In the beginning was the world. Then, feminism emerged from the womb of history. What matters is the order of appearance: we were here first and feminism showed up later. That is a fact of key importance: one should bear this in mind continually, and make continual reference to it.
Among other things, feminism is ideology – meaning, a body of ideas which embrace self-conception and self-description. However, it is more than ideology because it is more than self-conception or self-description. Feminism is situated both within its own understanding and within the understanding of the world at large. This makes feminism a subject for itself, and an object for the world, which means that two separate dimensions of understanding must be considered: the feminist-subjective and the feminist-objective.
To say that feminism is on trial means it is under the evaluative gaze of an “other”, an outside intelligence which is specifically not feminist and views feminism in highly objective terms. We contend that feminism lacks complete understanding of itself, and that only non-feminist alterity can supply the needed information to remedy this lack.
We further contend that such understanding, if it should arrive, would spell the end of feminism altogether because lack of self-awareness is a critical feminist feature. Therefore, it is not in the feminist interest to gain such understanding – because this would render feminism non-viable.
To sum up, feminism is not fit to judge itself because it will always rule in its own interest – and feminism’s interest is to remain viable by preserving its own myth. For that reason, feminism must receive corrective input from beyond itself – the kind of input that would problematize feminism’s mythically-based self – conception and give rise to a more inclusive and holistic state of knowledge.
Again, feminism is more than ideology. Yes, ideas are a part of it, but ideas exist only in the human imagination. What concerns us is the power of ideas to shape human conduct in the objective world – the extensional reality of ideas, to give it a name. This reality has objective consequences which chain-react into further consequences, and the ensemble of it is fraught with moral ramifications. So when we speak of feminism per se, and of feminism being on trial, we speak of all that.
Feminism’s consequences are integral to feminism’s being. Feminism is under discussion as malfeasant, and feminist malfeasance cannot be isolated from any idealistic notion of feminism’s essence. No moral quarantining of what feminism is “supposed to be”, from what it actually DOES, is feasible or worth considering.
In our summation of feminist phenomenology, we take both ideas and consequences into account. At the same time, we expose every aspect of feminism to an intellectual audit, with all feminist claims or theories (from the greatest to the smallest) being open to question. That is the plan from here on out, growing and spreading with the years.
Every time a feminist speaks, it should occur to us to wonder if that person is lying, or at least self-decieved. Even if a feminist says “the sky is blue”, we are entitled, on principle, to greet that claim with skepticism.
It is hard to overstate just how radical and fundamental this counter-feminist critique, from all quarters, has got to be. The awareness that lying is a foundational feminist behavior has got to be an instinctive, bedrock realization for everybody. It should be second nature, instilled in our marrow and etched into our neurons. “Lie like a feminist” should become a commonplace expression, taught to children at a young age.
So in the end, feminism is under both moral scrutiny for its transgressions and intellectual scrutiny for its ideas. The trial process aims to shine a light on every possible facet of the feminist problem, and non-feminist men and women of all classes are encouraged to participate in this project.
At its fullest reach, feminism is a densely connected cultural web that includes both ideas and objective circumstances. It is an extended social organism whose character is invasive. It occupies both public and private realms, and we who don’t partake of it experience this as a hostile intrusion into the fabric of our lives. We were here first, an uninvited guest barged in, and we naturally have a few things to say about that.
It is unseemly for any guest to abuse a host, but when an uninvited guest does this it adds injury to insult. Feminists, as a rule, have comported themselves in exactly such a way: they abuse us, they treat us cavalierly, they twist our words, they misrepresent us, they invent stories about us, they exploit our good nature – why, they even try to wreck our lives! On it goes.
The worst of it is that they parade themselves under a banner of moral supremacy, acting like they own the world or like they ARE the world. We have a name for such behavior: feminist triumphalism, the narrative-based notion that feminism is right because it’s right because it’s right, that the case is settled for all time and no further discussion need be tolerated.
Non-feminist men and women should no longer tolerate feminist triumphalism. The feminists must be put on notice and told to get off their high horse.
Feminism is not the world but only a part of it. For one thing, self-declared feminist people are a minority of the human race. For another, feminist theorizations don’t stretch far enough to cover all of the world’s complexities. Not only that, but these theorizations often fail consequentially – for as stated earlier, ideas have consequences. Non-feminist men and women (the rest of the world, mind you!) are forced to live with those feminist consequences, and for that reason alone are entitled to speak their minds.
It bears repeating that ALL feminist claims and theories are open to question, starting with the most basic question of all: “What is feminism?” Any feminist definition of feminism constitutes a claim or theory open to question. Hence, from the standpoint of non-feminist alterity, we may define feminism in the light of our own observation and study.
The dictionary does not accurately reflect what many people mean by the word “feminism”, so the dictionary must be revised. However, a lot of us aren’t waiting
for the lexicographers to get busy. Within our non-feminist speech communities, the word feminism will continue to mean what we say it means, despite what any feminist (or dictionary) might say to the contrary.
Dictionary or no dictionary, we take back control of the language by an act of political will. Non-feminist reclamation of language is a revolutionary act, and feminists who don’t understand this must educate themselves about the reality of the situation.
We have spoken of feminist triumphalism, but we should also mention feminist subjectivism, a state of mind closely entangled with it. Feminist subjectivism (which resembles solipsism) may be summed up as the idea that no correct understanding of feminism can originate outside the realm of feminist discourse. In other words, that feminism can be nothing other than what a feminist says it is. Feminist subjectivism occurs not only when they insist upon the dictionary meaning of feminism, but when they impose feminist terms and categories upon the living reality of the non-feminist sector.
Putting it simply, the feminists theorize about the rest of the world on no authority but their own, and with sweeping generalization. Hence, in the spirit of “turnabout is fair play”, we are licensed to generalize feminism and feminists as sweepingly as it was done to us. In fact, we have been using that license for some time and will continue doing so. They started this, and if they want to stop the music, the onus is on them to make the first move. The aggressor owes the world a “mea culpa”.
For them, the lesson is straightforward: don’t start a cultural street fight if you can’t finish it. And don’t complain if people who are goaded beyond endurance finally turn your own tactics against you. What did you think a street fight was, anyway? Fair?
Right now, somebody might be saying “you have called this a trial, and you have called this a street fight. Which is it?”
Very simply, it is both, because it contains aspects of both. That feminism is on trial is not strictly “fair” since the trial is convened by a process which, on its face, does not look strictly fair either. Yet ironically, that process turns out to be “fair” after all when you consider that it plays by the very same unfair terms of engagement which feminism (the predominant aggressor) established in the first place.
What goes around comes around. The aggressor feminism has redefined “fair”, and we’re just playing along because the conventions of fairness, or any notion of “Queensberry rules”, went out the window when feminism made the opening moves. Those were unfair moves, aggressor moves – and the maxim is, that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement. It follows that the aggressor must lie in the bed which the aggressor has made. We non-feminist men and women are punching “up” while feminism is punching “down”. Accordingly, we do what we must, to equalize the game.
Strictly considered, we don’t need feminism at all. That has been our conclusion for quite some time. If feminism went away, only two things could possibly take its place: A.) more feminism, or B.) nothing. You should bear this is mind the next time some feminist asks what you plan to “replace” feminism with. You should understand that this person is preemptively loading the talk with a feminist assumption: that feminism’s departure would leave humanity, somehow, in the lurch. But to ask what would replace feminism is pointless. The answer is that the waters of life would instantly close up to fill the space, as when a rock is lifted from a pool.
Whatever is good about feminism is not original, whatever is original is not good, and if we flung away the not-good parts it would leave us nothing that wasn’t ours originally. Feminism offers no special wisdom or guidance that regular people couldn’t light upon by their own lights, and if every form of feminism were to vanish in a puff of smoke, the general quality of life would take no dramatic nosedive – not for women, not for men, not for anybody.
As non-feminists, we are offended that feminists would deprecate our moral competence or suggest that we are incomplete for want of feminist indoctrination. Plenty of non-feminist men and women have got the relationship thing sorted out just fine, thank you very much. They know how to treat each other right, and always have. Non-feminist men and women don’t want sanctimonious liars and busybodies mucking around and poisoning their world, so if the feminists won’t back off politely, these people can offer some rude encouragement.
The trial of feminism will go on for many years, until feminism as a whole comes to a proper humility and a posture of atonement. The universal critique and the intellectual audit will involve people from all walks of life exposing feminism to every imaginable deconstruction. Little by little, the upholders of feminism’s worldview will find their avenues of evasion sealed off and unavailable for further use.
The world will never be converted to feminism. The feminists must eventually face up to this and make terms accordingly. When that day arrives it will usher in a radical transformation to their way of life because feminism will confront the cultural limit of its expansion. This will be on a par with confronting its own mortality – simply stated, an existential crisis.
The nature of feminism is, that it must maintain a continual growth and expansion called “perpetual revolution.” That is how feminism rolls. If perpetual revolution fails, feminism fails, and begins to die. That is why we can predict that feminism must die eventually, because it simply cannot expand forever. Sooner or later, the rest of the universe will either actively push back or passively refuse to budge. The implications are the same in either case: feminism confronts a terminus.
The significant question is, “can feminism coexist?” The answer is no, feminism cannot coexist. To “co” exist means to accomodate the existence of an other. For feminism to coexist, it would need to dwell eternally alongside of something specifically not feminist – and the operative term is “eternally”, since there would be no question of that non-feminist “other” ever fading away.
This would raise existential questions that would strike the root of feminist identity and feminist reality. It would proffer the spectacle of something self-sufficient which had no need of feminism whatsoever, and such a spectacle would knock the wind out of feminist triumphalism while putting feminist subjectivism on shaky ground.
It is small wonder that implacable hatred of the non-feminist sector simmers just below the surface of all feminist manifestations. The fact that non-feminist men and women simply exist and persist, confronts the feminist power like a form of kryptonite. They hate us because they fear us – because they know that they can never assimilate us.
Granted, the feminists will tolerate our existence on condition that we act like we don’t exist at all, but sooner or later the plain fact that we DO exist (silently or otherwise) will need to be reckoned with. It’s a reckoning that cannot be put off forever.
So let us consider that feminism has effectively become a cultural default which may impose the burden of proof on its challengers. It has gotten to this status by presumption, imposition, and a “long march through the institutions”. Oh, and a certain proclivity of the masses to bow to any fait accompli and believe any narrative that gets sufficiently signal-boosted.
The upshot of all this is that feminism, no matter what you think of it, has become The Establishment – and feminists themselves strut around with the cocky self-assurance that this is so, even while pretending to be the underdog when it suits their purpose.
However, there is a big difference between admitting that a bully has power, and believing that the bully is entitled to it. The bully’s power, you would say, is not legitimate – and so it is with our present bully, feminism. Feminism is the establishment only because it has established itself by usurpation, and its title is only as secure as it can gull people into believing. We who are not gullible are free to assess the value of feminism’s title and make plans for feminism’s future. That is why we say that feminism is on trial.
There is a vast edifice of moral and intellectual privilege now slated to collapse in a heap. This loss of feminist privilege will bear down hard upon the feminist psyche everywhere. We believe that it will signal the end, not of feminists as individuals, but of feminism as a hegemonic cultural power.
Yet in spite of all this, we do extend an olive branch, of sorts, to the feminists. Yes, when we say that “feminism cannot coexist”, we are prepared to be wrong. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the feminists. After all, they are so keen to negate presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system that it is only fair they should now get a taste of it on their own account. Turnabout is fair play. The aggressor sets the terms of engagement. They have made their bed and now they lie in it.
But we do extend that branch. We do proffer a benefit of the doubt, that feminism can coexist with the world despite our theory to the contrary. However, the onus is on them to show this to our satisfaction – to approach us with downcast eyes, to address us in respectful tones, and to answer, with no hint of guile or deceit, such queries as we put to them.
And further, we hope to see a moral and intellectual perestroika of the entire feminist project, actively undertaken, along lines that non-feminist men and women will suggest. Surely, if coexistence is to be realized, something like this is warranted.
Can feminism co-exist with the rest of the world? Non-feminist men and women are waiting for an answer.
We have launched antifeministpraxis.com because we felt it was time to build a robust post-manospheric platform for the activated non-feminist sector. This project is the result of much working and reworking, and many talks that stretched far into the night. We realize that we have fallen short of explaining what this is all about, so we are taking another swing at it here.
At Praxis, we address the feminist problem in a style that eschews male identity politics and moves beyond the legacy discourse. We bring counter-feminist analysis to bear upon this task, and we give a green light to outside-the-box thinking. Our practice flows from a political ethos called “Strict Anti-feminism” — or SAF for short. (The SAF Manifesto will bring you up to speed.)
To us, it is axiomatic that feminism is irredeemable. Few things could interest us less than to “bicker” with feminists in the hope that they will somehow see the light. If we want to engage them at all, we will, but for the most part we won’t. Our approach is post-argumental, which means that we speak in the full power of non-feminist authority. We simply tell it like it is.
We are concerned with three key questions, each of which opens the door to a realm of sub-questions. You might say that SAF discourse is a continual meditation upon these questions, since nearly all of our talk embraces one or more of them:
1.) What is feminism?
2.) Where do non-feminist people stand?
3.) What is to be done?
Under the legacy discourse, nearly all anti-feminist politics has been branded by an androcentric (male-identitarian) voice — the “men speaking as men” voice. For better or worse, this voice has represented the non-feminist revolution in the public mind.
Under the SAF mandate, anti-feminist politics assumes the ecumenical voice of the non-feminist world in general, and this establishes that the non-feminist revolution has more than one voice. That is a paradigm-shift whose implications will become clear as time goes on.
The meaning of “strict” anti-feminism is that opposition to feminism should be differentiated from promoting male interest in a subjectively male way. Furthermore, this differentiation should be clearly understood by the world at large and not merely by the practitioners. Take note of that last point: we are talking about a political division of labor reflected in both popular and private language.
This is not to suggest that politics “in a male voice” will disappear. Such politics will perk along as always, and most of it will have the customary anti-feminist flavor. Our point is that anti-feminism must also be harnessed solo, as a task force under specialized discipline, free of male-identitarian baggage.
After all, this is is 2017 — the current year no less! We are growing a different tree in a more complex political landscape shaped by Toronto, Gamergate, WomenAgainstFeminism, developments in England, and yes … Donald Trump.
SAF operates on the conceptual model of “feminism’s wrongs” rather than the longstanding “men’s rights”. In this new model, the statement “look what feminism has done to the world” takes a top-category position. Further down the chart will be found feminism’s specific wrongs against men — which are numerous and grave. However, “men’s rights” remains a secondary narrative within the overarching construct of feminism’s wrongs.
It is rich and satisfying, no doubt, to speak “de profundis” from an existential place of maleness. There is nothing wrong with this. However, that does not make it politically efficient to center your message upon male pathos. The masses don’t respond well to such a tonality.
We focus narrowly upon the feminist problem because this simplifies and streamlines our work. We don’t want anybody (feminists especially) to change the subject. We want to concentrate the energy, we want to situate the conversation, and we don’t want mission drift to creep in.
There is, understandably, nothing the feminists dread more than anti-feminism. They will do whatever it takes to prevent that force from advancing in society, and for them prevention starts in the microcosm of everyday conversation.
Accordingly, since feminism itself is a necessary gateway topic to the feminist problem at large, they will evade this topic. Such talk, after all, might pull feminism itself within range of critical thinking, and problematize it.
You might think that feminists do nothing BUT talk about feminism, but you would be mistaken. Feminist talk is informed by feminism, suffused by feminism, dripping with feminism — yet not properly about feminism at all. What they actually talk about is feminist theories, feminist issues, feminist talking points, feminist narratives, feminist histories, feminist conceits, and so on — everything but feminism itself.
So you could say that all of their talk is a deflection from feminism’s problematic core truth: they don’t talk about feminism because they talk around it.
In the end, only a non-feminist mind is fit to explain feminism. That is where activated non-feminist people, as a task force, step into the picture. We are fit to explain feminism because we exist outside of feminism, so that even if the view is not lovely, we are uniquely situated to see feminism for what it is. Furthermore (which ought to be obvious) we have no vested interest in feminism’s preservation.
Above all, we are willing to ask hardball philosophical questions, over and over again, even at the risk of looking geeky. We will not let those questions get overshadowed or shoved aside.
Antifeministpraxis.com furnishes a platform, and a cyberspace focal point, for those who wish to address the feminist problem in this new way. At Praxis, we take the non-feminist revolution to the next level.
More than that, we take it to the streets. We furnish a growing library of counter-feminist pamphlets which can be printed and distributed in the offline world, and a selection of other literature too.
Finally, we provide a Craigslist-style contact resource for anti-feminists who want to arrange meetups in real life.
At Praxis, we welcome non-feminist men and women from everywhere on Earth — as commenters, as contributing writers, as community members. We wish to activate the great fund of raw intellectual talent that lies dormant within the non-feminist sector.
At the heart of the non-feminist revolution lies the project to take back control of the cultural narrative from feminism. We call this project the battle for feminism’s soul.
To take control of the narrative means, among other things, to shove a completely alien worldview into the feminist mindspace with no prior explanation or preparation. For them, it would be like walking into a movie halfway through — although that comparison hardly does justice to the radical nature of what we are proposing.
The point is, that they have had more than enough time to tell the rest of the world what “reality” is. It is now their turn to shut up and experience life on the receiving end. It is their turn to wonder what in heaven’s name is going on, and be impolitely told to “get with the program.”
The treatment that we would dish out differs little from how they have treated the rest of the world for half a century. Henceforth, every settled notion of theirs will be jostled in the common marketplace of ideas like it was just any old thing. They will be critiqued, problematized, made light of, or best of all ignored when they try to express themselves. No more epistemic privilege of any kind, and no more pampering of their aesthetic sensibilities or lexical conventions. Thuswise they shall fare. They will lick it up, and they will like it.
We advocate this as a policy, consistent with the doctrine of post-argumentalism. Post-argumentalism proposes that argument or debate has no primacy among the methods we might use to move our project forward. Post-argumentalism further proposes that argument or debate, although useful when combined with other methods, is nowise imperative to the realization of our ends.
For in the end, we are not obligated to argue with a bully, a tyrant, or a lunatic. We do not delude ourselves that if we craft our words well enough the bully, tyrant or lunatic will suddenly understand us, admit that we are right, and act differently. That realization is a truth which sets us free. So we are free to block their power unceremoniously, by walking away from argument altogether and moving ahead with our plans.
Those who specialize in argument, debate or explanation are certainly free to set up shop doing what they do best, according to their several areas of expertise. It is not good to waste any natural talents you might possess. But we have understood that argument or debate are not the main engine that will press matters forward. Recruitment, networking and mobilization will do that, independently of whether our enemy is persuaded or unpersuaded.
Very well. We have drawn our conclusions, and we claim the right to state them freely and to assume that others are up to speed on what we are saying. We cannot be bothered to attach a full explanatory essay to every word or concept, every time we use it, in our spoken or written communication. So in true post-argumental fashion, we do not argue the merit of our discourse by explaining it. We have explained it for years already, but to deaf ears, so it is time to move ahead.
We must assume that our foundational ideas have already been establis by an accumulated history of explanation, and that adversaries will make some effort to learn the basics before they converse with us. We must assume that the laborious work of establishing our ground of meaning has been concluded, and that we may now discourse with that agreeable speed which is properly the life of conversation.
So any feminist on earth must either sink or swim in the ocean of ideas we will generate. If we graciously stop to explain, it is more than our duty requires, and gratitude is in order. But we won’t slow down for them, and we will unleash a torrent of new jargons, new concepts and new frames of reference that will leave them mentally adrift and bewildered, as if the ground had been ripped from under them and they were bobbing in zero gravity with no idea of up or down any more.
No doubt they will find this disturbing, and will experience something like culture shock when they realize that their reactions are not 44 shared, and that people not only don’t know what the hell they are talking about, but are rudely telling them so!
Such is the non-feminist invasion of feminist mindspace.
Feminist ideology has been broken to the ranks, and must share the stage with everything else. Nothing about the customary feminist discourse will be shown any deference, any leniency or any right of way through any discussion whatsoever. Feminism does not “own the conversation,” and does not set the rules for any conversation where non-feminist participants are present.
Granted, where none but feminists are present it may be said that they are “in the feminist clubhouse,” and may order the conversation as they see fit. But in the forum of humanity, it behooves them to embrace a more cosmopolitan outlook and “do as the Romans do.”
More and more, feminism’s realm of thought and discourse will implode, and it will be as if the floodwaters were breaking through the barriers from every direction, sweeping away every vestige of narrative privilege they have ever enjoyed and placing them on a footing of conversational “equality” with any male rights agitator, or any non-feminist Joe and Sally.
They can barricade themselves in the towers of academia for a while, but in the end the towers too will crumble and be swept away. When this happens, they will have no choice but walk through the world to the beat of a timeless drummer they can’t ignore any longer. Either that, or go crazy and do something stupid.
So I would prepare for that day, if I were them. I really would do that. . . . if I were them.
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.
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 Antifeministpraxis.com
Twitter account @fidelbogen
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.