he non-feminist revolution is a force of nature -- a primordial force, an ambient force, an exercise of cosmic veto power against feminism and all that feminism has created or proposes to create. And while feminism is a narrative -- a story about reality --
the non-feminist revolution is merely reality itself
-- and that is quite a difference.
Feminism, as a project, ignores parts of reality in the process of constructing its narrative. And whatever is stated in defense of feminism is part and parcel of the feminist project, being a product of the very same narrative construction. As such, it too is not reality, but only a story about reality. Thus, when a feminist reads these words and composes a counterattack, that person is only telling a story.
But please to observe, a story which ignores parts of reality.
So again, the non-feminist revolution is a force of nature -- a primordial force,
an ambient force, an exercise of cosmic veto power against feminism and
all that feminism has created or proposes to create. Feminism, you see, can push only so far before the universe pushes back, and the harder you push the universe, the harder the universe pushes back. So in the final tally, unreality cannot drive out reality no matter how hard it pushes. There is nothing quite like that old cosmic veto power, is there?
Interesting times lie ahead -- and by that I mean, unpleasant times. Complicated times. Chaotic times. Such is the character of the non-feminist revolution itself: unpleasant, complicated, and chaotic.
The non-feminist revolution is not an organization, not a movement, not a precise group of people, and not a plan of any kind. For though it might sometimes include
all of those things, it is none of them in itself. No, the non-feminist revolution is simply the full reality of life pushing back against the unreality of feminism. in an unpleasant, complicated and chaotic way.
But not, however, an indecipherable way. The chaos mightn't always "make sense", but we know it is happening for a reason. The reason is, that feminism as a system of life is unsustainable and must eventually fail. And when it does, reality will come boiling back, chaotically, with a vengeance. You are silly if you expect this to be pleasant. The system of meanings and categories which feminism has established, will crumble as a sandbank before a rising wall of floodwater. A sensation of cognitive freefall will ensue, and this will feel "chaotic" to those who cannot decipher it. For some it will be hell, but for others, sheer liberation.
The non-feminist revolution, being a primordial force, makes no proposals about the future. It simply carries us into the future willy-nilly, setting us on the doorstep of the future and putting us in a way to understand what the future ought to be,
and how best to make it so. It breaks icons, liquidates illusions and confronts us with stark choices -- between the better and the worse, the feasible and the unfeasible, the sustainable and the unsustainable. It makes us an offer that we are free to accept or refuse, with less-than-ideal consequences if we accept, but far worse if we refuse.
In short, the non-feminist revolution is amoral and carries no utopian promise. It merely sets us at a fork in the road, where each way leads to an imperfect and humanly flawed world. Furthermore, it puts our wisdom to the test in forcing us to choose between these, and goads us toward spiritual adulthood by reminding us that this is no yellow brick road, and that either way you turn, there is no Emerald City at the end of it.
Simply stated, the non-feminist revolution forces us to choose either a world where feminism keeps growing, or a world where feminism stops dead in its tracks. If you prefer the former, your system of reasoning is unitary with feminism itself. If you prefer the latter, your system of reasoning transcends feminism because it stands outside of feminism's intellectual gravity well. Either choice will have something wrong with it, but remember, this is no yellow brick road! And our contention is, that a world with feminism is worse by far than a world without it.
It should be clear that this "fork in the road" has always been available to us, even from the earliest days. It symbolizes a choice that we have always
been able to make, and always will be.
So the question becomes: when will we?
Put it this way: what will more feminism bring us? My guess is, that it will bring us more feminism.
And feminism has been around long enough to establish a track record, don't you think so? Granted that if you are a feminist, you will call this a good
track record -- and that is only natural, since you are a feminist! You would
say that. And you might even rattle off a list of talking points to support your case. But no matter what you say, all of your speech in support of feminism will be a product of that very same feminism,
from start to finish. Being a feminist, you cannot not support feminism,
and you cannot take on board any argument or information which does not support feminism.
That is because you must always
ignore parts of reality in the process of constructing your narrative, so that in the end you are always confronting reality with a mere story about
reality. And some of us wish to take reality straight, so spare us your stories.
All right. We are back to that fork in the road. It confronts us with a choice, and we need to understand that this choice does indeed exist.
I mean, the choice needs to become real
for us. We and we alone must make that choice, and if that choice does not become real
for us, then somebody or something else will make the choice in our stead. And for many years, my non-feminist friend, that is exactly what somebody or something has been doing -- making that choice in our stead!
Yes, we always stand at that fork in the road. Always have and always will. We can postpone our decision for as long as we like, but if we chose not to chose, we still made a choice: more feminism.
So tell me then, how do you wager? Will feminism ever
bring us anything but more feminism? Personally, I wouldn't lay one brass nickel on it.
No matter how far we travel down the road of feminism, we non-feminist men and women will always
stand at the fork, for as the saying is, we can always "go our own way" in regard to feminism. We will never lose that option, but the question is, what are we waiting for? More feminism can lead only to more feminism, and to more of what feminism creates, until hell finally boils over and burns us all. And should we wait that long?
The collapse and meltdown of civilization is the chief danger that we face. And it is precisely what more feminist innovation will bring us. Feminism is simply not sustainable, and as non-feminist men and women, we stand dogmatically upon that position.
To argue the contrary, is to argue from a feminist standpoint. And such a standpoint is invalid, by definition, within the non-feminist sector. To declare that we have not correctly understood feminism is again to argue from a feminist standpoint because it implies a feminist
definition of feminism -- which, from a non-feminist standpoint, is invalid. We know for a fact that feminism as we define it
is unsustainable, and we make feminism as we define it
the pragmatic gold standard for all of our plans and calculations.
And in the end, we insist that feminism as we define it,
must be stopped dead in its tracks and prevented from developing further.
As non-feminist men and women, we would like to prevent the worst. We would like to keep the bad stuff to a minimum. And that is why we take a stand that is radically different from feminism (as we define it) in every possible dimension, to the point of controlling the narrative, the discourse, the language itself.
The non-feminist revolution, as said, is a primordial force apt to be messy. It is existential, growing not from analysis but from gut reaction, by millions of people, to feminist disruption in the social ecology. These people might not intellectualize what is happening, but they can feel it, and their dysfunctional behavior reflects a primitive understanding of it. The clear and present danger is that violence
will erupt and be subjected to a feminist
analysis, followed by feminist
measures to effect a feminist
solution which, in turn, will only compound the feminist
difficulty and set the feminist
cycle in motion again.
So the focus of any vanguard plan must be, to disrupt the feminist cycle as we have described it here. The escalation into ever greater violence, and the continual practice of shifting the blame away from feminism, can be expected to continue unless some kind of intervention occurs.
And I have already sketched the intervention that we have in mind, which is to unseat feminism altogether from its narrative authority and self-definition -- to relativize
it -- by establishing a non-feminist authority in opposition to it. Briefly, we mean to decenter feminism within the culture by violating its monopoly of discourse, in a spectacular way, for all to see. From this, the implication will follow that others may join in the fun. In principle, it is like chiselling the nose off a sacred idol in the public square, in sight of all. Do so, and the mojo is broken; the idol becomes rubbish.
We suggest all of this because we wish to offer a unifying vision, and a lighted pathway out of the maze. As matters stand, there is no such vision and no such pathway, and that can only make the world meaner and uglier all around. To continue along the feminist road will compound the crisis which feminism first set in motion, while it merely postpones the inevitable day of reckoning. On the other hand, to take the non-feminist road will bring about a healing crisis, but a rational
healing crisis, leading us finally back to a sustainable world of manageable human imperfection. Feminism will end sooner or later, but we had best make this sooner, from a place of power and control.
And I don't mean feminist
power and control.