How feminism contains the non-feminist breakout



The word is out about feminism. The cat is out of the bag. The genie is out of the bottle. People in growing numbers finally understand that feminism is the problem, and they are discussing this very frankly, in ways which blaspheme the feminist narrative. These people are NOT PLEASED, and they grow steadily more unabashed about saying so.

The trend has not broken into mainstream media or conversation quite yet, but the silence shows ominous cracks. So while feminism is still a sacred idol for many, it seems only a matter of time before iconoclasts in critical numbers find the nerve to desecrate that idol with gusto, in broad daylight, in the public square.

The feminists are well aware of this development, which poses a threat to their power, their worldview, and their entire way of life. They have reason to be fearful, and what they fear most is the non-feminist breakout.

What is the non-feminist breakout? It is a tipping point in the non-feminist revolution, where non-feminist people gain the mutual knowledge and strength in numbers to openly voice, en masse, their opposition to feminism. It is called a “breakout” because it is like developed force breaking out of a vessel, or an encircled army breaking out of a pocket.

When the non-feminist breakout happens, a culture of counter-feminist critique will spill across the social terrain unstoppably and merge with the ambient of the culture at large. On that day feminism will lose, for good and all, the power of self-definition. In other words, the shoe will be on the other foot because the rest of the world will be telling feminism what feminism is.

Quite understandably, the feminists want to suppress the non-feminist breakout. We can summarize their method in a single word: containment. We might also call it isolation, encapsulation or quarantining.

Feminism defines itself as the only legitimate social order, hence endowed with a manifest destiny. So in the long run, feminism will brook no resistance to its perpetual revolution. Everything foreign to feminism is regarded as space to be either filled with feminism or made tributary to feminism in some way.

As far as feminist plans are concerned, everything which is not feminism must be reduced to feminist terms. However, the task must be prioritized for efficiency’s sake. So clearly, if you are a passive non-feminist who speaks neither good or ill about feminism, you pose no present danger to feminism and can safely be ignored until later. For now they must tend to those cheeky troublemakers who have the gall to speak their minds too freely.

Those are the ones we call the activated non-feminists. They are the shock troops of the non-feminist breakout, the threat to feminism that must be contained. The practical challenge is how to do it.

For years, the feminist way of containing the non-feminist breakout has been a trick that we call Pavlovian binding (or Pavlovian set-building). This means assembling a varied set of elements, some of which have an odious emotional charge, so that said odium will infuse itself into all of the elements irrespectively. The set is called “Pavlovian” because it triggers a conditioned response. When odious things are jumbled into the same bag with innocuous things, the innocuous things smell odious by association. Call it the stinkbug effect.

So the feminists work their Pavlonian trick by conflating “anti-feminism” (an innocuous thing) with “misogyny” (an odious thing). These are completely different things, but the feminist trick is to play loosey-goosey with that difference so that people will forget to keep tabs on it. Hence, anti-feminism and misogyny become a Pavlovian set and, in the minds of politically naive people, synonymous. Humanity en masse is prone to such conditioning.

Note that the feminists are not a bit concerned about “misogyny” for its own sake. They don’t authentically care about this as an issue. It is of interest to them only if they think they can tar their enemies with it, and the only reason they bang on about misogyny at all is to conflate it with anti-feminism. Misogyny is no threat to feminism but anti-feminism certainly is, and so it must be dealt with.

So feminist containment strategy binds all anti-feminism as a Pavlovian set, with various items loosely clumped under a misogynist or anti-feminist heading. However, only the anti-feminist part is truly under feminist attack, because only that part threatens feminism. The misogyny poses no threat and so it is not targeted. It is included in the set simply in order to taint the anti-feminist part by association. You know, the stinkbug effect.

Hence, the Pavlovian response from the politically naive public is to regard anything critical of feminism as somehow tainted by “misogyny”. That is the effect which the feminists are banking on, and they work hard to encourage it.

On the “misogynist” side, the Pavlovian set might include such elements as Marc Lepine, Elliot Rodger, Rush Limbaugh, George Sodini, Darren Mack, greasy pickup artists, random commenters, alt-right “manly men”, anti-abortionists, adolescent girl-haters, online “harassment”, alleged “threats”, and internet forums dedicated to rape jokes. All of these could help to generate the stinkbug effect.

On the “anti-feminist” side, examples might include Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, Carnell Smith, Monica Ebeling, Glenn Sacks, Erin Pizzey, Trudy Schuett, SAVE Services, Nick Reading, NCFM, Karen Straughan, Sage Gerard, Adam Kostakis, and yours truly. All of these elements are considered “anti-feminist” because they threaten the feminist power structure in some way.

The feminists also look for people or things which appear both “anti-feminist” and “misogynist”. (In their view, the AVFM website fits the bill.) This makes an intersectional segue between between the two categories, and greatly enhances the Pavlovian binding effect.

After the activated non-feminist sector has been defined as a Pavlovian set, it needs a stigmatizing label. The feminists have used several of these. “Men’s rights movement” seems to be a perennial favorite, along with “MRM”, “MRA” and even “MRA movement”. When they want an all-embracing perimeter category, “manosphere” is their word of choice. All of these terms are merely constructs, political fictions, or figures of speech – reality is more complex.

There is no qualitative difference between simple lack of feminism, and developed opposition to it. Both get in feminism’s way, and the only question is how much. To declare yourself not a feminist is to harbor a tiny seed of anti-feminism in your mind already, because it means that feminism is not your preferred option. This very decision, though seemingly non-aggressible, is oppositional at its core. Furthermore, the tiny seed is apt to grow. A non-feminist is an anti-feminist waiting to happen, and an anti-feminist is a non-feminist in a hurry.

Pavlovian binding is direct feminist aggression against all who openly oppose feminism, and indirect aggression against all who are merely not feminist. With the former, you know you’re under fire, but the latter poses a silent threat: “Keep your mouth shut or we will target YOU the same as any rapist, mass-murderer, or woman hater. If you’re not a feminist you’re a bigot!” So in the end, Pavlovian binding directly or indirectly targets ANYBODY who says no to feminism.

Inherently speaking, there is zero connection between mere lack of feminism, and any of those unsavory items listed under the “misogyny” heading. Yet according to feminist propaganda, you are mystically woven into the same fabric of moral causality with Marc Lepine simply because you are not a feminist.

Such is the libel which feminism propagates in its drive to contain the non-feminist breakout. Hence, if you are silent by reason of fear, it is a measure of their success. The fact that feminism even uses such methods, ought to make us think twice about feminism altogether. Do we really need to have it around?

The breakpoint of the non-feminist breakout will occur when the developed opposition of the activated non-feminist sector exceeds the feminist power to encapsulate through the use of Pavlovian binding. So when Pavlovian binding doesn’t work any more, we will know that the non-feminist breakout is happening for real.

For many people, it will be hard to accept that feminism is completely rotten, with nothing recuperable about it. And yet, that is the message that must eventually surface and be understood.

Putting feminism on Front Street – that’s the game! If you shut up about feminism, you are doing exactly what the feminists want you to do.

How Feminism Colonizes Human Communities

The feminist master strategy is to colonize every discernible human group, tribe or community it can lay its hands on. By so doing, the feminists both extend their influence, and destroy another non-feminist power base. The interesting thing is, that they are not particular about who or what they infiltrate. They care only that another power base has been knocked out of commission.

For example, it’s all the same to them whether they colonize the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Pagans or. . . . (get ready). . .  the atheists! There is at best a thin dime’s worth of difference between a Catholic feminist, a Lutheran feminist,  a Pagan feminist, or. . . . (get ready). . . an atheist feminist! Now, you might think there are critical differences among the aforementioned groups and many others we could name. But if you are a feminist, all of that pales to insignificance in light of the real feminist mission, which is to spread feminist power and control into every discernible human group or community and to render these worthless as non-feminist organizing venues.

So in the end, the Lutheran Church will be colonized by feminists with a radical, innovative theology, and little by little whatever is essential to Lutheranism will be cut out of the loop and discarded, and you will end with something that is “Lutheran” in name only, but certainly nothing that Martin Luther would sign his name to.

And the Holy Roman Apostolic and Catholic Church will likewise get rotted from within, and replaced grain by grain with something completely alien — similar to the process which forms petrified wood. And you will end with something that is “Catholic” in name only, but certainly nothing that St. Augustine, or St. Benedict, or the Apostle Paul would sign their names to. Nor the Pope. Well no, wait a minute, the Pope will probably sign to it because by then the Pope will probably be a woman, and a feminist to boot!

The Pagans? Goddess worship all the way! The Divine Feminine trumps all! Lunar moonbattery from wall to wall! Again…. you get the idea.

And that brings us to the atheists. Atheists are known for their methodological skepticism, their rationalism, their impartiality, their propensity for logic and the scientific method. All that sort of thing. But wait a minute –just let some little Drama Whore Attention Princess like Rebecca Watson get in there, and watch the fun! And I haven’t even touched Atheism Plus and the Femistasi yet, have I?

At any rate, the atheist feminists will still use their good old Atheistic Skepticism to pound the Lutherans, the Catholics, and every other flavor of Christianity from the outside, while feminist innovation guts those same targets from the inside. Meantime, atheist rationality will go into the icebox whenever feminism or sexual politics are in question, and the atheist community will never-but-never become a non-feminist power base of any sort.

In the end, each of these groups and communities, and many more besides, will be exploited for any feminist purpose that is deemed expedient, crippled as a potential non-feminist power base, sucked dry of whatever is essential to it, and finally discarded as you would toss away a melon after scooping the pulp out.

The “Lutheran” feminists and the “Catholic” feminists would then be so little different that they could roll their churches into one and hardly anybody would make a squeak about it. By then, they would be pagan in all but name, so they could easily invite the officially pagan feminists to join the club. Then they could at last turn their combined howitzers upon the atheists — whose “rationality” (by now half-rotted from within) would not only be no longer necessary, but a positive hindrance to any projected religion of the Divine Feminine.

The master pattern that we ought to recognize here, is that feminist colonization of any human group, community, club, culture, industry, institution or what-have-you, serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it dismantles non-feminist space. Secondly, it transforms the broader culture by reducing it all to the common denominator of feminism.

Feminism was long ago conceived as a social revolution, and the only way this revolution can ever realize its project of complete societal transformation, is to reduce the entire culture to a fabric of identitarian uniformity. But in a culture as diverse as ours presently is, the only way to make that happen is to take control of non-feminist diversity, module by module. The proposed revolution cannot be leveraged uniformly across a cultural fabric which is so far from being uniform. So feminism is not contradicting itself when it colonizes opposing sides such as atheism and religionism, for in order to conquer both, it must infiltrate both. That way, whatever makes them diverse from each other, can be eviscerated in the only way possible: from within.

Keep in mind also, that feminists are false friends. That should be evident from most of the foregoing, given their long-term strategy of sapping from every community whatever is essential to it. But the betrayal can be even more immediate and poignant, given that even in the short-term they will flagrantly cast you to the wayside once you have ceased to be of use to them.

Here is an interesting PDF file which details feminist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church in England. Understand, that I endorse no religious standpoint in this context, but simply present this as documentary evidence in the interest of scholarship:

AFP Pamphlet No. 3, titled “Non-feminist Autonomy”, explores related themes:


Posted by Fidelbogen

Editor at

Twitter account @fidelbogen

Are you feminist or are you not? There is no middle ground


We must all make up our minds. Every last one of us. We are, all of us, either one thing or the other: feminist, or not feminist. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of gray, no blurred lines, no fences to park your ass upon. Politics is interested in you!

You are either a feminist, or you are not a feminist. Isn’t that simple?

So, how might it translate into practice, to declare yourself either feminist or not feminist?

In practice, it means that you would take one second, at the very most, to voice your decision. If I were to inquire, “are you a feminist?”, you would respond either yes or no . . . . in a flash!

You ought not to vacillate. If you must pause and think about it, then you might as well call yourself a feminist until you finally get your head straight. The force which pulls you instinctively either toward or away from feminism ought to be so powerful that it operates instantaneously. It ought to be second nature.

Naturally, we’d rather you were not a feminist at all, but the important thing is to make your mind up. It is not nearly so bad to be a feminist as to be a fence-sitter. To be a fence-sitter is to be ignorant of political reality. Your “middle ground” between feminist and non-feminist is a melting iceberg, a transitory condition that will last only a while. It is an illusion, a state of existential dithering, and to occupy such a state is to be a morally two-headed creature with no stable identity — or if you will, no GPS coordinates on the political map.

The middle ground illusion emerges from the notion that there is a “good” feminism and a “bad” feminism which can be teased apart from each other. That notion is mistaken. The truth is that if you did separate the (ideologically) good from the (ideologically) bad in feminism, you would effectively dismantle feminism altogether and it would no longer operate.

You cannot effectively discard the bad stuff in feminism, and save aside the good stuff in its own heap, and still call that heap feminism. Any so-called feminism extracted by this method would be redundant and superfluous because it would already be covered in a separately existing category — such as, for example, “egalitarianism” or “liberal humanism.” The word feminism would serve no purpose any longer.

The “good” part of feminism is not feminism’s defining core. It is the insulation but not the wire. It is a fig leaf or cover story, while “bad feminism” is the real nitty-gritty. Any effort to direct attention away from the dark side of feminism amounts to passing the buck.

I would wrap it up tersely, thuswise: Whatever is is good about feminism is not original, and whatever is original is not good.

If you resort to the standard cop-out that “not all feminists are like that” (NAFALT), then you are practicing a slight variant of the same evasionary maneuver. You are trying to separate the “good” feminists from the “bad” feminists, but this fails for the same reason that we have sketched above. The good feminists are the “good cop”, and the bad feminists are the “bad cop” — but they both play for the same team.

Furthermore you are dodging the question “what is feminism?” because you are actually addressing the question “who are feminists?” Hence, the argument is a deflection. In the end, you see, the real question is not “are all feminists like that?”, but rather “is all FEMINISM like that?” This is not a trivial distinction.

So the illusion of middle ground between feminist and non-feminist, springs from an obfuscational distinction between “good” feminism (or feminists), and “bad” feminism (or feminists). The trajectory of counter-feminist analysis will make this increasingly clear to the world at large, and the one correct understanding of feminism will emerge gradually into the light of public awarenness. As correct understanding emerges, the illusion of middle ground will become unsustainable and melt away, and many an existential crisis will be had.

In the meantime, I would like to pose a series of rhetorical questions that will situate the conversation and clarify the nature of feminism in general:

Do you think it is a good idea to drive a wedge down the middle of the human race and alienate men and women from each other?

Do you think it is a good idea, to insinuate that most of the world’s problems flow from a male source?

Do you think it is a good idea to treat “woman-hating” as a moral felony, but treat “man-hating” as a social misdemeanor?

Do you think it is a good idea to encourage the growth of fatherless families?

Do you think it is a good idea to prop up your political agenda with false statistics?

Do you think it is a good idea to corrupt the criminal justice system with anti-male ideological bias?

Do you think it is a good idea to “empower” women with no clear limits and no stipulations about using that power responsibly?

Do you think it is a good idea to insult and slander women of conscience who disown feminism or say stiff things about it?

Finally, do you think it is a good idea to pretend that feminism bears no relation to any of the things we have listed here?

All right. If your first impulse is to say “that’s not what feminism really is!”, then you had best declare yourself a feminist and withdraw to the private enjoyment of your private understanding. Take your friends with you.

As you can see, the decision to call yourself feminist, or not call yourself that, is fraught with serious political underpinnings. It’s a decision of great consequence in either direction – you cannot dither, you cannot dilly-dally, and you cannot shilly-shally.

Come now, be a good gal or a good gent, and hop down off that fence!

Are you feminist, or are you non-feminist? Please make your mind up, and please declare your standpoint frequently, in conversation, when disclosure is the appropriate thing to do.

As non-feminist men and women, our resolute opposition to feminism is the force-field binding us together. Regrettably, we don’t yet fully agree on what feminism is. We have not yet reached target consensus. I repeat, not yet. But despite our differences, we agree that a show of solidarity will instill the gravitas of the occasion upon the other side. It will make them sit up straighter and moderate their tone when they address us.

Yes. A popular front non-feminist coalition – that’s the ticket!

So, are you feminist or non-feminist? That is the bedrock question where it all begins.

The Basic Mission: Be an Iconoclast

Feminism is open to question. Never forget that.

Let’s get one thing straight: Feminism is not mandatory. You have zero obligation to think like a feminist, talk like a feminist, act like a feminist, live like a feminist, or support feminism in any way.

Feminism is but one of many ideological systems operating on planet Earth. It was concocted by human agency and its license to exist may be revoked by human agency at any time. Feminism is not a privileged snowflake. It carries no special mandate or divine right. There is nothing “woo-woo” about feminism, and no particular reverence is owed to it.

We should add that feminism is not a race — or more to the point, not a biological birth group. That’s right: nobody is born a feminist. Feminism is an elective state of being; you must choose it. That means you are free to reject it, or free to kick it out of your brain again if you made a prior choice to accept it.

Not only are feminists not a race, they are not an ethnic group. They seem to think they are, but that is because they are mimicking the behavior of groups who claim protected status against so-called “hate speech”. The feminists want to get some of that action too, if possible. If you say stiff things about feminism, they would like very much to swing the apparatus of law against you. (Name-calling and character assassination are not enough, it seems. They want to use the official power of state violence, under color of legality.)

Above all, feminism is not a sex. There is a male sex and a female sex, but there is no feminist sex. I repeat: there is no feminist sex. That may be perfectly self-evident to some of us, but a lot of people seem absolutely oblivious to this bedrock truth.

The trouble is, that feminism is politically and institutionally hegemonic. It is a ruling force in human affairs, and that is simply an objective fact of life. This happened because certain humans worked hard to make it happen, while certain others stood by and lifted no finger to stop them. In consequence, feminism got deeply entrenched.

The crux of the difficulty is that feminism holds the power of a fetish, or sacred idol, in the public square. Some have even called feminism an unofficial state religion. Many people hate this so-called sacred object, and wish to break its power, yet they fear to speak a word against it because they dread the social consequences that might follow. Furthermore, they aren’t sure where to get started because, frankly, the terms of the problem are not entirely clear to them.

If we wish to overthrow the power of the feminist idol and release the stranglehold which it exercises upon the public mind, we must visibly and dramatically challenge it, until people feel emboldened to join in the fun. Imagine, if you will, a dauntless iconclast who walks up to that idol with a sledgehammer, in full view of the world, and shatters the head into rubble with a defiant flourish and a harsh laugh.

Clearly this would send a message. It would spread some shock waves, wouldn’t it? It would trigger a gasp of collective dismay, am I right?

Many, standing in the public square, would be emboldened to join in the fun. They would look each other in the eye and catch the glint of revolution. It would be instantly clear to them that they were not alone, that they had nothing to fear but fear itself.

The core principle is this: that when you publicly defy or desecrate a sacred object, you break the spell. You dismantle the mojo. You turn that sacred thing into a common thing once more, prone to the same treatment as any other common thing — the callous handling, the common touch, and so on.

I shall await somebody bold enough to swing a very public metaphorical hammer against the feminist idol. I expect that person will be a celebrity of some kind, ideally a woman, who stands up and thunders: “I’ve had enough and I will take no more! To HELL with feminism, and damn the torpedoes! Come and get me, feminists!”

Naturally, it helps to be a celebrity rather than an obscure nobody. An obscure nobody who wants to make his message heard, must capture the limelight by a signal-boosting stratagem or “setup” — in common vernacular, a publicity stunt. But a celebrity can access the limelight any time. When a celebrity talks, the world listens, and the message travels.

So if you’re a celebrity, and if you want to become a bigger celebrity, give us a hand with this. Okay? Or if you know a celebrity, bring this talk to their attention and maybe it will inspire them to do something along the lines we are suggesting.

There are, of course, less flamboyant but equally valuable ways to attack the feminist idol and compromise its power. These methods are already being carried out by many people in many places — the  war of attrition, the death by a thousand cuts, the innumerable chisel strokes. It’s all good, it’s all taking a toll, and it’s all preparing the ground for those more dramatic non-feminist breakouts which will occur in the fullness of time.

So what is the bottomline here? What is the takeaway point? It is, that the feminist problem must be challenged. Called out. Stood up to. Stared down. Made accessible to the forces that would correct it.

You can do this in many ways, but by far the most effective is to say, simply and unequivocally, “I am not a feminist, and there is nothing you can do about that.”

This brings the feminist dialectic to a standstill, because it introduces the element of alien will into feminism’s self-contained moral universe. Feminism has been given something indigestible and irreducible to its purposes, which it ultimately cannot ignore. That something is called “non-feminist alterity”. The implications are existential. Metaphysical, Primordial. Heavy.

Above all idol-breaking.

In a word: iconoclastic.

“I am not a feminist, and there is nothing you can do about that.”

This deceptively simple statement lies at the heart of the methodology we are preaching. The rest is details, and among these is the fact that feminism is on trial because all feminist claims and theories are open to question.

From the ground up, every imaginable thing about feminism is subject to a universal critique and an intellectual audit. You might say that we are calling feminism into the office for a little talk.

In closing, I repeat my call to anti-feminist celebrities: step out of the closet and swing a hammer at the feminist idol! Be bold. Be brave. Be defiant. Be a cheeky bastard and stand your ground. You have supporters everywhere.

If you are not a celebrity, do what you can to see that celebrities read this. Thank you.

An Introduction to Post-Argumentalism

The accumulated wisdom of the activated non-feminist sector finds feminism to be, on balance, pernicious. The reasons for that verdict are many, and have been widely talked about. For a start, know this: we mean to draw a line against the encroachment of feminist power into the non-feminist world. Since we find that power pernicious, we naturally find ourselves at odds with almost every aspect of it. This naturally raises the question of what is to be done, which brings us to the topic of the moment: post-argumentalism.

Post-argumentalism is the stage “beyond argument”, the stage you embark upon after you deplete the possibilities of debate or persuasion in a given setting. It is a kind of existential standoff in the face of an intractable other: the other may find your stance unacceptable but you find his equally so – and there you stand!

Since argument has not settled the issue and apparently never will, you are excused from such activity and may henceforth either agree to disagree with the other, or enter a state of “war” with the other.

None of this holds any great mystery. If you have ever dealt with a fanatical cultist or an incorrigibly pigheaded person of any kind, you will perfectly understand the base dynamic. And what is true of a solitary individual can as well be true of an entire group or subculture.

The intractable other that now confronts us is the subculture called feminism. As said, we find feminism pernicious – and that implies that we have already settled the debate to our own satisfaction.

We see no reason to keep arguing in hope of persuading this intractable other – we’ve long since persuaded ourselves, and that should suffice. We know whose opinion we value, and whose judgment we trust. In all cases we cherish our own conclusion because we deem it best, and if we deemed otherwise we’d have concluded otherwise.

Argument is useless if it never ends, and worse than useless if it puts a freeze on necessary plans and actions. To tolerate such a freeze would seem to imply that we cannot act without a go-ahead from the intractable other. Yet a moment’s thought might reveal that the other is likewise constrained by us – and there we stand! How to break free of this impasse? Apparently not by further persuasion efforts.

What are we waiting for? Will another three, five or twelve years of argument finally clear the road so we can set plans and actions afoot? What force – legal, moral, physical or otherwise – prevents us from turning our back and going our way immediately?

Feminism has been a dynamic force in the world, and never shy about setting plans and actions afoot. Nor has it been dutiful about consulting others and securing their agreement to such plans and actions. The point is that feminism itself is post-argumental. Feminism has trodden upon the alterity of the non-feminist sector, and the non-feminist sector may now, by rights, serve feminism likewise. That is where non-feminist people stand.

We should add that feminism is an entrenched system extending through the social and political fabric. It is a major power structure, individual feminists are stakeholders in it, and we delude ourselves if we think the stakeholders in a major power structure will be talked out of their advantage by sweet reason alone.

The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn until one side says to the other: “Yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will adopt your position as my own and rearrange my life according to what it requires of me.”

No, that is not how the world works.

Such being said, our project is not to reprogram the deep ideological conviction of every purported feminist. Rather, it is to make such people modify their outward behavior so that the pernicious implications of their ideology will no longer translate into real-world consequences. They can believe any pernicious thing they want to believe, but they must cease acting upon such belief.

In so stating, we exercise a mandate. Such is the power of post-argumentalism – it nullifies the presumptive moral authority of feminism and commandeers authority on its own account. In this way, post-argumentalism is a revolutionary procedure, the starting point for anything at all that you could rightly call a revolution.

To nullify authority is a rightful deed when authority is intractable due to fraud or villainy. Post-argumentalism makes no fuss about this. It does the job brusquely, unceremoniously, unapologetically. To make omlettes, you break eggs.

Both war and revolution have this in common, that they spring to life when reason and negotiatory discourse prove unavailing. The difference is that war is a contest between parties purportedly equal at the outset, whereas revolution is a contention where an upstart knocks authority off a pedestal.

In the end, both war and revolution are a fight, and both involve the element of violation. The rules of war dictate that the parties violate each other until one side gives up, while the rules of revolution dictate that one system of rules gets violated so another system can replace it.

The non-feminist revolution is both a revolution and a war, and is not undertaken for light and transient causes.

As non-feminist men and women we must ask ourselves: what did we originally hope to accomplish by arguing with feminism? Supposing we could have persuaded this intractable other, what did we hope to gain? What did we hope to obtain that we couldn’t have gotten elsewise, in due course? What prevented us from simply taking it?

If something belongs to us, we must simply overpower the intractable other in order to secure what is rightfully ours. Correct? In that case, what is the good of persuasion – to talk the other into giving us what is rightfully ours? To talk the thief into handing back our stolen property?

We know that this intractable other, feminism, is a taker who never quits taking and gives nothing back at the behest of mere persuasion. We ought to craft our politics in the light of that understanding. In other words, we ought to craft our politics post-argumentally.

We do not argue with feminism, we simply tell it things – and if it will not listen or modify its course, we hold it accountable.


Posted by: Fidelbogen, a.k.a The Counter-Feminist

Editor at

Twitter account: @fidelbogen

What is Feminism? It is what we say it is


Have you ever noticed that the feminists are eager to tell us what feminism is, but not so keen to learn from us what feminism is? Therein lies the crux of a sore difficulty. It is a simple point but a matter of prime importance, so I want to establish this very, very clearly and keep it in view always.

We must ask: by what authority do they hold a monopoly privilege to define feminism in the first place?How do they get away with this? Is it by the grace of God or some equally royal power? We reckon not. Or does the word “feminist” confer a special mandate the moment you pin it to yourself?Again, we reckon not. Both theories involve magical thinking, which is best avoided.

That leaves just one explanation: that people who stick the word “feminist” to themselves have simply commandeered their monopoly privilege by exercising it unopposed for many years. They do it and nobody speaks against it, so they keep doing it.  We think this fits the case elegantly, and that no other conclusion is possible or necessary. The feminists have gotten away with this for so long because nobody has called their bluff.

That said, what objective consideration bars us from inspecting feminism by our own lights and calling it as we see it? Who is to say that feminism is not indeed that very thing, or pattern of things, that we might clearly discover by using our own eyes and our power of critical judgement?

Most of all, what effectual force bars us from adopting a non-feminist definition of feminism and operating entirely on that basis? I submit that nothing ought to deter us, and I am aware of no feminist who has ever made a compelling case otherwise.

What is feminism really? Since reality (or “the real”) enters into the composition of this question, we suppose it must enter likewise into the composition of the answer. Accordingly, our search for an answer ought to probe something real, and what could be more real than the real world of objective facts and deeds?

However, before we go further, let’s be generous and entertain (as a thought experiment) some of the abstract notions about feminism which feminists themselves entertain. The canonical definition of  feminism, as written in dictionaries, runs more-or-less as follows:

Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

There is a difficulty here. Feminism is defined as a”doctrine” advocating a particular outcome, but if you call it “masculism” instead of “feminism”, and make “women” and “men” swap places in the sentence, you will end with a slightly different doctrine advocating the very same outcome.

Accordingly, if outcome is what matters, there would be no special reason to favor “feminism” over “masculism” or the reverse — in theory, both roads lead to Rome.

The canonical definition describes a thing which is conceptually unequal right out of the gate. Either “masculism” or “feminism” would load the issue unevenly on one side or the other, so the only linguistically unbiased solution would be the phrase “sexual equalism” or something like that.

Yes, we have heard the feminist answer to this. A feminist would tell you that the board of power and privilege is tilted specifically against women (not men), that the board must be set level, that the word feminism merely acknowledges this.

However, their response begs the question because it takes feminist doctrine for granted. In non-feminist terms, it is not a FACT that the board is tilted against women. It is simply an assertion that one may argue for or against, and it happens that powerful arguments have been and will continue to be made against it.

Indeed, ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question and always will be, and if you assert the contrary, that too may be challenged.

To summarize: taking feminist self-conception on feminism’s own valuation has no value for us, except as a thought experiment. We are not feminist, and our approach to understanding feminism should make allowance for this.

A cardinal rule of semantics is that “the word is not the thing”. When we talk about feminism, we refer not to the popular understanding of feminism as a word, but to the holistic factuality of feminism as a thing, ecologically embedded in a web of relations with other things. When we speak of this, and the likes of this, we are probing something real in our quest to define feminism.

To “probe something real”, means to monitor reality when, where and how it really happens, and to extract real conclusions with pragmatic cash value. This keys upon the THING called feminism as opposed to the WORD called feminism. If there is any meaningful defining to be done, let it begin here.

We therefore discard the canonical definition of feminism because we find it both misleading and useless.

Our non-feminist critique is radical. We suspend, on principle, every claim or theory which feminism puts forward, and we do this “on the fly”, the instant such a thing pops up in conversation. We love to remind feminists that “endlessly repeating something doesn’t make it true.”

We also suspend the language in which feminist claims or theories are formulated. In this way, we dismantle the entire feminist thought-world and build again upon the basis of a non-feminist epistemic plan. Finally, we come to a reality-based understanding more in line with non-feminist experience.

For many years feminists have told the world what feminism is, but that order of subject and object is now reversed and the consequences are revolutionary. It is now the world’s turn to tell feminism what feminism is – such is the battle for feminism’s soul. The meaning of “feminism” is up for grabs, and non-feminist men and women everywhere are free to benefit from this.

The feminists needn’t bother whining that we non-feminists “can’t do that”. Have they not realized that what they permit to themselves they license equally to others?

They should spare themselves the trouble of whining, because we aren’t listening. Neither are we believing. The point is that it’s too late — the plan is now swung into action. We manifestly are doing that, which refutes the notion that we “can’t” do it!

When we (as non-feminist men and women) speak of feminism, we speak the truth. Who can refute this? Who  can discredit the basis of our non-feminist authority? We have eyes, we have ears, we have rational minds, and we are free to employ these faculties. We trust the facts to speak with precision on their own
account, and we trust ourselves to register this with equal precision.

Feminism not only self-defines, it props up and predicates its self-definition with pronouncements about the nature of the world. Guess what? WE ARE THAT WORLD! As such, we reserve the right to answer back with pronouncements about the nature of feminism.

So in the end, feminism is what we say it is. That’s right. If feminists have got the nerve to tell us what we are, then we are more than nervy enough to return the compliment! And if they persist in ignoring non-feminist input on the question “what is feminism?”, they are being solipsistic and deserve all the more to be told what feminism is.

There are many reasons that we may justifiably relieve the feminists of their self-definition privilege. It’s a rich vein of ore, it runs deep, and it would please me to see lots of people working that vein. Yes, I want to share the wealth, but I don’t want to do all the work for you — so grab your picks and shovels and head on down there.

Posted by Fidelbogen

Editor at

Twitter account @fidelbogen



The Non-Feminist Advantage

The men and women of the non-feminist sector compose at least 80% of the world’s population. Clearly we are in the majority, and that alone gives us an edge. But there is more to the story.

Feminism, the force which opposes us, has not only the disadvantage of smaller numbers but the positive burden of being an aggressor, branded by its collectivity.

Putting this somewhat simply, feminism is informed by a political worldview, an ideology, and an underlying purpose which unfolds predictably in the fullness of time. For these reasons alone, feminism is an entity subject to an accounting for its ideas and actions, and for the consequences of those ideas and actions.

In other words, feminism is a moral collective.

The non-feminist advantage is this: that the mere absence of feminism is not a moral collective. A person may indeed be tainted by participation in the feminist project, but lack of feminism bestows no comparable distinction upon the individual who simply lacks feminism.

Rather, lack of feminism is a primordial status — a default condition of planet Earth and the entire cosmos. “Non” feminism envelops feminism like an endless ocean with a life of its own, and to be “non-feminist” means only that one is not a feminist – that is all. Non-feminism is a non-thesis and a non-position; as such it requires no defending.

There is no original sin in not being a feminist, and there is no acquired sin from history. Non-feminist men and women are individuals and their sins are their own, to each uniquely. Some non-feminists are excellent people, others are atrocious people, but they are individuals, and when the time comes they will stand alone before their non-feminist maker to answer for their non-feminist transgressions.

You cannot bring any moral imputation to bear upon a non-feminist merely because that person is not a feminist. You CAN, however, bring such imputation to bear upon a feminist – yes, merely because that person is a feminist. Never forget this.

I am aware that this brief talk leaves much unexplored, but what can you expect? It’s brief. The talk aims only to plant a simple but critically important idea in your brain — an idea that shall prove foundational to everything we do, or talk about, henceforth.

That idea is, that feminism is subject to a moral inquest while we, the rest of the world, are not — that is the non-feminist advantage. We were here first, then feminism showed up and started doing things without consulting us and we, the rest of the world, have some thoughts about that.

We will voice those thoughts, whether any feminist likes it or not. We have nothing to answer for, but boy-oh-boy, do we ever have questions!

So stay tuned. Always stay tuned.

Posted by: Fidelbogen, a.k.a The Counter-Feminist

Editor at

(Twitter account @fidelbogen)