The Poison Manifesto - The Vanguard Report (14 & 15)

Feminism Poisons Women

A Political Statement

By Fidelbogen: The present statement carries a harshly provocative title. That is deliberate, because the title is a hook. Our main purpose is to excite the reader’s anger or curiosity and inspire further investigation. Our secondary purpose is to leave an indelible mark on the reader’s memory whether the reader agrees with us or not.

So, what is feminism, how does it poison women, and what should we do about this? Our statement will involve these and related questions.

Feminism is many things, but for now it will suffice to know that feminism is antagonistic toward men and all things male. We gain this knowledge both by long study of objective reality and by reasoning from an irrefutable premise: that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. This leads us to wonder precisely how far the feminist project proposes to increase that power, and we are forced to conclude that the project has no clearly stated upper limit.

The problem assumes a particular urgency when you consider that  the growth of female power would hit a wall if it did not, at some point, begin to meld itself with state power. Hence, the feminist project could not but infiltrate the machinery of state, and if pushed far enough could issue only in a totalitarian level of government control – ostensibly for the benefit of women. In light of all this, we must ask if the feminist project means to increase the power of women infinitely? For want of any credible feminist statement to the contrary we must reckon that it does, and make all calculations accordingly.

The Vanguard Report No.15

To increase the power of women infinitely, by whatever means, would certainly make female power clash with male power. Here women would confront a choice – to either rein in their own power or to go on increasing it by overriding male power. To choose the former would terminate the feminist project. To choose the latter would advance the project, but only with a steady erosion of male autonomy. Again, as suggested, this would logically entail the growth of an anti-male state.
Such a posture of affairs would issue only in a subjugation of men, and to acquiesce in such a thing would comport only with antagonism toward men. So we conclude that the feminist project in its unfettered form amounts to a campaign of anti-male aggression, and would add that such a campaign is tantamount to war.
We further conclude that such a war is bound to inflict collateral damage on humanity at large. In acknowledging that such collateral damage is bound to happen, we affirm that men and women share a social ecology where damage to any part of the system has systemic consequences. Thus, in declaring that feminism poisons women, we are recognizing the systemic implications of a feminist war which poisons men.
It matters little where the poison is introduced. It just so happens that feminism, which initiates an attack against men, sets the process in motion by poisoning men first – by subjugating them, by denigrating them, by compromising their human rights, by bending them contrary to nature. From this, the collateral effect ripples through the social ecology and taints the lives of men and women alike. The web of male and female existence is too interwoven to confine the damage to men. You cannot poison merely half of a well.
In the long run, to poison men can only poison women also. Therefore, since our study of objective reality leaves no doubt that feminism indeed poisons men, we may safely conclude that feminism poisons women. However, if you mean to enhance the well-being of women it will not do to poison them.
In the end, we oppose feminism because feminism poisons everyone. So consider the present statement a rallying call to men and women everywhere who oppose feminism. By our study of objective reality we know that their numbers are considerable and, if the right stimulus be applied, apt to grow.
Accordingly, we wish to grow politically-awakened non-feminist numbers and bring about intellectual crystallization among those numbers. Most of all, we wish to create a public square effect – to break the silence so that everybody not only knows what’s up, but knows that everybody else knows. We want each and all to realize that they are not alone, and to catch a glint of that realization in the eyes of others.
The foremost obstacle to our proposed work, is the MYTH OF FEMINISM. By that we mean the orthodox narrative which the feminists themselves have fed to the world, and which the world has swallowed hook, line and sinker. We mean the sanctioned interpretation of reality which wraps around the word feminism itself so that no other sense can be admitted.
Hardly a conversation anywhere does not lie beneath the shadow of feminism’s narrative, and hardly a thought can take flight independently of that narrative. Such is the power of the feminist myth – it forms the beginning and end of all public discourse and swallows our lives into an intellectual gravity well. As a controlling paradigm of the present age, the myth of feminism spreads its power over most of the earth.
Opposed to the myth of feminism stands the reality of feminism – the part which it is not polite to talk about. It is this reality that we labor to unmask, in peeling away the myth layer by layer. Our impolite counter-feminist project is to subvert the orthodox meaning of the word feminism itself, but that is only the beginning. Our project goes further in that we aim to take back control of the language, and along with it the public discourse altogether.
The myth of feminism is one with the system of feminist lying. Nearly all of feminism is predicated on a structure of lies and half-lies that prop each other up, and the reach of this system is not easily overstated. A slow indoctrination of the public mind has occurred in the last half-century. One dubious proposition after another has passed unchallenged – hardening into commonly accepted dogma and forming the intellectual substrate not only for progressively greater distortions, but for institutional changes predicated upon such distortions.
Furthermore, the changes and distortions have crept into our lives and cemented themselves many layers deep. Hence, the original violation of truth is buried deeper than most people would care to search even if they knew where to start digging.
Our approach is post-argumental, meaning that the time for argument is past. Mutual quest for truth in good faith is a wasted occupation when you are dealing with feminists, for we have learned by hard experience that they have a thousand tricks to sabotage this.
Briefly, they do not wish to know what they do not wish to know. Likewise, they do not wish to make known what they do not wish to make known. Either way, they have a vested interest in concealment. So nearly everything they say promotes the myth of feminism and veils the reality of it, and if we choose to transact within their categories we validate their discourse and defeat ourselves before we speak a single word.
The feminists aim to keep doing what they are doing until they exhaust every inherent possibility which the feminist project contains. Their method is cyclical and dialectical, and they will redefine their project in a radical way whenever the original definition no longer serves them – that too is part of the feminist project. They will repeat this time and again, even contradicting earlier-stated principles if by so doing they can extract just one more drop of female empowerment. They will do all of this and more until some intervening power – human or otherwise – puts a stop to it.
That is why we are post-argumental: because we know that persuasion effort is wasted on most feminists, who will always find a way to dodge, deflect or derail anything we wish to communicate.
We are not totalitarian. We are not the thought police. We do not wish to modify feminist belief, but only to uncouple that belief from the power to act upon it in pernicious ways. Briefly, we wish to modify outward feminist behavior from the outside. That is because we know they will never modify their outward behavior from the inside as long as they feel secure in their power.
So our policy is to increase non-feminist power, chiefly by growing our numbers and making our presence more keenly felt within the public discourse. This will modify outward feminist behavior because it will make the feminists less smug. They will draw back into their shells a bit and moderate their tone a bit – and that is what we want them to do. Every time they draw back a bit we advance a bit, occupy more space, and operate with more freedom and ease. Thus secured, we become free and easy – and this draws more of the world to our side.
Once again, to argue with these people in hope of persuading them is a wasted occupation. Our effort is to whittle down their power – a slice here, a slice there. So we direct our persuasive force at the many non-feminists who are ready – nay, eager! – to be persuaded. In this way we consolidate our own power and make our job easier.

The master plan is to confront the feminist project with an autonomous power that goes its own way without consulting feminism. This autonomous power equates to the aggregate political will of non-feminist men and women everywhere. To say that this power goes its own way without consulting feminism, means that it operates outside the myth of feminism altogether. That myth has been overthrown, and along with it, the power of the myth to organize personal or political life.
Less abstractly, you may look any feminist in the eye and say: “Excuse me! I am not a feminist, so I am not bound to swallow anything you have told me!” Remember that they do not know the chain of reasoning which leads to your conclusion, and since you don’t owe them any answers, you have no duty to explain it. It matters only that by this one curt gesture, you have vacated the myth and gone your own way. Truly, this is where the road branches off. The personal and political ramifications of such a gesture are without limit, and you have a lifetime to explore them.
To be sure, that is a small victory – but the formula is what matters. In time, such individual victories will accumulate and join forces demographically. The micro will merge into the macro and, having reached a tipping point, will enter the public square where the sum of personal power becomes political power. In the end, this will generate a public polarization of opposed political wills – non-feminist against feminist. Everybody will know, and most importantly, everybody will know that everybody will know.
Feminism will go through an existential crisis where it is forced to negotiate co-existence with an “other”, and made to lose its collective solipsism under the harsh glare of the world’s gaze. The “other” is the combined political will of non-feminist men and women everywhere. The introduction of non-feminist alterity - the sheer otherness of all that is not feminism – will reload the scales of power and alter the nature of the game.
We have reached our verdict about feminism for well-considered reasons, but cannot hope to unfold these in the scope of the present statement. Furthermore, it would not serve our present purpose to do so. The business of the moment is to connect with affinitized minds everywhere, and we trust their nascent intuition to weigh the veracity of our conclusions.
We are often told by feminists that we “don’t know what feminism really is”, and admonished to read feminist books. In fact, we have studied a great amount of feminist literature over the years, but have drawn from these readings a very different conclusion than the various writers intended. Simply put, we have refused indoctrination.
We gauge the words of feminist authorities as we would gauge the words of politicians, with an eye to their duplicity. Some of them may be cynical and others may be self-deceiving, but never do we take them at face value. We know that these words, which conceal as much as they reveal, will not explain the living truth of feminism as it operates in the world around us. So that is why we confront feminism not merely as written words in a book, but as a factor in our lived experience – an alien force encroaching on our world and manifesting through its consequences.
We aim to subvert the orthodox meaning of the word feminism, and we begin by studying feminism’s consequences. We say that feminism’s excresence is its essence. What feminism excretes or oozes into our lives is not accidental but foundational – it marks feminism as feminism. This “essence” dwells along the interface where feminism breeches our world. It does not dwell within the explanation that any self-declared feminist prepares for public consumption, nor does it dwell within the private ideology of such a person. So if you want to know what feminism really is, you must look at the world around you.
As non-feminist men and women, we reject the myth of feminism. We know that the feminist project is to increase female power with no stated limit, and this same knowledge is our key to the reality of feminism. Make no mistake: we know with precision and clarity what feminism really is. All feminist words or actions, even the ostensibly laudable ones, serve to increase female power in one form or another, or to conceal some illicit motive.
Observation over time has borne this out, for we see that feminism’s accomplishment has been to pile up advantages for women in a one-sided way and to absolve women of moral accountability – always with a subtext of female victimhood and female entitlement. So when we pronounce the word feminism, we are speaking of precisely these things. We identify these things as the core of feminist reality, and assert that if you took these things away, feminism would effectively cease existing.
The myth of feminism, which governs the orthodox meaning of the term, dwells continually on the theme of so-called “equality” – and this theme operates as a sub-myth with a hugely powerful halo effect. One has only to intone the word “equality” to invoke the power of a fetish, yet the word amounts to little but a conversational windsock.The concept behind the word amounts to a mental rainbow – meaning a pretty thing that exists in the mind. Like an optical rainbow, it shimmers on the horizon and invites pursuit but stays forever out of reach. In real life, the word “equality” is feminist double talk which, if translated into plain speech, means “as much power for women as we can grab.”
Here again we see the principle confirmed, that feminism is the project to increase the power of women. We must understand that the project would grind to a halt if it were constrained by clear rules and fixed goals. Simply put, feminism is a mutating virus, and that is why so many versions of it operate simultaneously. Feminism’s drive for power cannot be sustained without endlessly switching the rules and pushing the goalposts further down the field, and the chimerical notion of “equality” serves this strategy to perfection.
It is this – the reality of feminism and not the myth – which holds our interest. In the end, feminism is precisely what we, as non-feminist men and women, declare it to be. We can’t help wondering why mere self-description as a “feminist” bestows any special authority to define feminism. Feminism’s inconsistency, fuzzy boundaries, and failure to self-police, makes the definition of it a universal concern and an open shop. You are as much entitled to call feminism “a destructive force sweeping through my world” (while unindoctrinated into feminism), as to say the same about a tornado (while uninstructed in meteorology).
No, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. As non-feminist men and women we know perfectly well how the wind of feminism blows in OUR world, and when we speak of this we speak the truth.
Here we may anticipate the bleating lament, “but that’s not really feminism!”- to which we can only reply: “Oh yes it is! We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot, and that is how we know what feminism really is!”  And we may anticipate the related lament, “what’s that got to do with feminism?” – to which we can only reply: “Feminist, you will make this clear to yourself in the fullness of time.”
We do not speak untruthfully about feminism. Rather, we speak the complete truth about it, minus feminist approval. Feminism’s greatest lie is a lie by omission: it does not tell the complete truth about itself – not even to itself!  As politically activated non-feminists, we mean to remedy their omission. That they will hate what we are doing, shall not deter us.
We know that in the end, the only way to stop the feminists from playing games with the word “feminism”, is to claim that word and control the meaning on our own account. Hence we declare the definition of feminism to be fair game for non-feminist men and women. The feminists will check their privilege and resign themselves to this.
Feminism is an earthly power whose legitimacy we are entitled to question, and if we find it detrimental we are entitled to seek remedy. That said, we do seek, by both direct and indirect methods, to undo feminism as a normative cultural mythology.
The real question is not whether all feminists are a certain way, but whether all FEMINISM is a certain way. That is a subtle distinction, but critically important because feminism’s prevailing tendency takes a form which can be broadly mapped and modelled. That said, we do not hesitate to paint all of FEMINISM with a broad brush, and to characterize it as, at best, an advocacy movement for the sole benefit of women, and at worst, a hate movement driven by disaffection toward the male sex.
We understand feminism as an endlessly growing social organism, distributed across the culture and across all points on the political spectrum. This organism draws its lifeblood from many quarters and it is difficult to distinguish feminism proper, from everything which upholds it or sustains it. That is, we cannot always pinpoint where feminism ends and the rest of the world begins. However, if we bear in mind that feminism is fed by a cultural supply chain, we will understand that this chain may be interrupted to good effect when we apply the necessary actions to the necessary links. In this pragmatic manner, feminism may finally be isolated as a target of operations.
The non-feminist revolution is a primordial pushback against feminism, a force of nature which cannot be suppressed. However, the exact form this revolution eventually takes will be either chaotically reactive or politically conscious – that is up to all of us. One can hope that it will be politically conscious, for this will minimize unpleasant developments and efficiently pave the road to a post-feminist future.
That is why we have conceived the counter-feminist project – to make the non-feminist revolution politically conscious. The project is multi-faceted, socially distributed and holistic – for we have concluded that a social organism, such as feminism, must be countered by another social organism that works to block it or neutralize it.
Consider the celebrated fable of the six blind men and the elephant. Feminism, to be sure, is much like the elephant – a collection of parts that can’t be isolated from each other lest we miss knowing what we are dealing with. But we are nothing like those blind men. We may specialize in different parts of the elephant but our sight is keen and we know how the beast looks from every direction.
So the counter-feminist social organism is distributed exactly as the task requires. Different operators in different sectors will apply the necessary actions, informing each other continually of developments and adjusting the plan as contingencies arise. The prime directive of our voluntary association, ever and always, is to sap the feminist power structure by drilling into points where that structure is weakly shielded.
The nameless feeling that something is wrong, has been growing for many years. We have searched hard for answers. We have studied deeply. We have conversed far into the night. The shape of the problem has yielded gradually to our analysis and we have released our knowledge, by stages, to the world. Feminism is the name we give to the problem. We have taken control of that word and what it means because those who formerly controlled it have tried to propagate a myth. Our effort is to thwart this and show the world something different.
In the course of our work we have discovered a pair of social taboos which hold the world in an iron grip, and we have seen that the problem is deeply rooted in these taboos. First, the taboo against naming feminism as a pernicious force in human affairs. Second, the taboo against treating male existence as a thing of inherent value. Counter-feminist action is based on a systematic and escalating violation of these taboos, and networks of groups and individuals will carry out the project in a variety of innovative ways.
We should note in passing that the distinction between attacking feminism and helping men is artificial – both activities violate the two taboos, both weaken the feminist power structure, and both are vital to the advancement of the counter-feminist project. The difference is one of focus or specialization, and you may choose either option as your talent inclines you. Vanguard practitioners have no quarrel with each other’s specializations.
The counter-feminist project, as simply as we can put it, is a cultural insurgency from all quarters. We would introduce novel elements into the public discourse and by so doing guide that discourse in a radically different manner. We aim not to establish universal belief in a set of ideas, but to establish those ideas as an overshadowing landmark in the mental landscape. You may love it or hate it, but you can’t ignore it. It colors your world and changes everything.
The counter-feminist project is a three-pronged initiative that aims to do the following:
First, to confirm a working definition of feminism within the non-feminist community. This will establish a focal vision for coordinated operations. It will also prevent the operators from working at cross-purposes.
Second, to decenter and disestablish the myth of feminism by building a counter-feminist culture of critique that pervades every corner of society. This will include both a serious intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, and a mainstream growth of mockery and witticism at feminism’s expense. It will also include an effort to catalogue the many forms of feminist aggression and micro-aggression in the greatest possible detail, so as to make these publicly known and available for correction.
Third, to promote conventional issues-based activism, such as lawsuits, lobbying, standing for public office, letter campaigns, street demonstrations, and pro-male “good works” in the community. We recognize that such activities will generate publicity, attract members, and weaken the feminist power structure in general. Hence, we deem them good.
Here we have depicted the counter-feminist project in broad strokes. We wish to make commonly known that such a project is underway and to enlist all manner of people, from everywhere on earth, as co-workers. The present statement is cast upon the world like a net which gathers affinitized minds. Anybody of any nation, occupation or station in life can settle into any corner of the project as we have sketched it, and commence work. The nature of their involvement is limited only by their imagination.
The project, indeed, has been going on for years, and keen observers will know that the community of affinitized minds is growing quickly. In the past this growth has been intellectually chaotic and politically inefficient, so the present task is to remedy that. However, we trust the accumulated in-draft of past outreach efforts to keep pulling in new people. Furthermore, we assume that a baseline of understanding has been established.  After all, the conversations have long been happening and the word has gotten out.
So we address present remarks to those who are up to speed or able to get there quickly. We seek such people – intellectual self-starters who can take a hint, see the lay of the land, govern their tongues, and needn’t be told twice.
Critique of feminism will become a sort of cottage industry. Anybody, of any sophistication, may have a go at this, but only high-level thinkers and strategizers will compose the vanguard. If you are of the latter, then do drop by.
We will, of course, need popularizers – people who can translate the message into a mass idiom, or into the idioms of various cultures, subcultures and communities.
In time, the counter-feminist project will merge with the ambient of the general culture and not be recognizable as the product of any singular group or “movement”  This will end feminism’s control of the cultural narrative. Having been shouldered aside by an upstart counterculture, feminism will become merely another competitor in the marketplace of ideas. It will no longer be privileged, but rather jostled with the throng and expected to “take its lumps”.
That day, which we so fondly anticipate, has not arrived quite yet. But to look on the bright side, it is getting closer – we who have been in the game for a good long while can attest to this. Recent times have brought dramatic change, and there is no question that the defenders of the feminist faith are digging in for a fight. They belatedly realize that a threat to their power has arisen, and the smell of panic mingled with false bravado is wafting from their side of the field. They are up to their usual tricks and lies, but they are doubling the dosage. Apparently, they think they can get out of trouble by doing more of what got them in trouble in the first place.
So let us consider the future. If we mean to boost feminism along the road to extinction, what can any of us individually do to help out? More precisely, where would any random person now reading this find his or her point of entry into the counter-feminist project?
The answer is, that only YOU can supply the answer. You are on your own. However, that is not so bad as it sounds because many have walked this road before you, and if you seek them out, or if you seek out the wisdom they have left on record, you will find much of the guidance you need. But still, you must take the initiative to seek what will sustain you in your quest, and in so doing you will find your answer and discover your niche in all of this.
Consider that we, the pioneers of the community, were given no map, no compass, no pole star, no flashlight, no field manual of any kind. We simply found our way, driven by the imperative to decipher things that made no sense.  Your case, in many ways, shall be no different. Ask yourself, why are you here now, reading this? What brought you to this juncture? The fact is, you have traveled a good way upon your road already – more than you realize! You ought to reflect upon that.
Know that you are not alone – you are reading this now and that should give you a clue. But look around, for the times are changing and a new spirit is abroad upon the earth. Seek the glint of understanding in a glance, the flash of recognition in a phrase. And yes, read the writing on the wall! Trust me, it’s out there, and you will know it when you see it.
This statement opened with the provocative idea that feminism poisons women, and prior to concluding, we should touch upon that once again.
Truly, the feminist poison spreads, and given the workings of the social ecology, this will poison women along with everything else. So even if we cannot expect compassion for men and boys to become a cultural norm, we can at least appeal to the socially conservative “woman-firsters” on their own level of understanding. If the male population is not treated decently, you may depend on it that the outcome for women will be poisonous. That is an ice cold logical prediction – there is nothing outlandish or perverse about it.  We would have only to fold our arms, sit under a tree, and watch it happen – for happen it will!
However, our present purpose is to issue a warning, like a man standing next to a highway waving a red flag, shouting “danger ahead! Turn back! Proceed at your peril!” We wish to avoid the worst for all concerned, and we make this statement because conscience guides us to do so. We call upon others, similarly guided by conscience, to align with the present effort.
Very well. Such dark and wild words will not sound dark and wild to everybody. Some now reading will directly comprehend what the non-feminist side is transmitting. Others will be on the brink of comprehending, wanting only a few choice hints to make it all light up. Either way, there is a ready public to be reached, and reach we shall! In three years, five years, twelve years, words like these will settle into place and make perfect sense to a critical mass of people.
For now, we preach to the circle of the knowing, and work patiently to expand that circle. Looking back across the years, we see that we have been successful in this method. We trust the future to crown our efforts likewise.
There is a new game in town, and the game is on.

Fidelbogen ~ 15 November, 2013


 

————————————————–

If the message given here meets with your approval, please propagate the link through all media at your disposal. You may download a PDF copy of this statement at the following address:

http://cfproject.blog.com/files/2014/02/The-Poison-Manifesto-.pdf 

Source 

The Vanguard Report No.14