The non-feminist revolution is growing — no doubt of that. I see signs of this busting out everywhere, like the first crocuses of spring or the first influx of robins. Sometimes I think it is just my imagination. That is, I quickly grow accustomed to the latest hints of quickening life and these in turn quickly become the new norm, the new baseline. Hence, these things become old hat. And straightway, stasis and boredom set in, and it feels like nothing is changing after all. So I become jaded, and I write off my spell of hopeful enthusiasm as “imagination”. But then, without warning, larger and improved signs of life arise to remind me yet againthat I am NOT imagining this.

Yes. So much is happening — everywhere, all at once, at all levels — that it always comes back around to the vexed question of where to begin.How to start talking about all of this? Especially with new recruits and sympathizers, who have arrived by way of the grassroots? For are they not themselves the foremost among those signs of life which I have spoken of?

Aye, it is good that these new ones have arrived by way of the grassroots, because this thing of ours is a grassroots revolution before all else. It is a revolution of, by, and for the people, with its wellspring in the mundane micro-world — the non-political universe of everyday thoughts, feelings, conversations, conclusions and decisions. Such is the territory to be reclaimed, and fiercely guarded. And all manner of intellectual machinery — even the loftiest — may eventually be inducted into the service of this micro-world. But for the present, let us make the evils and blessings of the day, sufficient unto the day.

I write with newcomers chiefly in mind, although old-timers are welcome to profit by anything they find here. But I will address the question of “where to begin” quite simply, by embarking directly from where the new arrival is most likely to be. And that is, in a state of perplexity. “Where do I fit in?” is what the newcomer will most likely be asking. The newcomer wants a map, marked with a bold, bright ‘X’ upon the spot where he or she is presently situated. And I will undertake to provide such a map, and to proffer such hints and helps upon the journey as will assist the pilgrim to draw the big, bold X-mark from his or her own reasoned conclusions.

At the outset, I feel safe in concluding that you are not a feminist. I am so sure of this, that I will take it as the organizing premise for all that follows. If you are not dead certain, at the very least, that you are not a feminist, then I would counsel you to retire elsewhere until you have cemented this conviction firmly in your own mind.

Very well, let us review a few basic things. I say a few, because there exist far more such things than I can do justice to in the allotted space. So I will stick to such items as a newcomer would find profitable for orientation. Accordingly, since you, the newcomer, are not a feminist, I think it is safe to say that you are situated in the non-feminist portion of reality. What do you think: does that sound about right to you?

Good. Now, if it will further assist your understanding, think of a hard line drawn straight through the middle of the human race. On the one side of this line, picture a banner with the word FEMINIST inscribed upon it. And on the other side, a banner inscribed with the word NON-FEMINIST. Are you visualizing that?

What you are mentally depicting, is something we call the sector system.And what is the purpose of this . . sector system? I’m glad you asked! Simply put, the sector system is an efficient way to organize your thinking in terms of the larger sociopolitical struggle which presently engages us. Yes, each side of that conceptual line is called a sector –that is the term we use. And so accordingly, we have both a feminist sector and a non-feminist sector. And friend, you and I both know which sector we belong to . . . don’t we?

The sector system is useful because it throws feminism on the defensive, forcing it to justify its own presence on earth by answering to something objectively OTHER than itself. Feminism is not the world, but the feminists want very badly to convince the world otherwise. And feminist behavior toward the rest of us is very much like American foreign policy:”We will bring you the blessings of our way of life whether you asked for it or not! We know what is good for you!” But again, the sector system rises up as a challenge to the feminist attitude.

Yes, the hubris and arrogance of feminism has been colossal; it is a revolution meant to encompass even the tiniest dimensions of life, and it aims to convert the rest of the world entirely to feminism — it will not take no for an answer! The feminist posture toward the rest of the world is one of sheer aggression, blended with a heavy dose of totalitarian psychology — a macro-plan which they intend to cram into the micro,whether the micro wants it or not! The micro? That’s you and me, friend!

Briefly then, feminism does not look kindly upon the existence of anything independent of itself or unequivocally other than itself. That is to say: the feminist sector aims to squeeze the non-feminist sector completely out of existence.

And what is wrong with that, you ask? Many things, foremost of which is that the project which feminism proposes is impossible; it cannot be accomplished; it is a falsehood from the very outset, and to impose it by force can only end in grief and calamity for all concerned. But however far the wreckage extends, feminism can never force the non-feminist sector to stop existing. And that is for the same reason that a lie can never force the truth to stop existing.

The True Believers of the feminist cult believe that Feminist Theory has the power to explain all of life, universally. But the falsehood of this can be demonstrated, and indeed, has been so demonstrated, thousands of times, by the philosophers of the non-feminist revolution. These fine thinkers have plied their trade patiently, and thanklessly, for many years. The reason they advance so slowly, is because they are voices in the wilderness with so very little power against a massively entrenched establishment. When the powers-that-be ordain you as the “village idiot”, nothing you say carries any weight. What walks tallest upon this earth is not truth, righteousness, or intellectual integrity, but power pure and simple. The powers-that-be know this well, and they chortle about it.

It makes no matter if feminism has been discredited a thousand times, or ten thousand, or untold thousands. All of that intellective work is no better than spinning your wheels in the mud if it gains you no traction in the arena of sociopolitics. So here is where the sector system turns the tables. In one clean stroke — by merely declaring itself!– the non-feminist sector delivers a revolutionary message that feminism is not the world. By sheer self-announcement, non-feminism occupies space in the world and demands to know what the hell feminism plans to do about this. It is as if non-feminism were saying to feminism “what the hell makes you think you are the only game in town?” In the end, the message of the non-feminist sector to the feminist sector, is a simple, non-negotiable DEMAND FOR SOVEREIGN CO-EXISTENCE.

And what does this mean in terms of everyday practice? It means you are entitled to proclaim openly, even loudly, that you are not a feminist, to go your jolly way unmolested, and to quietly pass the balance of your days in a like manner. At first, this might not sound like anything much, but I can assure you that the moral dimensions are critically significant. And in time, those dimensions will fan out into other dimensions.

As a non-feminist, you are nowise bound to answer to any feminist for your personal indifference toward feminism. That fact is immensely important. On the face of it, there is no better warrant to be so interrogated by any feminist, than to correspondingly interrogate said feminist in non-feminist terms. What gives them the right, anyway? Who do these people think they are?

Remember, that you have told them nothing save that you are not a feminist. And that reveals very little about you — in fact virtually nothing! And so long as you say no more about yourself, they cannot possibly know more. THEY might think that it says a lot about you, that you would verbally disown feminism. But they are just plain wrong! For they cannot possibly know what another person understands by the word “feminism” if that other person does not explain what he understands by it. So they areout-of-bounds if they merely presume that the non-feminist means the same thing by “feminism” as THEY do, and they are a thousandfold out-of-bounds if they derive any moral imputation from such a circumstance.

We have a special counter-feminist name for this feminist “presumption of shared meaning”. That name is feminist subjectivism. Feminist subjectivism embraces the fullness of feminism’s narrative authority, and may be understood as the sum total of stories which the feminists tell themselves about themselves, and so are constrained to tell others. Among such “stories” may be included the many conflicting, ill-defined, and incoherent understandings of the word feminism. Thus, feminist self-definition comes under the broad umbrella of feminist subjectivism, and will be found to be pivotal.

Feminist subjectivism combines readily, and rapidly, with the feminist conceit that feminism is the world — or at least, that feminism authoritatively interprets the world. Thus, it is nigh on impossible for a deeply indoctrinated feminist to accurately assess people and circumstances in the non-feminist world — which, truth to say, lurks around every corner! Given that those external objects are not permitted to operate under their own laws and narratives — or not acknowledged to do so — they are transformed by the feminist gaze into a projective hallucination of feminism itself, and feminism becomes, for its participants, a house of mirrors with no windows.

Feminism’s projective hallucination is simply the worldly gamut of people and situations interpreted to fit feminist theory, and as such, it composes the actual fabric of the wall. Such is the transformation wrought by the feminist gaze. To phrase this more elegantly, the projection is not projected onto the wall — it IS the wall. It is objective reality subjectivized, which is precisely what makes it hallucinatory. It is like a fantastical soap-film of deluded understanding which clings to the surface of people and situations, falsifies their nature, and blocks the feminist gaze precisely at its opaque boundary — so that the world beyond becomes impenetrable to feminist comprehension.

But the opacity works only in one direction — from the inside-out. From the outside-in, however, the wall is transparent, even non-existent! In consequence, we on the outside can see those on the inside very, very clearly, yet cannot be truthfully seen by them!

And everything we do means something different to them, than it does tous. And so they would have us believe, that whatever they think we are doing . . . is in fact what we are doing! You see, they have never bothered to consult us about this! Apparently, they know more about us than we do!

Very well. Their delusion about us is the “original sin” in this scenario, the initializing transgression that started the whole charade rolling. Yes, they started it! They have built their supposed higher understanding upon a theoretical foundation that is far from settled, and therefore open to dispute. But they will not (because they cannot) acknowledge this, and not to mince words, it means that they are living a lie. And since they are living a lie, they cannot afford to see or comprehend anything that wouldgive the lie to that lie. That is why they cannot see past the hallucinatory wall of their house of mirrors, and why we can see them with more authority than they can see themselves. We are not encumbered by a deception from the outset.

That is also why they have sewn us into the fabric of their hallucination — fraudulently turning us into something we are not, and making that falsification binding upon us. They have, to coin a new word, hallucifiedus — even though we are REAL and know that we are real! And the more we struggle to break free from this trap, the more surely we “become” what the eye of feminist subjectivism insists upon seeing — because, so far, they have the worldly power to “make it stick”. We are both real AND the figment of another’s disordered imagination, and it does not please us to be trapped in such a paradoxical hell.

So much for the evils of feminist subjectivism. It suffices to understand that this can’t go on forever, and can only culminate in violence and destruction — that the house of mirrors will be shattered without mercy, but that said shattering will not go unaccompanied by a general shattering of everybody and everything. In short, a pandemonium from which none will find haven — that is, unless we take considered steps, and right soon, to forestall such an eventuality.

Very well, the new recruit to our scene is at the very least not a feminist.That is neither asking, nor expecting, too much. I hope I have made clear by now, that people other than feminists are permitted to furnish adefinition of feminism according to their own criteria. I say this simply because the objective reality of feminism is as real as the subjective reality of it, because that objective reality is knowable only by an objective seer who walks an objective path of knowledge, and finally because feminists themselves, of all people on earth, are the least amenable to such a path.

To suggest that we are “misrepresenting” feminism is itself a misrepresentation. We are not misrepresenting it, but rather RE-representing it. It is our weighty conclusion, that the feminists themselves cannot be trusted to represent feminism accurately beyond the limits of their own sector. I mean, that while the feminist word about feminism is undoubtedly true within the moral gravity-well of the feminist sector, it merits no credence anywhere outside that perimeter. Such are the fruits of feminist subjectivism. Accordingly, what a feminist says about feminism, though it be the sweetest of nectars within the feminist domain, at once becomes the untreated effluent of a sewerwhen it overflows into the non-feminist sector. Feminism’s writ does not run beyond feminism’s border, and that includes both narrative authority and the power of definition. Again, feminism is not the world.

And so you, my recently-arrived friend, face a question that we all face at some point in our counter-feminist careers. You have confirmed in your own mind that you are not a feminist, and you now propose to sink operative roots in non-feminist territory. But have you thought long and hard about what it really means, to be a non-feminist? Algebraically, what does it mean to be not X? Clearly, you must know the value of the term X. And in the social algebra which presently concerns us, you must likewise know the value of the term feminist. Or more to the point, the termfeminism.

So it is not enough simply to know that you are not a feminist. You must, in addition, have a clear, precise conceptual model of what this thing feminism actually IS — so that X becomes a known quantity. And finally, in order that you will not be at cross-purposes with your non-feminist cohorts, your conceptual model of feminism ought to bear a marked similarity to their conceptual models — so that you and they shall agree upon the value of X, and shall proceed, as it were, by an algebraic understanding of things. I go now to enlarge upon this.

The non-feminist sector is populated by a variety of humans of both sexes, who cover the spectrum of human nature, and about whom no moral generalization is either possible or politically relevant. The non-feminist sector — or as habituated insiders would more tersely say, the sector — includes folk who are in varying stages of political awakening. Some of them do not yet know that they are non-feminists; the question has not yet migrated to the forefront and become vital for them. Such ones are distinguished chiefly by the nascent elements of a worldview which, if fully fleshed-out, would urge some manner of political confrontation with feminism. But, they haven’t quite yet gotten there.

However, there will come a time when the inert non-feminist turns into an activated non-feminist, or if you prefer, a partisan of the non-feminist sector. This is when confrontation becomes imminent. The partisan will gravitate toward the sphere of real-world practice, and will need to direct her endeavor toward a target of operations — a defined region of sociopolitical space. So the need arises for a pragmatic template by which to chart this defined region. And when all activated non-feminists have mastered this template, we say that they have gained critical consensus, or more precisely, target consensus. The character of their separate endeavors may vary tremendously as per ways and means, but it is imperative they converge upon the same target of operations with the necessary esprit de corps.

Briefly, they must be unlike the blind men in the fable, for they must see the elephant. And that is especially true if they are working on different parts of the elephant, in which case they must communicate and coordinate.

Target consensus is founded upon a common understanding of what feminism IS, and this understanding informs all decisions about what to strike, and when, and how. And counter-feminist analysis claims to provide the master template, the parting of the waters, the necessary objective vision of reality that will generate target consensus and render activated non-feminist projects operable.

The non-feminist revolution is every imaginable thing that is willfullyopposed to feminism. It is found side-by-side with every imaginable thing that is simply not feminism. These two categories are both not feminism, but the former is activated while the latter is inert. And the non-feminist sector is the territory which they cohabit. It is critical to understand that this territory is in no sense a “movement”, but only a container of everything that is not feminism — only some of which is presently trying to damage feminism.

And the non-feminist revolution itself is likewise not a “movement”, but a motley, sprawling aggregate of separate and distinct motions that are sometimes aware of each other, and other times not. However, these separate motions are in the process of finding each other and synchronizing their efforts. We call this a “revolution” because it serves to turn the tables, and if there were another word more all-embracing than revolution – we would use it.

As simply as can be stated, the goal of the non-feminist revolution is to bring about feminism’s moral isolation by driving a wedge between feminism and non-feminism, and by reducing feminism’s presently vague and fuzzy borders to a sharp line that anybody can clearly discern. This will embrace a multitude of operations, both intellectual and political, and will prove fatal to feminism if properly carried out.

The present treatise does not aim to bring the newcomer to a point of target consensus. That is a task the reader must herself gradually bring to fruition in her own way. But I have posed for consideration, in a merely rhetorical fashion, the question of the reader’s non-feminism. I have urged the reader to ponder what that non-feminism might actually consist of, and I have stressed the importance of aligning such mental ingredients with those of other non-feminist partisans, in furtherance of our work.

The newcomer has likely heard of certain individuals known as “MRAs”, and been made aware that many of them, at any rate, have a rather piquant reputation. With respect to these . . “MRA” people, altogether too little, and too much, has been said. So at the risk of saying either too little or too much, I will venture another groat upon the heap: that any non-feminist man or woman who is “all fired up” about the idea that men are human beings with human dignity and human rights, may properly consider himself or herself an MRA.

But for the feminists, who are the dullest clods on earth and have no idea what is going on, the term MRA is simply an emotional lightning-rod for their barely suppressed guilt, and for their growing anxiety about feminism’s future.

On that note I conclude this treatise, trusting that the reader has gleaned something of value by the study of it.