Discover more from Polemics
The Other Kind of Feminism
I want a woman that appreciates and understands why I don't believe the Holocaust happened
There are two types of feminism.
Put simply, once the word “feminism” is uttered in any discussion, it will lead to some kind of disgust. Imagine a blue-haired chick crying about how some non-white guy at the Walgreens registers misused her pronouns. Yes, that is considered to be “feminism” today.
In technical terms, think of the concept of “nominalism.” Think of what Alexander Dugin argues in his book, The Theory of a Multipolar World, where “the Western drama” condescends against all opposing systems. What remains is an extreme individualism above the collective. An isolation-based ideology that seeks transhumanism above any paternal concept of loyalty or duty.
Feminism could be described as a transhumanist movement catered to white women, or “Karens,” seeking complete private privilege, self-entitlement, and fulfillment of a gynocracy worldview. Technology, and the accelerationist concepts of “Skynet AI,” “The Borg,” and any computer reality, will fight against what is “human” or what has “gender.” What’s left is a “woman without a woman.”
What we have is a radical egalitarianism that advocates a subcultural consumer choice of being a woman. It’s an entitlement for those who hate men, and for those who wish to project a Eurocentric supremacy (of Victorian-style mannerisms) upon everyone else.
That’s what feminism gives us.
Or does it?
It is the second type of feminism I subscribe to.
I am the last-living feminist, or a traditional “women as women” advocate. It’s not so much about escaping the body or having an equal vote in a racially similar setting, but persuading men that women’s rights begin with the concept that their nature is to care and nurture, that ultimately, women must express female sexuality and persona. In other words, she wants to understand why I believe the Earth is flat and becomes fascinated by the subject. She can speak for herself, not as a liberal, and can understand men.
Of course, F. Roger Devlin argued in Sexual Utopia In Power that unrestrained female sexuality will lead to dire consequences (which we are seeing now), but I still protest and argue that a woman can and should understand the intellectual, not the sexual, needs of a man. Sure, she has a unique sexual projection (or female gaze) upon the world, but her liberation begins with her honest understanding of the female self.
In John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women, Mill argues that the intellectual should be given complete power in society. However, this in turn is the beginning of the liberal movement in the West, and the tradition of hating the non-white “philistines,” or the “uneducated.” While I strongly disagree with the Eurocentric and arrogant liberalism found in Mill, I agree with Mill that women, in general, should be educated about ethics, morality, and the nature of sexuality.
It isn’t so much that women need an “equal” vote, but women should have the power and duty to look out for and protect men. Not just all men, but men who are abused by society, and those “weak” men who seek a platonic dialogue around intellectualism and rationalism against barbarism. This of course is contrarian to how women naturally act, like Devlin assumes, as women are not interested in the hobbyisms or intellectual pursuits of men, thus becoming hostile against men as nonproductive “nerds.” Constantly the female sexual drive reaches for the barbarian alphas that leads them astray. That is not feminism. Why listen to Andrew Tate or Roosh V for advice? We must shun women who get with alphas.
We can’t let the 8-foot guy at the party steal the blue-haired Asian chick.
The point of true feminism is to leverage the understanding of Platonism for both sexes and to have a demanding dialogue with women. It’s not about equality, but men speaking of Nietzsche amongst each other during a BBQ party while women act upon this intimate understanding.
Of course, the ugly face of female (and male) sexuality comes out during these socialist events. Think, “Wow she’s got a nice pair of tits,” or “I like that dude with blonde hair.” This is a truth, and we incorporate it with sexual politics.
Feminism should not be a movement fighting for egalitarianism, but a movement about the diverse understanding of the platonic soul, often prescribed as a “feminine soul” to some in the masculine movement. It’s not about celebrating the shallowness of female sexuality, but acknowledging women can be your intellectual sisters.
It’s not a celebration of Christianity. It’s acknowledging nature and difference.
I graduated from Rosemont College, a women’s school, and was the only boy in that environment. What I noticed, is that when women are alone with each other, they bicker, gossip, and break down each other. It’s the conclusion found in Picnic at Hanging Rock. However, when one heroic man is present, (like the breeding lottery in Plato’s Republic), the “best” woman is taken by him, while the other rejected women try and destroy her. This natural sexual hierarchy reinforces that the first feminism does not work.
Of course, men could read Il Piacere by Gabriele d’Annunzio and still not understand the sexual nature of women. They may talk of “pick up artistry” and “game” to woo them over. Even Jean-François Lyotard in Libidinal Economy discusses the nature of the slut, who proclaims the statement “Use Me” in an attempt for the powerful man to take her. The enforced idealism of seduction is still there. Self-destruction begins with gynocracy. It ends with Hanging Rock.
The latter feminism, which I announce myself as part of, does not require PUA games, or any seduction tricks to attract women. Rather, it requires a confident intellectual. It is found in the egoist nature of Jacques Lacan who wants to woo over the opposite sex. We could have those cool muscles, but ultimately, the Mill-esque martyr spirit that can seduce an artsy girl without the macho bullshit. The true feminist can excel without transhumanism.
We act upon a single ethos:
And I mean it.
Become a copy of Lacan.
I am Lacan.
You are Lacan too.
And as corny as this sounds, if she loves you, she would trust you as a sincere intellect. She wouldn’t call you a “nerd,” an “incel,” or just “out of her league.” She, like a sister or mother, would trust you. Therefore, would love you too.
You can believe that “Bigfoot is real” and she still loves you. That is true feminism.
It sounds like a fantasy, but it’s not. It’s within our reach, as true feminists. A man can benefit from the understanding of a woman, not because of her self-destructive nature, but from “the female spirit” that kindles the masculine urge of intellectual ethics, of the true Logos incarnate.
Again, I am a proud feminist. I am NOT a blue-haired, neoliberal capitalist “erect a George Floyd statue in Taiwan” type of white-woman-Karen crazy feminist, but a feminist who cares about men who have been abused by the system, who wish to protect their freedom of speech, and who knows the difference between brother and sister.
Women should intellectually engage with men instead of falling or projecting their sexualities upon everyone else. The male sexual urge is apparent everywhere, but it’s just as powerful as female sexuality. Is a “matriarchy” just as evil as any assumed “patriarchy?” And who said the patriarchy is evil? Rather we should understand our sexualities, the importance of it, and the dignity we have for one another.
We are an army of miniature Lacans.
We have to stop women from rejecting men because of how autistic they are and let them engage sincerely as “autistic” women, throwing away irony as their social lubricate. Irony fuels the anger between the sexes.
We need sincerity more than ever.
We need autistic women.
As a true feminist, I am against transhumanism, yet I want to lift the spirits of straight-edge moralists and mothers. The woman creates the world. She has to love her sons, brothers, and fathers. We must respect that drive.
Feminism is supposed to be a movement that lets women take part in the spiritually intimate. It is an intellectual discussion with her male counterpart. She is not being offended over “dirty jokes” or irrational taboo subjects but wants to engage and rationally think like men. She will never be offended, nor will she curse off men as evil doers.
They call us problematic. That is so not true. Men act like women out of the platonic spirit. They call men who hang with women “out of touch.” He’s not gay, but a “nonpracticing homosexual.” How dare they call us politically incorrect, all while they ignore that some men have always had female friends, or are constantly dependent upon women.
I can talk about “how the holocaust never happened” with a woman. That is true feminism.
Read Robert Faurisson without fear. That’s how you get women.
That’s the entire point.