've become eye-glazingly familiar with their arsenal of argumentative tricks.

Initially, they will bank upon the assumption that their interlocutors are naive or stupid, but when they get so entangled in the meshes that no easy exit offers itself, they will suddenly turn into simpletons - they will play dumb; they will act innocent; they will pretend that they don't know what is going on. All right, I am willing to allow that at least some of them genuinely don't know what is going on - but plenty of them know perfectly well what they are about.

And so, feigning not to comprehend the counter-arguments of their opponents, they will slip out of their skins like moulting serpents and slither away to a different sector of discussion altogether - one where they believe they hold at least a temporary advantage. In other words, they will change the subject, hoping that the abruptness of the shift will boggle the brain of their opponent and throw him off his balance.

The feminists will postulate certain axiomatic platitudes, and if you acknowledge these then they will transfer the application of such principles to fundamentally different issues on a different level of discourse. If you confront the feminists with their chicanery they will wriggle out of it once more, and you will labor in vain to wring any binding statement from them - any "commitment". If you try to gain a coherent grasp upon what they are saying, you will clutch only dung and quicksilver - and this will immediately squirt between your fingers and reunite with itself an instant later in the deceitful aspect of something solid. If, owing to the presence of impartial observers, the feminists feel obligated to concede your point, they will develop amnesia a day or so later and they will repeat their former arguments as if the dialogue in question had never even happened. It will be as if you were climbing a hill of mud where you can never gain ground because you slide backward with every step you take.

The feminists will respond to any brief, concise, carefully constructed statement of yours by means of the five-hundred gallon treatment: dumping a bewildering mass of emotionally-based arguments, non-sequiturs, personal imputations and lightning-swift logical fallacies upon you so that you are buried ten feet deep and cannot adequately dig your way out. Your failure to do so will inspire them to declare their own victory. And if by superhuman exertion you fisk ALL of their words, exhaustively and with nuance, they will repeat the original process through infinite rounds, and with each round the mass of verbiage balloons bigger and bigger - and you will never win!

We have learned, gradually but definitively, through hard experience infinitely repeated, to think very poorly of feminists. The vile, radical ones are bad enough - but at least they lay it on the line so that you can see it plainly. Give them points for their more honest style of dishonesty! You are doubtless familiar with the time-worn bromide that "not all feminists are like that!" And that is just the point, for the fact that some feminists are "like that" makes it unnecessary for all of them to be so! The ones who seem personable and charming are the worst, for their deceitful core is buried layers deep in further refinements of deceit - like a blanket of stale, synthetic cake-frosting. Their offense is simply that of complicity - on any level whatsoever - in the feminist project. Owing to such complicity, they are living a lie.

The futility of conversing with feminists as individuals in the microcosm of daily life, scales up quite naturally into the macrocosm - or what you would call the macro-political. It is equally futile for us to converse (at least for debating purposes) with feminism as such. Feminism - as a movement and as an ideology - operates from essentially the same bag of tricks as any individual feminist you might happen to be arguing with. The goal of feminism as a movement is to force men collectively into the same condition of head-spinning befuddlement (and vulnerability to suggestion) which the lone feminist seeks to inflict on the individual non-feminist male. Brotherman, feminism is NOT YOUR FRIEND!

What then, is to be done? Rouse the sleeping dragon of male political consciousness by simply telling the world the nasty truth about feminism. Then, sit back and mark what must predictably transpire.

Watch how people mock them! Watch how people disrespect them! Watch how people permit them no quarter! Watch how people permit them no rest! Watch how people make them the butt of jokes, and incite others to do likewise! Watch how people turn their lives into a bottomless quagmire of cognitive dissonance! Watch how people inflict upon them a future of never-ending intellectual harassment! Watch how people set stumbling-blocks upon their path! Watch how people engineer the entire culture to their detriment, even as they have done to the entire male population! Watch how the world rallies against them, and puts them perpetually on the defensive!

Watch how the poison of feminism comes back upon the feminists themselves, and grievously sickens them!

It is for the best of all concerned that matters come to pass in the fashion stated above, for any other scenario would be tangibly less desirable by virtue of the chaotic and absurdist character it would possess.

We know that sweet reason and gentle persuasion are lost upon these cultic ideologues. They have relinquished their license to walk unchallenged upon planet Earth. And from henceforth, everywhere they wander they may accordingly expect to bear a burden of cynical scrutiny and impolite queries concerning their intentions and their motivations. They have called down these troubles most abundantly upon their own heads, and I for one shall hold no sympathy in stock on their account.

If they are wise, the feminists will learn to not call themselves feminists; they will contrive somehow to misplace that tainted term, setting it somewhere in deep storage under piles of boxes and assorted clutter where they cannot easily lay their hands upon it. This will motivate them to live honestly within the framework of the ecumenical human condition, and eventually they will learn to get along just fine without the word feminist, and possibly to embrace some more superficial form of evil, rather than one so cancerous upon the very root of life itself.

http://tinyurl.com/yue572

Unplug! Disengage! You Have a World to Gain -Your Own!

". . .It's at times like this we need to understand some fairly fundamental things. For one, women hold a majority of the vote due to their longer life expectancy. We will not beat them at the ballot box in any contest of 'fairness'. Debating them will only excite their need for relationships and engagement - it will have absolutely no effect on their self-interest. No matter how eloquently one argues against feminist thinking, it will not be heard. Only action can make a difference.

Action can take many forms, but I will outline only one. It is peaceful, non-confrontational and good for your mental well-being. It requires no organisational machinery and no greasing of palms. You will not be subjected to the domination of another.

"Drop out, and drop out as soon as you can. Start making plans to do so now. . ."

Read the rest of this most worthy-to-be-read post at the One Man's Kingdom blog, here:

http://tinyurl.com/2dbcto

Death to Valentine's Day - Again!

I don't know if I'm imagining things, but it seems to me that Valentine's Day is BIGGER than it used to be. It feels like they're purposely hyping the unholy crap out of it nowadays: VD has gotten to be like a miniature "holiday season" unto itself in recent years - although certainly not on the scale of Christmas or Thanksgiving. Yet back in the day, if memory serves, it was minor. Insignificant. And mainly for youngsters.

Anyhow, one year ago on this date I made it acidly clear what I think about Valentine's Day. And in those intervening 365 days, my timeless sentiments upon the topic have metamorphosed by nary a crumb in the direction of amelioration.

So travel back in time now, if you will, to 14 February, 2007:

http://tinyurl.com/ynvqll

The Ghost Nation

Podcast by 'Marx' of antimisandry.com

Think of this as another piece of the puzzle for the benefit of people who don't know what is going on. You and I know who they are, but they themselves are always the last to know. . . .


powered by ODEO

The Tentacles of the Femplex

Somebody recently arrived at CF because they did a Google search on the term "church of female supremacy". Somehow, that led them to my blog. However, when I did the very same Google search out of curiosity, it led ME to THIS:

"The International Order of Secular Cybelians (Cybelians) - also known as the First Church of Female Supremacy - was founded in August 2004. The first institution of its kind anywhere in the World, it is a fast-growing movement with members in 74 different countries. In the U.S.A. there are members in all 50 of the 50 States. We have a hierarchy of clergy - Female, male and transgendered.

"The purpose of the Cybelian Order is to empower Women to take Their rightful place in the World. Although there have been many Womens' Rights movements over the years, they simply have not done enough. Many Women around the globe are still held in oppression by males and treated as second-class citizens. Even in supposed first-world countries such as the United States and Britain, this oppression is still happening. We hope that by the actions of the Cybelians throughout the World we can help Women to realise that They can rise up and take control of Their own lives.

"The Cybelians was also founded to create a hierarchy of Dominant Women and submissive males around the World. In this way, we have been able to make others aware of our philosophies. These clergy promote our work and help others to learn about us. Our clergy consists of Females (Priestesses), submissive males (Deacons), and Transgenders (Gallae). "

Look out, Guru Rasa a.k.a. Kellie Everts! You got competition grrl!

Anyway, go here to get the entire wriggling, writhing can of centipedes:

http://www.cybelianworld.com/Cybelian_History.html

You'll undoubtedly want to explore the many side links and sub-pages that you will discover! On the home page, you can even register for. . . ahem!. . . membership. . . if you wish . . . to do so. Now, if only we could get a Real Feminist in here to tell us if these Female Supremacy people are really feminists or not. Hmmm!

Oh, I almost forgot. It seems you can order their Secret Codebook for $10 American or 5 Lbs. Brit.

"Learn for yourself the amazing secrets the CYBELE CODE reveals about the gynocracy (female dominated world) about to come about. Predicted thousands of years ago, it has already started - in the lives of Cybelians in 73 countries worldwide. Make no mistake, the Cybele Code will capture your imagination."

Look out; apparently this might even change your life forever - in addition to capturing your imagination:

http://www.cybelecode.com/

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

But seriously: The best way to know what's out there, is. . . to know what's out there!

Nominalist Patriarchy

The following is excerpted from an e-mail recently arrived at the CF inbox. Immediately after that is the e-mail which I sent in reply:

"Nominalist Patriarchy

"I view the term patriarchy from the perspective of a nominalist; the view that universal terms i.e. generalizations, do not refer to objective existences but are nothing more than flatus vocis, verbal utterances. This view was skillfully defended by William of Occam and is now held by most contemporary logical empiricists. That said, I think it would be helpful to understand what average people mean by the general term patriarchy. Certainly, what they take to be an actual social order is an abstraction or, as feminists are fond of saying, a construction. Nevertheless, the dictionary definintion of partiarchy is: a system in which women and children are legally dependent on men. This is a simple economic definition. From an economic view we could also define patriarchy as: a system in which men are held legally responsible for the support of women and children. In this latter definition, men become beasts of burden rather than lords of households. In any case, the economic definition lacks scientific rigor.

"In anthropology, the least ideologically affected of the social sciences, no satisfactory definiton for the term patriarchy has been formulated. This should come as no surprise. It is difficult to empirically verify abstractions. The anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, "Men are the impetus of culture." Perhaps then, patriarchy is best understood as any system in which "men are men;" that is, in which men lead the way. Of course, this isn't saying much but perhaps the less said the better when trying to define a "patriarchy" as male and female roles are defined by the expections of both sexes.

"Legalistically, we might define a patriarchy as a system in which men make the laws. Here again, while it is generally true that men have penned the law, we can't entirely absolve women of the law's effects. That would be like saying women had no responsibility for the hypocrisies of Victorian society or for the temperance movement when they were clearly marching in the streets in support of it. No doubt, the notion of root cause is one of those myopias still required for assigning blame. However, the origins of laws, like customs, are more mutifarious, their causes several and complex. Not something one could easily blame on anyone or anything, least of all patriarchy. In any case, in order to adequately understand the law, we must look at the values, beliefs, ideals, and moral sentiments back of the law. This approach to understanding jurisprudence is in opposition to the naive tendency to view power manifested only in terms of top-down, prohibitive forms of repression. To put this in the language of deconstruction: Power is decentered; shifted from an established or ecclesial focus; disconnected from assumptions of origin, priority, or essense.

"What does this mean? Well, it means that even though men may have penned the law, they have not done so oblivious to women's needs or entirely to suit their own interests as feminists suggest. Also, men's predilections as to what is desirable and undesirable regarding the relations between men and women is determined by their sense of propriety, i.e. their conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech and their fear of offending against conventional rules of behavior especially between the sexes. In short, the customs and manners of polite society. That women have had no influence regarding such customs would be a ruse par excellence. Nevertheless, that women should have more direct influence over making or doing away with the laws that govern us is a good thing. Just don't expect a radical transformation of society, for better or worse, as women in general share and, indeed, impart to men in their youth the same values and prejudices as are attributed to society in general. Also, among women as with men, there is great difference of opinion. For instance, not all women think that Oprah, stalwart champion of the notion of feminine moral superiority that she is, would make a good president..... Though it is not exactly heartening to hear most women condone the idea. The sort of woman who would make a good president in my opinion isn't even an American, she's British. Her name is the Baroness Helen Mary Warnock..

http://tinyurl.com/22o3fd

"(Oh! I've exposed myself. I'm partial toward the Western Liberal Tradition and a philosopher in my own right to boot!) The problem with Mary is that she's more intelligent than Oprah and therefore her politics would not, in all probability, appeal to the brutal masses. This is the bane of any political system, especially democracy.

"Let's get back to those pesky feminists. Feminist are fond of deconstructive analyses so we might think they would deconstruct patriarchy. Not! Rather, it is precisely within the conventional top-down, and abusive sense of social power that feminists define patriarchy, i.e. as a system created by men and imposed upon women. In this sense, patriarchy is little more than feminist code for "male control" or some imagined dominance of men in sexual matters, take your pick. Both are, of course, viewed as essentially abusive in character. Perhaps feminists who appropriate deconstruction to make their marginal views privileged will someday be shocked to find their own views being deconstructed in academia generally as they are on CF!

"Finally, in the feminist view, men define culture. In opposition to this view, I believe it would be more accurate to say that culture defines men. (I got an A in Sociology Studies some 35 years ago for this insight) Where once we believed the world was controlled by gods, we have instead come to believe men are the masters of their world. Now our confidence has been shaken even in that. This is the conclusion of a postmodern investigation of human existence. In human evolution and history, control in an overarching sense, patriarchal or otherwise, has become a faint delusion.

"In conclusion: To quote a famous nominalist named Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"Letting totalitarian feminists determine the meaning of the word patriarchy is a dangerous thing......"

Very illuminating treatise you have crafted here: I am impressed.

Especially germane was your comment that society wouldn't get better OR worse due to the growth of direct female participation in political power and decision-making. I would only add, as a footnote to that, that the furniture might get rearranged a bit! ;)

But this underscores once again the radical disjunction between female and feminist. Feminism's genius (if you want to call it that), has been to muddy this difference in the popular mind and, for popular political purposes, make female and feminist into interchangeable terms. Yes, they have crafted a strategy that is damnably hard to counteract.

And behind this cloak of muddied water, feminist plans have crept steadily forward.

Female participation wouldn't make much appreciable difference for either good or ill, but feminist participation most surely would, and has, and will.

Sustained feminist agitation and lobbying efforts will continue to drive the world in a particular direction that is radically different from what mere "participation by women" would ever do. That is because feminist ideology is a radical outside force, i.e. an aberration from the natural
condition; a freak. Note that jumping is not flying - and for that matter even birds and airplanes must eventually come back to earth!

So even feminism will at most generate a heap of temporary wreckage. (Read: entropic consequences.) The operative term is temporary. Feminists are the ones who can't seem to distinguish biology from ideology, and they are quite intent upon afflicting all the rest of us with their quaint form of mental illness. Or should I call it HUBRIS?

But in the end, make no doubt that though the bar be set never so high, biology will trump ideology - even as gravity will trump the heaven-storming ambitions of the athletic jumper!

Biology will trump ideology. That is the gold standard - take it to the bank.

Finally, it is indeed as you say, that letting totalitarian feminists determine the meaning of the word patriarchy is a dangerous thing. I would add that letting them determine the meaning of anything at all is a dangerous thing!

That includes, most preeminently, letting them tell the rest of the world what feminism "really" means. I for one wish to deprive the feminists of their power to define feminism. In other words, I am determined to take away their control of their own narrative. And I think this can be done.

Regards;

-Fidelbogen-

Once Again: What They Don't Want You to Know

Here is a classic item from the early days of CF. This is on the 'greatest hits ' list: it ties for second place with "Ideas That Go Against the Grain". First place, of course, belongs to "For Feminist Readers..." - which despite the title was not intended just for feminists!

I repost the article below because it is one of the best things I've written, because men from all shades of the cultural and political spectrum have responded positively to it, and because it is more timely than ever. Also, I've a hunch that a few recent readers have missed it:

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

What They Don't Want You to Know

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 itself -- would remain fully serviceable within the calculus of meaning.

Every feminist analysis that I'm aware of (for example, that of John Stoltenberg) 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 possess identity and agency. In other words, you possess 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 ideologues - although 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 concept in exactly the same way that "good negro" is a racist concept. 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....