he great game we are embarked upon is elegantly simple. It is a game between feminism and the rest of the universe. This statement is both alpha and omega, the first and the last thing that you need to know. It all starts with this and it all comes back to this in the end.
However, between alpha and omega lies a complex zone of operation which should on no account be glossed over, even if it taxes our brains to get the bearing of it. For the incoherent muddle which has dominated the thinking of our so-called movement for many years, taxes our brains ten times worse than that: it fritters away our energy, it leads us round and round the mulberry bush, and worst of all, it empowers our enemies.
Yes, we stand in need of an efficient political world-view
—one that will organize our thinking, formulate our speaking, discipline our rhetoric, position us to advantage, set the other side at a disadvantage, and lay our plans upon a practical foundation. All of which is projected here.W
hat then, is the non-feminist sector? It is the universe exclusive of feminism; it is the rest
of the universe—the zone of reality that is not, and never will be, feminism. I could liken the non-feminist sector to a wide-open prairie which extends for thousands of miles in all directions—as far as the eye can see and as far as the mind can represent.
Feminism, by contrast, I could liken to a rathole in a corner. It is categorically not the world:
it is only a bundle of abstractions and emotional reflexes that certain people carry around in their brains. However, it has so far proven to be a powerful bundle, with adverse consequentiality—and that is what concerns us.The non-feminist sector:
call it the NF sector for short, and if you'd like to be even shorter than that, speak of it knowingly as "the sector".
Our sector is fluid, relational, non-binary, protoplasmic. It is not a bit hierarchical—which ought to please the feminists. And our sector contains many, many things—for example, human beings.
It also contains plants and animals, stars and galaxies, physical and spiritual laws, and more cosmic dust than you can hope to imagine. But we'll save such glories for a future conversation, after we have celebrated our victory. For now, bear in mind that this is politics and that human beings are political animals.
And being such, they and their doings make the proper grist for our mill.
And so, within the human grist of the non-feminist prairie you will find every form of non-feminist political, cultural, ideological or intellectual life conceivable. In short, the sector is a political ecosystem—and you can make no generalizations about it, apart from the non-feminism of it all.
Above all, no moral
generalizations about the NF sector are possible, for the sector embraces every shade of good and evil that the human race itself contains. The NF sector is not a moral monolith: any campaign to critique or discredit the sector from the standpoint of so-called "morality" is misbegotten, and will implode by the force of its irrelevance. You might as well critique the morality of the universe itself, that is how meaningless such an exercise would be! As a non-feminist, I freely acknowledge the moral variety of the non-feminist sector—and that is more than the average feminist will do vis à vis
feminism! And I can only suggest that if you don't like the bad parts of the non-feminist sector, then seek the good parts—the same advice I would give you about life, or the world at large.
The non-feminist sector is not a "movement". Rather, it is both a container
of movement, and
the lump sum of the movement which the container contains. Nor is it an ideology. Rather, it is both a parchment on which many
ideologies may register themselves, and
the lump sum of these ideologies. In fine, the sector is both a substrate
for all of the forces and factors now arising (or likely to arise) in opposition to feminism, and
the lump sum of those forces and factors.
For example, you'll have heard of something called "the men's movement" (alternately the "men's rights movement" or MRM). Well this so-called "movement" is just one among countless cultural life-forms
upon the non-feminist prairie. By name, it places the accent upon "men" rather than upon feminism, and that is why we single it out as merely one among many forms of non-feminist energy.
You'll have likewise heard of something called MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). That too is a non-feminist cultural life-form—to be exact, an ideological subgroup of the men's movement whose membership stubbornly defies categorization. After all, they are going their own ways—and those ways are many!
And then there is a thing called the Ghost Nation, a shadow civilization of alienated self-reliance in action, pushing the MGTOW envelope to the limit of the known political universe!The term MRA
(Men's Rights Actuator) is by now familiar to many feminists. It too signifies a kind of "prairie" (or rather a sub-prairie) on which a diverse array of non-feminist critters are known to wander. This term is only a generic descriptor that gives an objective summation of a present social trend, namely, the growing number of people—men and women both—who believe that men and boys are getting a dirty deal in the realm of fundamental human dignity and equity under the law. 'MRA', like 'NF sector', transcends moral generalization.
Many reform movements, organized around one or more particular issues, exist within the NF sector. The family law reform movement, the divorce reform movement, the fathers' rights movement, the anti-paternity fraud movement, the anti-IMBRA movement, the "Fix VAWA" movement, are a few examples. And such movements will often spring to life as separate versions in separate locales, in conjunction with chartered organizations
whose degree of liaison with one another varies considerably.
I cannot hope to list all of the ideologies, movements and organizations which are now active, either directly or indirectly, against feminism or the manifold consequences of feminism's innovations. I cannot hope to trace the tangled spaghetti of their interconnections, or to chart the intricate and ambiguous ways in which they overlap. Luckily, I don't need to do any of those things. I need only to impress upon the reader the dynamism and diversity of it all, and its essentially fluid, protean, organic state of being.
So far I have dealt with the "political", but I should also touch upon the "personal". Individual life and private existence may be considered the 'dark matter' of the sociopolitical universe—and for our purpose that means the non-feminist sector. The primordial will to oppose feminism (like feminism itself) takes many forms, but at bottom it is simply that: a will
. A volition.
And a will or volition is as likely to be manifested in the individual, and his pertaining microcosm, as anywhere else. As a sum total, this accounts for a lot of territory and a lot of social gravity—a considerable lot, albeit mostly silent. Yet in the end, the zone of the private, the personal, the individual, is the mother-lode of power for the entire non-feminist sector. It is of this zone that we mainly speak, when we speak of the activation of the sector.
Such activation has already occurred in a tentative way, but most of the zone still lies dormant; inert; fallow. The future portends interesting developments, and truly, we shall live in interesting times.
But again, the dizzying multiplexity of the non-feminist sector—with its illimitable permutation and nuance, with its interminable crossing and re-crossing—quite surpasses my poor power of description. Therefore, I will cut this short. It is not given to us brief mortals to speak fully
of certain things, but only to SEE these things, as a bird would see them, from an altitude. . . .I
turn now to discuss the division between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector, and more to the point, the mechanism which generates this division. From the standpoint of culture and politics, the sectors are differentiated, while at the primordial base level of the universe they flow and meld together—as do all other things. But our talk pertains to the nitty-gritty world of human affairs, and to that line we shall adhere.
What offsets feminism from its host surroundings, is the essential simplicity of feminism itself. Feminism merely spawns
complexity in order to conceal its underlying mindset and to camouflage its intentions, but the unifying equation which underlies the complexity may be tersely stated: Feminism = Female Supremacism.
However, this equation must not be nakedly
stated, for it would be socially unpalatable and politically indiscreet to appear to advocate female supremacy. What's needed, is deniability. Accordingly, feminism as a sociopolitical organism must undertake a number of covert and distributed operations, in order to move forward circumspectly along the multiple pathways of its intentions.
Accordingly, feminism exploits every inherent tendency in the world that might accelerate the world toward a feminist—read female supremacist
—state of existence. To put that another way, feminism harnesses
these tendencies: horses roaming at liberty in a pasture will not pull your wagon—you must harness
So in the end, the critical question is not "who exactly is or isn't a feminist?", or even "what exactly is or isn't feminism?", but rather "who or what, directly or indirectly, accelerates the worldly agenda of female supremacism?". "Feminism" is best identified by the totality of its operations
, and by its "fruits". Look for anything that either directly or indirectly strengthens women at the expense of men.
I don't mean to suggest that people or things correctly identifiable
as feminists, or as feminism, don't exist. What I do mean is, that feminism as a cultural phenomenon is greater than the sum of its parts or of its conscious membership, and that the separation between feminism and the rest of the world is like a duotone rather than a boundary. As I have stated elsewhere , feminism has fuzzy borders.
In the vernacular of postmodernism, feminism is imbricated.
There are many people or things which mightn't be purely feminist in themselves, yet they accelerate the feminist agenda
all the same, because they transmit or validate feminist memes.
Feminism thrives and grows because it taps the immense reservoir of human venality, cupidity, fear, conformity and other psychic crud
—especially the female half of this reservoir! Without access to this reservoir, feminism as a movement and as an ideology would crumble and blow away in the wind.
Now, the feminist sociopolitical organism couldn't keep existing solely on the back of such naive and passive support as I have suggested. In order to get going (and to keep going), it needed (and continues to need) an active cadre of self-identified indoctrinated believers—preferably
in seats of influence. The organism cannot live without a brain—and a brain needs administrative capacity, otherwise, what's the point?
And so the indoctrinated operators (identifiable as feminists) find ample work, whatever their vocational standing. And their work. . . is what? It is, to drip-feed the memes of female supremacism into the collective mind through channels large or small. Briefly, to plant suggestions.
For although a suggestion is not the same as a command, there is at least a chance it will be taken up. Or, which is equally good, propagated by word-of-mouth!
And when suggestive indoctrinations trickle down the chain from voice to voice, they shade by degrees into enculturations,
and therefore into unconsciousness. For culture, as we know, is propagated in naive oblivion. The original composition of a compost is discernible only in the uppermost layers. . .
To recapitulate: feminism as a sociopolitical organism is set in motion, and kept in motion, only because indoctrinated operators
work to make this happen. The world has gotten poisonous for men only because these pioneering activists and ideologues have set about to make it that way, blazing a trail which others have followed, and made into a broad highway by the trampling of more numerous feet. Were it not for the existence of the pioneering operators, there would be no operation. Their collective presence in the world has the virtue of a magnet, which generates a field in excess of its own dimension. The field, in turn, activates anything of a ferrous nature within its range. This field would neither spring into existence, nor continue to exist, were it not for the existence of the magnet. And while it is literally true that the field is not the magnet, it is beyond dispute that both field and magnet are jointly comprehended under the rubric of magnetology—together they compose a unitary phenomenon.
This metaphor of the magnet roughly illustrates the principle that there is "more to feminism than feminism". The point is this: that the indoctrinated operators are feeding certain elemental, organizing ideas into the world—propagating them in all directions. And these organizing ideas are all implicative or supportive of the occult dogma of feminism
— to wit, female supremacism.
The idea of patriarchy
is the skeletal framework that holds the entire slamboozle together because, one way or another, everything hangs upon this idea. Patriarchy "theory" runs all through feminism (albeit more commonly implied or assumed
than openly stated), and without such a doctrine feminism wouldn't amount to much.
Female supremacism implies moral license for women, because it implies that women are quintessentially more "right" than men, and therefore entitled not only to the benefit of the doubt in most cases, but to extra perks and pamperings as well. But female supremacism by itself is merely an "attitude", and insofar, has need of an "analysis" to back it up. Patriarchy theory provides that analysis.
Patriarchy theory is the harness, the device which draws together all of that otherwise random energy, magnetizes it, points it in a politicized direction, makes it into a coherent cultural undertow, a galvanizing narrative unity. . .
Propagate this narrative among the masses, or even the camouflaged elements of this narrative, and women everywhere will take the idea on board, finding in it a convenient way to conflate their dysfunctional psychic tendencies with what appears to be a transcending rationale—something "bigger than themselves", a Great Excuse From Heaven that parts the clouds and descends to earth like a sparkling column of sunlight. The narrative, once internalized, spawns a multitude of spinoffs, sub-narratives, sub-memes and hybrids, all of which make their way from mind to mind through a variety of channels, dispersing randomly, like a fog, through the mental environment. Soon, it becomes difficult to define the source, or to occupy any kind of external standpoint.
The "personal" becomes the "political", and so every encounter with a male person becomes (potentially) a politicized moment, framed in the rhetoric of power imbalance. This instills women with a vague, almost mystical sense that some manner of recompense is owed them simply because they are female
—and traces of this feeling can percolate into the smallest transactions of life. (The recompense in question being, of course, a restitution of some abstractly-understood thing which "patriarchy" has originally stolen—or so theory would have it.) Under such a scenario, individual lives, essences, motivations and reflexes are negated, and subsumed by an ideological requirement, and women are converted into moral robots in the service of a zero-sum game.
Yes, the innate (inborn) proclivity of feminism, is to bestow moral robot-hood on women
. And the shimmering, razor-thin line which divides moral robot-hood from moral agency, is the line that divides the NF sector from the entire feminist zone of influence. That bright line
, precisely, is the boundary. The day that feminism commences to preaching that bright line, robustly and full-bloodedly, is the day that the femplex
goes into remission. But feminist preachers instead smear that line all over the landscape and make it a fuzzy duotone, because the last thing they ever want to see, is the dawning of that day.
For feminism, you understand, has amazingly little to say about ethical behavior toward men. Hear their silence roar! Their sparse words upon that subject are perfunctory and pro forma—rhetorical trinkets at best. In theory, feminism makes moral robots of all women, for it would have women believe that immoral behavior toward men is precluded from the realm of possibility. Were it otherwise women would, in theory, possess moral agency. And with moral agency would come responsibility—to wit, the primordial possibility of transgression.
But the sequestered intention of feminism (read female supremacism) is to endow women with power minus responsibility. For if women were to assume the burden of ethical behavior toward men, they would ipso-facto relinquish feminist power over men, by which I mean the power to deal with men arbitrarily—and female supremacism, in the form of perpetual revolution
, could advance no further.
I, the present writer, am pro-choice, meaning that I believe in choice for women: ethical choice.
I further believe, as a general thing, that choices have consequences, and that women should not be shielded from the consequentiality of their choices. For to experience the consequentiality of one's choices is an element of freedom not to be neglected and, which is more, indispensable to spiritual evolution. And I believe that women should undergo as much freedom as men would undergo, for I wish to see an efflorescence of their spiritual evolution. Can't we all benefit from such blossomings?
........................................................................................Note: This is a very long essay, so I've chosen to break it into several parts, to be dealt out gradually in future postings.
Labels: non-feminist sector, perpetual revolution