More About Agitation and the War of Rhetoric
Anonymous said...Indeed, I am right about the non-feminist revolution. The only way to overthrow feminism is by a revolution, and if I don't miss my guess, this ought to be the "non-feminist" kind of revolution -- as opposed to the feminist kind. Don't you think so?
There are plenty of activists out yonder in the world, working to modify anti-male laws, to create "men's programs", and so on. The ones that "work with feminism" are worthless, so I am happy to report that many of them are not working with feminism. Take the SAVE organization, for example. The fact that this fine, upstanding lobbying group was listed as a hate movement (alongside of yours truly) by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is proof positive that they are not working with feminism. If the feminists were chums with SAVE, then rest assured SAVE would not have gotten onto that watch list. But they are on that list, which means that the FBI and other spooks are monitoring them. And this is happening because de facto feminist authority wants it to be happening.
As a thought experiment, what do you reckon would happen if Gloria Steinem got on the phone to Morris Dees, and said "Morris, you know, the SAVE group and that Fidelbogen guy are okay, they shouldn't be on the list."?
Yes, feminism is the ruling power of the land and we all know it. And anybody or anything which challenges the feminist narrative in a significant way, will go onto their enemies list. That's right, it's all about the narrative. Feminism proposes to make the feminist narrative the official story of reality. And the non-feminist revolution proposes to attack and undermine the feminist narrative by every possible means, at every point where it infringes on the lives of non-feminist men and women.
And how did SAVE attack or undermine the feminist narrative? It did so by challenging the morality of the VAWA legislation, and proposing a scrupulously fair-minded alternative. The SAVE people merely wanted to purge ideologically based anti-male bias from the existing VAWA, and to pass a new package that would even-handedly help whoever needed help, with no prior assumptions about the sex of the people involved. In other words, a non-sexist, hence non-feminist, measure.
But if their project succeeded, it would be a torpedo strike, midships, to the feminist narrative. Indeed it would! Patriarchy theory, and all that pertains to it, would be politically compromised. And that is why the feminist powers-that-be have attacked the SAVE group with a vile slander that millions of so-called "liberals" will sop up uncritically. You know the people I'm talking about. The stooges. The ones who respond dogmatically to certain shibboleths. Useful idiots are called "useful" for a reason.
So when the feminists say that such-and-such group "refuses to work with feminism", what they really mean is that said group poses a threat to the feminist narrative -- either through not kissing the flag of feminist rhetoric, or through activism that would sap the feminist narrative by implication.
Now in time of war, the only way to "work with" your enemy is under a flag of truce, when you are negotiating as a sovereign power. We non-feminist men and women are (mostly) willing to "work with" feminism in this way, but none other. For the only other way to "work with" feminism, is to collaborate with the feminist narrative, and effectively become a feminist yourself. And that is precisely what the feminists are demanding. So in the end, it is the feminists who refuse to "work with" people other than themselves. That is, they refuse to negotiate with non-feminist men and women.
Very well. The enemy will not negotiate, and so the war drags on. And that war, as I have made clear elsewhere, is very much a war of rhetoric -- or as my recent commenter called it, a war of words. No, we don't all belong to the activism section of the non-feminist revolution. Some of us -- me for example -- belong to the agitation section. Both sections are needed. Both sections are vital.
But here, read the following comment on a Counter-Feminist blog post from several months ago. This commenter signs himself by the name of Alphabet Supe:
"I'd go a little further and suggest that the agitator is more avante-garde than the activist. He's the flying bombardier to the activists infantry.Yes, the settled muck of bad ideas, within a culture, can build to a frightening depth and solidify as hard as rock. And so it becomes as hard as rock to blast it loose again. And the worst of this is, that those calcified layers become the only intellectual raw material available to us, the only "stuff" by which or through which we are able to process reality in the first place. And so the muck of bad ideas defines the limit of what we are able to cognize or imagine, the proverbial box which we cannot think outside of.
"Failure to properly agitate results in a continuing buildup of settled bad ideas that become harder and harder to remove as time goes on. The result is that less and less space is available for new ideas and the culture stops developing, eventually becoming stagnant and rotten. Agitation is necessary to re-suspend settled notions and flush out the muck.
"I don't think it's possible to change a culture until the settled muck has been shaken loose. We haven't yet reached the bottom layer of feminism, or smelled its foulest odors so, to my mind at least, the agitator's role is of primary importance."
In the present case, we must fight our way clear from this sea of devil's vomit called the feminist narrative. We must break free by sheer will and sheer force, and we cannot make use of ideology which the said narrative furnishes, for that would only pull us deeper and deeper into the hermeneutical sinkhole of the narrative itself. In order to reason independently of feminism we must, well . . . reason independently of it! It is precisely that simple. And in order to reason independently, we non-feminist men and women must plant our feet upon our own ground and, having done so, work to enlarge that epistemological standpoint more and more.
Now, in order to stand our ground, we must have that ground in the first place. And in order to have that ground, we must claim it.
But the initial act of claiming our ground can only be an elemental power gesture, a sovereign usurpation, a pure and simple taking. Happily for us, however, this taking turns out to be a taking back of what was originally thefted from us. We are quite honorably reclaiming our stolen property.
How to do this, you ask?
Just do it! That's how.
Chiefly, this doing will consist of mustering forces against our enemy. All manner of forces -- mostly social, intellectual and spiritual. But the nature of this is revolutionary because, after all, that is what revolutions do. They "just do it", and they do not bother to seek permission.
"Please sir, may I have permission to overthrow you?"
No, thank you very much, but that is not how revolutions roll.
Finally, bear in mind that for any conflict, the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. Thus, to simplify the discussion, if an aggressor uses arrogant presumption, then all parties to the conflict are likewise entitled to use arrogant presumption. And, mark well, this includes arrogant presumption about who is or is not the aggressor. Do you catch my drift?
So go forth and agitate. Fight the war of rhetoric, and use verbal ju-jitsu if it suits you. The aggressor has done this for years, and does it still. Do you intend to be their punk forever? I didn't think so.