few days ago, while I was examining the page hit counters on my stat log, I noticed a wild spike of entry traffic arriving at one of my early pillar posts—the one entitled Ideas Which Go Against the Grain.
That post may be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/5lgmko
For me, it is always a point of interest to know who
is reacting to what
It is rather like beaming radar pulses into the collective mindscape; by monitoring the echoes, we map the topography—we come to know what is "out there". As for the article in question, it has been a hit from the very first day. Many have offered positive feedback on it, and linked to it, and even thanked me for writing it—chirping crickets need not apply! ;)
So there appears to be a serious market, within portions of the non-feminist sector, for such ideas as the article expresses. That such a market exists, is old news to us insiders. But to those not-so-hip hipsters from the opposing sector, who have taken my words for a joke, this might count as a wake-up call. Yes, you people know who you are!
And no, I was not and am not joking: I stand upon every word in that seminal essay. Furthermore, I have made every last edit for style and clarity that I could possibly wish to make, so the work is now set in stone.
As for the recent gush of web traffic, I soon discovered the source. Two different people had posted links to the article in two highly popular 'marriage-strike' forums, namely: Outcast Superstar's Happy Bachelors
forum, and the Don't Get Married
forum. The former of these holds interest, due to the short discussion thread which accompanies the link—interesting words are written there: http://tinyurl.com/5q8nsh
The first comment on that thread was composed by the original poster of the link, who goes by the name of Nemesis.
Following a brief summation of the CF author's thesis, Nemesis adds several paragraphs of his own observation about the shape of things, and about the shape of things to come. Nemesis very clearly is a pessimist. I too am a pessimist—although my pessimism is rather less pronounced, and takes a different form. From the outset, Nemesis makes clear that he fears an extreme backlash, among women, to certain developments which I have prognosticated. By the sound of it, Nemesis anticipates a truly apocalyptic scenario:
"What the author has not addressed is that when women lose their sexual power over men, they will seek this power through other means. When the sexual game no longer works, women will seek to re-establish their power through more aggressive and frontal assaults, such as through outright legislation, shaming campaigns, and the like . . . . I predict that as the devaluation of female sexuality progresses, the gender war will heat up. In fact, it will get downright dangerous. We really have yet to see women truly bare their fangs. It’s going to get nasty, brutal, and vindictive. Let’s prepare."
Now, whilst I surely cannot doubt that certain women will grumble at counter-feminist evolutions, I have at least two smiles with the melodramatic prospect that Nemesis lays before us.
In the first instance I say: fine, let them bare their rubber fangs, let them do their worst! What of it? The plain truth is, that we have naught to fear but fear itself. Shaming campaigns?
Fiddlesticks! We've run that gauntlet before, and the worst it ever does is throw us off our stride for a few days. But we always
find our stride again; we always
find our swing again; we always
bounce back stronger than before. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, and judging by the record to date, the more the opposing sector "kills" us, the livelier we get!Outright legislation
? Don't make me laugh: that will only force their hand! Or more accurately, it will show that their hand has been
forced—and consequently boost our recruiting efforts. For one example, it will drive more people into the Ghost Nation—and just try "shaming" a ghost! Just try "legislating" a ghost! The spooky critter will slip between your greasy claws and return to haunt you every time. And for another example, more and more moderate non
-feminists will be driven in a radical 'anti'
direction when it finally dawns upon them what this game is really about.
So in the long run, will the game get nasty, brutal and vindictive? Aye, so it might! But what of that? Nasty, brutal, vindictive people are not popular people; in the long run they dig their own graves. So let them dig their graves—encourage
them to do this. Too late, they will discover that their fury is futility. They will come to know, that for fools who cannot handle it, hate is not the best merchandise to keep in stock. They, who have not mastered the true science of fire and ice will, in the blindness of their rage, not detect the crafty pitfall that we have dug across their path—the path that we ourselves have marked and cleared and coaxed them into following.
And the second instance—the second smile that I have with Nemesis—is that he employs the words 'feminists' and 'women' far too interchangeably.
That is not wise. That is not good policy—not good politics.
And yet, that is a cardinal erratum which I see far too many people in our camp committing. How many times have I said it? Biology is not ideology. And furthermore, any global statement of the form "women
will do this, and women
will do that" nibbles too close to the ambiguous boundary of what the opposing sector simplistically calls misogyny.
For my own part, I eschew this "misogyny". Or rather, I eschew anything which I know, in advance
, that I cannot demonstrate by cast-iron argument to be other
than misogyny. I have stated clearly in the 7-Point Counter-Feminist Platform, that I will "make no statement of a facially misogynistic character". That point, along with the entire Platform, was laid down in the beginning in order to establish a baseline of political hygiene: I had my eye on the future. I intended to give the opposing sector NO grappling points, and "misogyny" is the biggest grappling point of all.
All the same, as I have remarked, I stand upon those "ideas which go against the grain", because I believe that they reflect—in a spirit of cold, well-informed calculation—the radical truth about feminist power: that the backbone of this power is bonded with the overmastering drive to procreate the species.
I must in fairness remark that Nemesis's conflation of feminists
is perfectly understandable when you consider that the line of separation is devilishly hard to draw, and that the feminists themselves have done all in their power (as a key element in their game plan) to encourage this prevailing lack of clarity. When Nemesis wrote of "women's" possible reaction to a general attrition of their sexual power over men, he likely had in view the poorly-differentiated mass of naive pop-feminists and quasi-feminists who populate the outskirts of the femplex.
In conclusion, I find myself largely
in accord with Nemesis, when he says that things will get nasty, and that the regrettably titled "gender war" will heat up. It is not overmuch of a stretch, to anticipate a certain unpleasantness, a certain hurly-burly
, further along the pike. In view of current political trajectories, one can easily foretell that the just and righteous grievances of men will be met, as always, with abusive arrogance and appalling ignorance. That much, at any rate, will not change until novel developments (most likely of an accumulatory nature) alter certain balances.
I have always felt that feminism carries the seeds of its own destruction—that the very energies which at first made feminism wildly successful will at last, in a manner you could almost call scripted,
work its undoing. As a counter-feminist I consider myself a kind of technician, dedicated to accelerating this process by means of proper technique and correct understanding of how certain forces operate.
And let me here declare unequivocally to all the world, that I do not consider "women" to be the enemies of men. That is an idea which the feminists
have worked to promote, and to make real in practice. In truth, the feminists yearn for nothing better than that men and women should be mortal foes, since feminism would have no reason to exist otherwise. They say they don't like misogyny; they say they'd rather see less of it. And yet they work diligently to secure the conditions of its flourishing, and its continued growth. Accordingly, they are hypocritical liars who discourse rubbish.
But no, women in the abstract are not the natural enemies of men. Only SOME women fit that description—even if it looks like far too many nowadays! But the greatest enemy of men, in my considered opinion, is other men.
That is doubly true in the current gender-political culture, which is not simply the work of feminists, but rather of feminists in conjunction with their male collaborators—the ones who have given feminism a power-boost without which it would never have left the launch pad.
And when the hurly-burly gets underway, the ugliest battle of all will be male against male—collaborationist against MRA! Word to the wise, fellas!
I know too, that as time goes on, more and more women of independent mind and spirit will do the right thing and line up on the non-feminist side of the field under the non-feminist banner! They will do this when it becomes painfully clear to them that the world has no viable alternative. I look forward to their arrival, and I will most certainly extend them a hearty welcome.