Wednesday, June 08, 2011

The Continued Development of the Non-Feminist Revolution

Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!

Today's talk is inspired by a comment left on my YouTube channel. One of my channel subscribers, who goes by the name of MRAGreatestHits, showed an interest in the idea of the 'non-feminist revolution', and was keen that I should post more videos on that topic. Well, I am happy to oblige, because it is one of the most important topics I can presently think of.

Very well: the feminists have a high opinion of themselves. But many others do not share this opinion, and these others have formed the project of taking feminism down a few pegs. I will enlarge upon this.

The root of the present struggle is, that most feminists think feminism is the world, or is entitled to become the world. Feminist thinking is triumphalist, transformationalist and totalitarian, and feminism is proposed as a social engineering project that will alter every aspect of life down to the last molecule.

And how do they muster the needful arrogance for such a project? By sheer collective narcissism. They have convinced themselves that feminism is an absolute evolutionary good in terms of what it proposes, and they have based their temerity upon a model of reality that is wildly askew from how the world actually works. They are gazing at the rest of the world as if into a mirror of their own ideas, so that everything they see reflects only what their fantasy requires them to see. Yes, they are staring at a reflection of themselves, and if that is not narcissism then I have no better idea what to call it.

But wait. On second thought, I do have a better name for it. I will call it feminist subjectivism.

Imagine a house in the middle of a town, with a group of noisy, dirty people living inside. These noisy, dirty people are a continual nuisance with their loud disturbances, and futhermore they are forever throwing garbage out the windows and emptying pisspots in wild disregard to pedestrians in the street below. And from time to time, these people are known to go about in the town spreading gossip and false information, and stirring up social trouble.

I say it is unnecessary to enter that house and go from room to room, or to strike up a fond acquaintance with all of the inhabitants. We are fully entitled to form some evaluation of the house and its denizens purely on the strength of what we can ascertain from the exterior. We mightn't know much, or care to know, about the life within those walls, but that does not compromise the objective truth of what we can plainly see from where we stand. We might even accept that there are some charming, sensitive artists living in that house, without compromising the truth of what we know about the situation in general. Our outside knowledge is as much knowledge, in an absolute sense, as what the insiders might correctively insist on telling us. In our own way, we are as much qualified to talk about those people and their house as they are.

The house and its inhabitants are not the world, and we are nowise obligated to throw away what we can plainly see about them, while accepting as truth only what they say about themselves. Nor, mark this well, are we bound to unknow what we know about ourselves and accept as truth only what they say about us!

Such, then, is feminist subjectivism: the delusion that only a feminist may tell the rest of the world what feminism is. But as non-feminists -- meaning, as the rest of the world -- we occupy an entirely different epistemic standpoint. And we may speak, think, and draw conclusions with the full authority which our standpoint confers upon us. The feminists have got one hell of a nerve telling us that we don't understand what feminism is, since we can very plainly SEE what feminism is. Yes, they are trying to steal our eyes!

And this gets worse. For when the feminists pretend to a monopoly on self-definition, they also claim an exclusive right to define the rest of the world. And why? Because, in order to make their self-definition operate correctly, they must spin a contextualizing narrative about everybody else. In plain English, they have no choice but to lie about the rest of the world in order to maintain their story about who-and-what they themselves are. It is the classic cycle which any psychologist -- professional or otherwise -- will straightway know for what it is: you tell a lie, then tell a second lie to cover the first, and then a third and a fourth, and on it goes!

That explains why feminism must forever grow and grow in a process of perpetual revolution. In fact, feminism absolutely cannot stop growing until it colonizes every speck of the universe beyond itself. But the time is fast approaching when this growth will become unsustainable. And when that day arrives, the collapse will be breathtaking and, if you are a feminist yourself, harsh and brutal.

Now, one of feminism's greatest tricks was to generate a thorough confusion in the public mind about what feminism IS. That is yet another reason why the power to define feminism has passed into the hands of the non-feminist community: because the feminists themselves will neither coherently self-define, nor take holistic responsibility for the gaggle of voices which claim to speak for their movement. Indeed, they shuck the latter burden quite actively: with so many people earnestly informing you that this-or-that "isn't really feminism", you can never outline a clear target area.

As non-feminists, we may be thankful that we do not share the same burden of self-definition as do the feminists. The reason is, that we are not properly a "thing", but rather an absence -- specifically, an absence of feminism.Unlike the feminists, we are not pushing a thesis into the world, because in fact we ARE the world. And as such, we are not required to justify our existence. Nor do the strictures of so-called morality apply to us, because the world is and always has been a moral spectrum, a goulash of good and evil in every shape you can imagine. We do not intend to make the world a perfect place; we intend only to make the world a better place by ridding it of feminism.

And although we may spawn numerous ideologies and movements in the course of future history, we are not, in totality, an ideology or a movement of any kind, but merely a phenomenological space which contains these things.

Finally, we are a force of nature -- a spontaneous and completely organic uprising of the human social ecology, against feminism and against all the consequences which feminism has inflicted upon the world.

Such, my friends, is the NON-FEMINIST REVOLUTION.

3 Comments:

Blogger Lady Catherine said...

...Insurrection or civil disobedience? One of my anarchist friends suggested inssurection and civil disobedience as a possible way to protest against the state. I see the same principles working against feminism.

8:02 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@Snark:

For sly reasons, I will kept your recent comment behind the curtain. ;)

However...I've had similar thoughts to what you have shared.

And I will indeed keep an eye on things as you have recommended.

I thank you for advisement.

10:47 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@LC:

Those principles might indeed work against feminism, and may certainly be deployed when/if the time is ripe.

At the moment, my thinking is more along the lines of "rot their reputation and turn the world against them."

10:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home