Thursday, April 23, 2015

The Manichean Ontology of Female Supremacism

Note: The following is an enlarged and improved version of an earlier post. I discovered this version (which I had forgotten about) elsewhere on my computer, and there is no question that it offers a more rounded treatment of the subject, namely: the sexist moral dualism which lies at the root of feminist behavior and feminist thinking. The earlier version of this article (titled "What Must Be") will be deleted from the blog.

have concluded elsewhere that men as a group own no special collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special collective favor to Republicans as a group. In view of the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would lend itself.

However, I know that plenty of feminists would take issue upon this point. And being feminists, they can do no less. If they concurred with this way of thinking, they would no longer be feminists. Why? Because the entire feminist enterprise is constructed around the overarching, underlying, and aetherically all-pervading premise that men are the problem. This is so because feminism is a hate-fueled, anti-male, female-supremacist movement, and such a movement couldn't possibly embrace the view that men and women are BOTH the problem. No, that wouldn't work - it would bust their gearbox all to hell!

If in fact men are the problem as feminism supposes, and consequently that women are not, then it would follow that men specifically are under some manner of obligation which upon analysis would translate as a debt owed to women. And such indeed summarizes the general wind that has wafted from the direction of feminism and spread widely into other quarters. That is why I say that the feminists would take issue with the idea that male and female are political parties: because it implies that men and women are equal cutthroat gangs competing equally to cut each other's throats. The feminists would favor a scenario in which one of those gangs would bare its collective throat voluntarily to the gang wielding the knife.

But what does it mean to say that "men are the problem"? What is this statement really talking about? Which "problem" does it refer to, exactly? I have implied that this idea lies at the root of a world-view. A paradigm. But how can we spot it in action? What signs or tracks does it leave?

Here is what to look for: any time a woman does something notably blameworthy, or any time something goes awry between a man and a woman, a feminist will nearly always search for a way to either get the woman off the hook, or reduce her share of blame to a barebones minimum. Female wrongdoing will always be extenuated in whatever way possible, if not denied altogether.

The bias is persistently male-negative. It is evasionary of any realization, or any frank admission, that women in the depth of their nature are just as rotten as men. You can almost hear the female-justification motor click into overdrive in the backs of feminist heads, any time the least shadow of womanly or girlish malfeasance confronts them. They are not a bit concerned to know what actually IS; rather, they fervently wish to know what, according to their template, must be. It is a deeply rooted emotional reflex which transfixes the core of their world like a pivot or an axle or a black-hole singularity.

In fact, let's give it a name. Let's call it the "must-be" maneuver. Yes! This little trick is the alpha and omega, the sum and substance, the form and content, the Rock of Gibraltar, the axiomatic a priori, the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for everything that feminism promotes or seeks to put about in the world. It must be that a man is to blame in every argument, it must be that he doesn't listen, it must be that he is insensitive to her needs, it must be that he is using male privilege, it must be that he has control issues, it must be that he has anger management issues, it must be that he is "condescending" her, it must be that he feels threatened by intelligent women, it must be that she was violent in self-defense or if not, it must be that she attacked him pre-emptively. On and on it goes.

And should it prove impractical to pin the blame on a particular man, it is always possible to fall back upon men or maleness in the abstract: it must be the patriarchy which oppressed her into lying, killing, cheating, stealing or stumbling! It must be male-dominated power structures which drove her to anorexia or smashed her head against a glass ceiling!

Inherent to the must be maneuver is the exclusion of examination. A commonsense, rough-and-ready calculus might suggest to the layman that male input is to blame in at most half of the suggested cases, and that prior to concluding what must be, we should interrogate the full range of what might be. However, such a proposal is anathema to the feminist paradigm, and if you presume to make it, it must be that something is amiss in your character, your education, or your political leanings.

I cannot overemphasize the formative foundational character of the must-be maneuver. I could even call it theological or cosmological: "In the beginning, Goddess created man and woman. And Goddess said, 'Let man be the problem - for verily it must be so.' And behold, it must be so."

In a compressed way, the must-be maneuever fits the model of Kant's hypothetical imperative: "If you wish feminism to be viable, then the principle that men are always at fault must be reiterated at every possible opportunity."

This idea that "men are the problem" is an eternal unsupported premise and, like the god of the infinite regress, ontologically prior to everything in every way. It is never a point of arrival but always a point of departure. Feminism did not give birth to this idea - the idea gave birth to feminism! Feminism grew from the idea and not the reverse. At no point did feminism ever not contain this idea, and at no point was feminism not contained by this idea. At no time did feminism ever go in quest of the idea and finally get to it by any chain of reasoning - the idea was always present at the outset! And had it not been present at the outset, feminism would never have set out. Feminism never studied the world in order to formulate the idea, but rather studied the idea in order to formulate the world, for it is by light of the idea itself that feminism seeks to know what the world "must be." Yes, men are the problem - and come hell or high water, the world according to feminism must be shown to reflect this!

Such is the platform on which feminist ideology asserts its political claim against men on behalf of women: that men, being the collective source of a unique and historically-rooted trespass against women, are under a collective moral obligation to make good.

When we scalp the duff down to the bedrock we uncover, in the end, Manichean dualism - a cosmology in which good and evil (or light and dark) are separate cosmic principles eternally at war with one another. Further, the principles are said to be perennial and uncreated: they did not come about due to interactions in the ecology of occurrence, but were present from the very foundation of the world. They are not different branches on the same tree, but different trees altogether- and they grow from different roots. As such, they can never coherently exist side by side because they share no genetic mutuality - they will forever bear the stamp of their separate beginnings, and they will harbor mutually irreconcilable systems of logic. Accordingly, their relationship is and must forever remain paradoxical and fraught with tension.

In the Manichean cosmology of feminism, male equals darkness or evil, and female equals goodness or light. There are NO zones of gray. There is no spectrum. There is no continuum. For feminism, man equals bad and woman equals good, and if at times woman appears to equal bad then it must be that appearance is not reality in that particular case, and so a contorted explanation must ride to the rescue and set things straight!

In feminism's paradigm, man equals bad and woman equals good. And in the feminist mind, this correlation can no more be established by any chain of demonstration than the dualism itself can be said to have evolved historically. For just as the Manichean duality was prior to all things in the order of creation, so likewise it must be prior to all things in the order of feminist logic. To demand that the truth of it be proven, would decentralize and desacralize it. This in turn would radically deconstruct the entire feminist enterprise.

This has consequences for the two-party model of gender politics. The feminists want to place women on a footing of moral superiority to men, which in turn implies deferentiality or servility on the part of men. Men, being at one with the principle of darkness, must in theory be taught to respect their betters - who are at one with the principle of light! This indeed postulates a kind of political struggle if you want to call it that, but it is a one-sided struggle: men must be forced to "surrender".

Stated in such terms, the "political struggle" sounds more like plain and simple warfare. But in fact political struggle is not quite the same as warfare. Although it is true that political parties are not deferential or servile toward each other, the situation differs from war in that the parties understand they are fair competitors on a field governed by rules of play which in theory do not include ultimate subjugation of one side by the other. That is to say, the Republicans at least in theory do not have as a goal making the Democrats grovel, or vice-versa.

(Von Clausewitz famously called war "an extension of politics by other means", and I will leave it to the reader to reflect upon this privately, since it would make too much of a tangent to the present discussion.)

Thus, no feminist who is truly a feminist could accept the two-party model of man-woman relations as a set way of life, for that would imply that good and evil are in a certain sense not subject to a moral comparison - which in turn defeats the purpose of the Manichean paradigm as an occult motor of the feminist enterprise. Why? Because if good is not "better" than evil, if light is not "better" than darkness, then there remains no validating metaphysic for female supremacism and man-hating as a whole. And I can assure you that feminism bereft of those things would be like unto a banana which is all peel!
Thus, it is essential to the collective sense-of-purpose of the women's movement that the movement be engaged in a Manichean struggle with an eternally culpable foe who must be vanquished. Granted, most feminists would - if you put the question point-blank - deny any personal belief in the Manichean paradigm as I have described it. But this becomes less of a contradiction when you realize that stated individual beliefs and unstated collective intentions can easily go their separate ways. As a famous philosopher once put it: "By their fruits ye shall know them". And the fruits of feminism do indeed bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity and undertaken with a view toward conquest. Any feminist who tries to talk you out of this critical insight is playing the game of cognitive fragmentation.


Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Counter-Feminist is No More

The entire content of this blog, clear back to October 2006, has been mothballed. The blog has been reborn at the following address:

Sometimes, it feels good to tear off a brand new sheet of paper. Know what I mean?

Please update links and bookmarks to reflect this change.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Radical Feminism is the Real Feminism

Radical Feminism is NOT the fringe of feminism.

Radical feminism is feminism's rotten core, and the source of feminism's life. Without it, feminism at large would amount to little, and scatter to the four winds.

That is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However. . . it is a truth which plenty of people won't square up to. It is quite fashionable nowadays, especially in the wake of the Agent Orange scandal, to brush aside radical feminism as outdated and popularly disregarded.

When people do this, they are trying to change the subject and gain control of the conversation so as to remove the feminist project, at large, from the critical spotlight.

Radical feminism - by which I mean chiefly the man-hating kind - is a standard which sets the measure for feminism as a whole. All brands of feminism are either more or less relevant depending on how closely they approximate radical feminism.

Radical feminism is 100 proof, and a radical feminist takes her feminism neat.

All other feminists take their feminism watered down - but it's all the same drink.

People love to tell you that the radfems are "just fringe extremists" - as if we were standing in a field and the radfems were some tight little group clustered in their own world near the perimeter. What the speaker fails to consider is that all feminism is on a continuum whose unifying principle is disaffection toward men and things male. That's all it is, and if you study feminism objectively you can reach no other conclusion.

Hence, there is no gap, no discontinuity between radical feminism and the rest of feminism. For every foul man-hater, there is a slightly less foul man-hater, and then one slightly less foul than that . . . and so on down the line. Thus, for example, Amanda Marcotte is indeed a foul man-hater, yet she is only half as foul as Mary Daly.

In one way, the apologists and deflectionists are right: we oughtn't be so fixated on the extremists. After all, the rot extends clear through the feminist organism to some degree, and examples closer to home are not lacking. What we should point out every chance we get, is the pervasive anti-male bias - be this subtle or brazen.

Anti-male bias - whether in the form of hating men, or in looking the other way when evidence of man-hating crops up, or simply in the prevalence of double standards which favor women - may safely be described as the defining feature of feminism.

Anti-male bias - culminating in outright hatred of men - is the core principle which makes feminism feminism.  This principle, more than anything else, binds the feminist project together, moves it forward, and explains the complex reality of its evolvement through time. 

The feminist project seeks to expand the power of women with no limit, and anything like ethical regard for men and maleness would impose a formidable barrier to such expansion. Remove that ethical regard, and the frontier is wide open. Hence, so far as the feminist project is concerned, ethical regard for men and maleness has got to go - and what better why to shuck off ethical regard for anything, than to HATE it?

And since the world always contains X number of women who hate men. . .and even MEN who hate men, feminism's inner cadre always has a sufficient recruitment pool.

In the end, if feminism did not harbor a kind of moral black hole of infinite disaffection toward men and maleness, it would quickly reach the limit of its possible development. . . . and begin to dissipate.

So once again, radical feminism - to wit, the man-hating kind - is the CORE of feminism.

And it is the liberals, the moderates, the humanists, and the "fun" feminists who make up the fluffy fringe on feminism's outskirts. They are the useful idiots who serve mainly as camouflage and as ideological pack mules.

Those who say that radical feminism is marginal to feminism at large, are lying - either to you, or to themselves.

Fidelbogen .   . . out.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Feminist Declaration of War Against the Non-Feminist World

The following message was posted to TyphonBlue's YouTube channel:

"+Alison Tieman  Debate is a tool of the privileged upper classes, what rich white men have used to oppress and divide the meager and poor for centuries. Yet you would use this tool yourself, having been oppressed by it since antiquity? Truly, you are lost. Perhaps I was wrong, and death would be not a cruel and deserved fate for you, but a bitter mercy to end your pain.

But if it an argument you want, then an argument you shall have! Why do you support the MRM, when its very purpose is to re-enslave women? When it is full of sexist claptrap like the quote I left from Paul Elam, the movement's godfather? How it seeks to project itself onto feminism, how it silences them so their arguments cannot be heard? Or threatens them, track feminists down, and brutally beats them for their views? Or posts lists of their names, so sexist trolls can bombard them with rape threats. Can you answer these questions without some BS excuse like "not all MRAs are like that?"

Feminism was about equality, but the time for peaceful discourse draws to a close. If it is violence the MRM wants, then we will cut out equality by force, and write a new edict of fairness in your blood! Pick a side, Alison, but choose carefully. You don't want to be on the losing side of the war."

Yesterday, as you might recall, I publicized a feminist death threat against the Men's Rights Edmonton group, and even went on AVfM radio to talk about it. But little did I suspect that something even worse would rear its head so very quickly. It never rains but it pours!

A pattern of feminist panic is developing.  That is the ony way to describe it. The heat is on, and the heat inside their heads is getting unbearable - to the point where they must open a vent and let the steam out.

Fear and guilt is the most plausible explanation for for all of this. A dawning realization that the rest of the world is turning against them, together with a growing sense that they have been complicit in a collective crime, is driving them to a strategy of projective backlash.

Note that many sections in the quoted statement read like a description of feminism's own collective behavior toward the world. Feminist hatred of everything non-feminist is beyond description, so much that they are unable to articulate boiling emotions welling up within them. All the same, they MUST relieve the explosive pressure in their brains - they must find a discharge of one kind or another.

And so, conspicuously outspoken people such as TyphonBlue become their lightning rods. If you are a nice little non-feminist and keep your head down and your mouth shut, they will not go after you - or at least, not yet.

However, they WILL go after people like Alison Tieman, or people like the Men's Rights Edmonton Group.

They will also go after people like Warren Farrell, or people like Janice Fiamengo.

And let's not forget that many years ago, they went after Erin Pizzey.

If you are an outspoken non-feminist, they will attack you right away - openly and viciously. If you are a quiet non-feminist, they will pull the snare slowly and craftily, but in the end they've got plans for you too.

They don't plan to tolerate the existence of anybody or anything which is not feminist. In the end, "every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall confess. . ", and so on. 

This has been the feminist plan from the very beginning, and all feminists - especially the moderate ones! - are complicit.

I understand that this is all very wild and confusing, so let's make it simple. Feminism is a Big Lie, and every feminist is a participant in that lie, intentionally or not. Feminism seeks to control every aspect of human thought and feeling, everywhere, and it does so by expanding endlessly and projecting its Big Lie into every little corner it can find.

The problem is, that in so doing, the feminist Big Lie clashes with the reality of everything else in the universe - everything which is NOT the lie. Everything which is not feminism, in other words. So in the long run, the outcome can only be wreckage, and misery, and strife. That is what happens when you disregard reality for too long. 

For feminism, this presents no moral difficulty whatever. Indeed, the solution is easy - simply blame the non-feminist world for all the ugly consequences of endless feminist expansion. Feminism, you see, is never guilty of anything. It is always those nasty non-feminists (men and women both) who wreck and spoil things in order to "oppress women", as the saying goes.

Feminism does not hold itself morally accountable any more that it holds women in general morally accountable. Any time that feminism "hits" you, and you hit back, feminism screams that you are the aggressor! This has been their game from the beginning, and no, the feminist leopard cannot change its spots.

Feminism has waged a vicious war upon the rest of the world for many years, and consistently blamed the rest of the world for the predictable crisis this generates.

Well now, finally, the rest of the world is waking up, and mobilizing, and striking back in a more organized and calculated way. That is a trend which bids fair to continue. We live in interesting times, my non-feminist friends.

Incidentally, I like the part where the feminist writer call debate a tool of the oppressor. That thought occurs to me also, and that is why I have given upargument or debate as a method that will help us against our common oppressor, feminism. As the feminist Audre Lorde would say, "you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

Armageddon is approaching. I will see you on the beach, my non-feminist friends!


Alison Tieman's video about the feminist threat may be viewed HERE:

The Poison Manifesto may be viewed HERE: