Prediction is Not Prescription
And I thought this item was especially apropos in light of a recent post on the Manboobz blog. The funny thing about "prediction" is, that keeping your mouth shut about certain things will do nothing to prevent those things. You can predict them, or not predict them, but either way they will happen. So the morally correct thing is to open your mouth and preach like the prophet Jeremiah himself! That way, there is at least some chance of heading off calamity. So in this you are following your conscience. And under the circumstances, whoever slanders you or tries to shut you up is a moral idiot at best, or criminally malign at worst. (But no, I don't think David Futrelle is criminally malign.;)
At its core, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive: it may be reckoned as a prediction-driven political formula which undertakes to foretell the course of developments, to spot emerging trends, and to harness the energy of these things in a profitable manner. Counter-feminist prediction is built upon a precise analysis of feminism's occult operational structure, and takes into account both the constraint which that structure imposes, and the consequences likely to arise from the working of it.
As we never get weary of saying, certain things may be predicted. Men as a group have felt the revolutionary impact of feminist innovation over the last forty-odd years, and it would be predictable that male behavior on average would show evidence of this. The opposite—that male behavior on average would show NO evidence of this—would not be predictable.
Continued unchecked growth of feminist plans and policies—in the form of perpetual revolution—will predictably force a growth of dysfunctional behavior among the male population at large. The dysfunctionality will take many forms, only some of which can be directly traced to feminist influence, with the bulk of it owing to secondary environmental pressures which feminist innovation has originally set in motion.
Eventually, the growth of perpetual revolution will culminate in the rise of oppositional forces. How? What forces? The short and simple reply is, that perpetual revolution will force the growth of its own contrary energy—which will eventually take the form of political consciousness among far more men than presently.
All of this comes into focus when you consider that perpetual revolution operates contrary to nature. Nature has an elastic limit which dictates how far it can be distorted. Once approaching that limit, perpetual revolution slows to a crawl. Finally it hits a brick wall and can travel no farther. And as I have explained elsewhere, perpetual revolution cannot stand still: whether moving forward or running in reverse, it is imperative that perpetual revolution remain in motion. So when forward momentum is blocked, perpetual revolution can do none other than run in reverse. And when that happens, it is no longer devouring the world but rather devouring itself—which is a limited and self-defeating food supply.
You might ask why feminism, being contrary to nature, can even make such headway in the world at all. One explanation is that feminist polemic cuts a swath through its challengers because it seems morally intimidating . Yet it seems morally intimidating only because it presents a tangle of incoherencies, and incoherency cannot be rationally answered! The lightning-swift illogic overpowers us and renders us voiceless.
Feminism seems "incoherent" because it tells a hundred different stories about itself, and those stories very often contradict each other. In fact, this makes a clever strategy because the mass of contradiction makes a perfect smokescreen. However, once we draw feminism's hidden coherency to the surface by means of counter-feminist analysis, the shabby trick becomes apparent and the power of moral intimidation vanishes.
This lack of rationality or coherency deserves a closer look. The irrationality is that of a cancer—a neoplasm. Upon reflection, it is not so much irrational as driven by an alien logic. It might not seem "rational" that a neoplasm would destroy the host body and thereby destroy itself also, but when you consider the nature of a neoplasm, it makes perfect sense! Neoplasms simply do this—they destroy their host and eventually themselves. There is no point in asking why. A neoplasm fulfills its natural purpose in behaving so, and there is nothing irrational about fulfilling your natural purpose: you mustn't expect a cancer to think the same way you do! It remains fully coherent within itself, upon its own terms—even if it does not openly admit those terms.
The foregoing has been a digression, but it helps us to understand how the world works. And understanding how the world works makes us familiar with patterns and cycles that are likely to recur.
Feminism, by reason of its deception, advances a greater political distance in the world than might seem credible if mere honesty were the only force in effect. But finally, the order of nature—by which I mean especially human nature—rises up to challenge feminism's passage in the way that I have outlined.
It is important to recognize that the cleverness of feminism's deception will not check the eventual uprising, for once a certain tipping point has been reached, the developed oppositional energy will IRRESISTIBLY force its passage through the inhibiting overburden of alien logic. Reality is pushing back against actuality! Two logics, mutually alien, stand at a point of confrontation where logic is annihilated as a channel of transaction, leaving only brute force to settle the issue. And this outcome, as I have explained many times, is apt to be ugly—a blind explosion of pent-up fury punching its way out of a box! For there is nothing civilized or even entirely rational about punching your way out of a box. Truly, it is a messy and destructive endeavor- but when you reflect that confinement to a box can only breed ignorance, and that ignorance can only breed ill-advised action, this should come as no surprise.
My advice to everybody everywhere, is to stand well clear when the predictable punching gets started! Do this, and you'll have naught to fear. Admittedly, those who have a vested interest in "the box" will be unhappy about the turn of events, but I am trying to warn them also, since they are the ones most likely to be in harm's way. Forces of nature are not to be trifled with.
Once more, counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive, and it foretells the growth of dysfunctional male behavior through the direct or indirect influence of feminist innovation. Counter-feminism asserts that the growth of feminist plans and policies operates contrary to nature, and that sooner or later this growth will encounter the brick wall of natural constraints, which will in turn reverse the energy of feminism's perpetual revolution, forcing feminism as an ideology and as a movement to consume itself.
The elastic limit of nature logically encompasses that of human nature. Specifically, people—meaning men at first, but more and more women also as time goes on—will either rebel openly against feminist requirements, or quietly subvert the more indirect forms of feminist influence. This will be like the construction of countless roadblocks both large and small, directing certain traffic back to its point of origin:
We need to understand why counter-feminism is more predictive than prescriptive. The expression signifies that counter-feminism merely sees but does not summon what it foretells. To predict a thing means only to bespeak its arrival in advance, whereas to prescribe a thing means to issue a command or at least a suggestion that the thing should happen. The distinction is critical.
Allow me to explain. In theory, it would be possible for the present writer, or any other activated non-feminist, to simply retire from the game and "disappear". It would even be possible for all of us at once to hang up our spurs and say "que sera, sera"—what will be, will be!
And what might follow? That is a question of the first importance, and our answer takes the form of a prediction: the feminists, after a fleeting interval of puzzled silence, would simply pick up their tools and take up where they left off. Perpetual revolution would go right on as if nothing had ever happened! For that is exactly what our movement means to them: nothing! Or at any rate nothing more than a speed bump. And so it is for any mechanical device at all: the device predictably does what it does, and anything extraneous means nothing to it - except where this might randomly factor into its operations.
Perpetual revolution (the true powerhouse of the femplex) is preeminently such a device. And being such a device, it would go on blindly poisoning the world against men and driving the wedge between the sexes deeper and deeper. It would do this because, being what it is, it could do naught other.
So far, all of this is highly predictable. And the next stage is equally predictable. Among other things, we could foresee a continued growth of dysfunctional male behavior. Moreover, the disappearance of activists and agitators would accelerate such growth by removing a natural set of brakes.
And so I pose the question one more time: what would happen if the present crop of pro-male activists and agitators elected to retire from the game and leave it all in the hands of "blind fate"?
I will tell you: the same thing all over again! A fresh crop of activists, agitators, bloggers and similar characters would rise up in the field and commence the cycle anew! Think about it: predictable forces generated the first awakening of male political consciousness, and those very same forces would generate another awakening through the very same archetypal patterns of occurrence. There would be nothing at all "blind" about such "fate".
What happens when you prune the tree? It puts out new shoots!
It is really just that simple.
Yes, the awakening of male political consciousness is a natural consequence—like water finding a natural egress when it builds up past the point of containment. You cannot stop it. History will repeat itself as often as necessary, and suppression will ultimately fail.
You might in theory quash the the pro-male agitators with clever propaganda, but such a victory would only be a stop-gap because the social conditions which originally created these agitators would only generate more—especially if those conditions got worse, which they predictably would. New preachers and agitators with new arguments would unfailingly arise, and kickstart the cycle back to life. As ever, men would initially recoil against the toxicity of their social environment with no radical insight concerning the what and why of it all. But again as before, a certain number of cognescenti would connect the dots and learn to identify feminism specifically as a source of the poison. And of that number, a smaller number would again commence speaking out and sharing their realization with others. And the realization would propagate geometrically among widening circles of hearers.
The awakening of male political consciousness will happen again and again; the continued growth of feminist innovation will invariably trigger this awakening whenever the objective nature of the world becomes so evident that the more perceptive cannot fail to make note of it.
One thing is certain: the feminists will never change. Come hell or high water, they will move forward with their plans. They will not amend their dispositions; at best they will seem to pull in their horns and govern their tongues for the sake of propriety when failure to do so would politically compromise them. But they will continue to creep in the night—whenever possible stealing a march under cover of darkness. As always, they will quietly smuggle in the parts of their machinery and bolt these into place when nobody is looking. As always they will continue working doggedly to consolidate their position on every possible front.
All of this we know with moral certainty, for it is predictable. Yet we know with equal certainty that the feminists cannot keep their game rolling forever. We know that their fate is sealed, that their game must sooner or later collapse. For what is written is written, and can only be postponed—repeatedly perhaps, but each postponement will exact a greater toll than the one before it, until finally the game implodes in futility.
We know that the awakening of male political consciousness has already happened. And having once happened, it will continue on an accelerating growth curve when the pioneering thinkers and explainers pave the way for those who follow. And if all of this revolutionary activity be somehow suspended, renewed feminist innovation will simply bring the pot to a greater boil, whereupon a renewed upwelling will again force the lid.
Male political consciousness is bound eventually to reach a critical mass. This can happen either sooner, or later. But for the good of all, we should try to make it happen sooner. That is what my conscience tells me. I say TRY to make it happen, and by that I mean a rational, purposeful effort.
And here we arrive at the difference between prediction and prescription, for the things we are describing would happen all by themselves. People such as the present writer would prescribe absolutely nothing; we would only sit back, watch the parade, and say "I told you so!". We will only have predicted these things; we will not have summoned them into existence.
If feminist evolution continues on its present trajectory these things will happen anyway, and vanguard community would raise no finger to counteract these developments if such effort would seem to validate feminism's game. By that I mean that we would eschew any rhetorical posture that might strengthen feminism by deflecting accountability away from it, or might seem to infer that others have a duty to make good what feminism has made bad. For example, they may insist that we as men have a duty to 'oppose misogyny'. We would respond that not only have they got no business telling us what our duty is, but given that a continued growth of feminist plans will naturally generate more misogyny, it is their duty to regulate their own political behavior in that regard and not foist their work upon others.
No, it is not our responsibility to shoulder the burden for what feminism has wrecked, but only to assist in providing a clearer view of the wreckage. We will hold the lantern while the feminists do the clean-up work! For such work requires an honest light in order that the shape of things be accurately discerned.
Yes. Counter-feminism is predictive rather than prescriptive. This does not mean that counter-feminism makes no prescriptions, but rather that its prescriptions are informed by its predictions, guided by them, driven by them, contextualized by them, and in nearly every way dependent upon them. And the fact that we predict more than we prescribe makes us the "messenger" whom they cannot ultimately shoot.
The non-feminist revolution, being a broad demographic uprising among a disaffected population, will at times include some unsavory people doing unsavory things. How on earth can something which embraces vast portions of the human race remain morally pure like the driven snow? The notion is quixotic!
However, the fact that unsavory people sometimes react in unsavory ways to the unsavory consequences of feminism's unsavory machinations in no way compromises counter-feminist analysis, but rather confirms and strengthens it. And if such folk be apprehended in their unsavoriness, it is only a matter for the police and does not implicate anybody else. That is how it must be, since the usual feminist campaign to deflect blame onto men as a group will only result in more dysfunctional male behavior, and more trauma for society as a whole when the consequences of such dysfunction ripple through the social ecology.
We may expect male dysfunctionality to assume many forms under the distorting pressure of feminist innovation. Not all of this would involve violence -- in fact, most of it wouldn't. But all of it would tend to the entropic degradation of the world, and be marked by a state of false understanding. I mean that men and boys would behave in chaotic or entropic ways because, for want of a guiding theory or conceptual roadmap, they wouldn' t know what else to do! They would not recognize what was being done to them and, for want of an identifiable target, they would lash out randomly. This would be unhealthy for society and we could anticipate, in consequence, much suffering of the innocent.
Suffering of the innocent does not please us, and we would like to keep it to a minimum.
Male dysfunctionality and male political consciousness stand in diametric opposition ; they repel each other. And the good news is, that with the growth of the latter the former quickly finds the door! To become politically conscious, men must become acutely aware of the interests that unite them as a group, and they must understand that political warfare is being waged against them. In short, they must begin to exist politically. Thus enlightened, men may combine their strength in the service of a common good and to the disservice of an objectively real enemy.
That objectively real enemy is, of course, feminism. NOT feminism as feminist theory defines it, but feminism in real life terms as the lantern of our accumulated study and experience reveals it.
So long as men and boys remain in a dysfunctional state of false understanding about their objective political situation, we can predict chaotic social outcomes and suffering of the innocent. And the longer the growth of male political consciousness is postponed, the worse this will get - and it might get truly nasty! Although male political consciousness will blossom eventually, and quite spontaneously, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to accelerate the growth by deliberate effort—by preaching—and to reduce the lag time as far as might be feasible.
That is what my conscience tells me. As if there were any question what a man of conscience should do!