Systematic Feminism

In Memoriam of the Career of Sir Richard Timothy "Tim" Hunt FRS, FMedSci

"Strong Son of Socialism, immortal Creed,
Whom those, that have not seen thy face,
By faith, and faith alone, embrace,
Believing where they cannot prove;
Thine are these orbs of light and shade;

Thou madest Life in man and brute;
Thou madest Death; and lo, thy foot
Is on the skull which thou hast made."

“Our class enemies (the British bourgeoisie) are empiricists, that is, they operate from one occasion to the next, guided not by the analysis of historical development, but by practical experience, routinism, rule of thumb, and instinct.”[Trotsky, 1921: Military Doctrine or Pseudo-Military Doctrinairism.]

It is claimed that feminism is a movement that represents women's self interests; and it is presumed that the self interests of 'feminism' and women, are identical. Yet it is also known that feminism comes in waves, like fashions; does that mean that women's self interests are also fashionable, like wet clay?

Women are never invited to vote on feminism, nor the manifestos that distinguish the various waves that crop up from time to time; women are expected to comply with the prescribed fashions, without question or referendum. It's as though feminism is an anonymous dictatorship, imposed upon fashionable women.

Feminism's subversive credentials:

The human condition needs the capacity for both radical and conservative thinking. If our human cultures evolved, much in the same manner as our physical nature, then it would follow that we need radicalism to act as the 'mutating agency', necessary for evolutionary modification; and we would also need conservatism to function as the 'DNA', that preserves the 'fit' from the 'unfit', as expressed in the surviving traditions of that culture. To illustrate this, imagine the extremes of both: too much radicalism leads to the mutation of mutations, both good and bad, so the system would not survive due to lack of discriminating efficacy; and too much conservatism would lead to fossilisation, that would diminish survival options should the environment change. Thus conservatism is the counterbalance of radicalism, and vice versa; therefore a natural and spontaneous society will be stabilised by the dynamic of a negative feedback equilibrium.

In contrast, the idea of a perpetual revolution, as advocated by the likes of Trotsky, through the imposition of idealist radicalism, would have to rely upon positive feedback. But from Le Chatelier's principle, a spontaneous natural system will react in rebellion against imposed radical perturbations, driving that system to unstable crisis as a result of the imposed positive feedback. Hence perpetual radicalism of society can only be maintained by unnatural systematic idealism, else that driven society will either die or rebel.

Idealist radicals will often awaken the Narcissistic self interests of their chosen identity groups, so as to co-opt their allegiances, via promised assistance and special favours; especially if they are weaned on self pity from subversive histories of their ilk. And those so deceived, will beg for group representations to enhance their voice, in the hope of democratic power over and above those not in their fold. Their self interests can only be stymied by the presence of an equivalent power in opposition, such as cussed rebels, else there will be a runaway positive-feedback destabilisation. Thus a synthetic cult, such as feminism, will induce a natural rebellion, such as the various men's groups, if the people are free to act in accordance to their evolved human condition.

Since it is universally understood by all parties, that a democratic State should function separately from the Church, so as to safeguard against any possible dissonance between mind and spirit, it is important to recognise and nullify the detrimental effects of any cult, or 'special interest identity groups': “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. When a State, responsible for the well being of the whole society, supports any self interest group within that society, it will generate sectarian conflict.

A belief system that is neither empirically, analytically, nor democratically mandated, is a cult. There, but for the grace of God, goes feminism. Feminists adhere to their identity cult by virtue of unquestioning belief, seduced by the conceit of superiority, by simply 'being a women', and conserved in piety by not being a male pariah; the her-volk of the fashionable Reich. Thus the cult of feminism is counter to democracy, when it inveigles itself into State laws, as well as being detrimental to the health of a natural society. So, for the preservation of a natural healthy society, it becomes a moral imperative to oppose any State that advocates a feminist cult.

Representational democracy, without free natural morality to thwart positive feedback, will make a virtue of fashion and popularity; which are the very things that identity politics uses to garner unquestioning support. What representational member of Parliament would vote against any policy that is dressed in the special needs of feminist issues, especially since they are State sanctioned? Thus feminism is a means to sidestep true democracy. And by adding to the panoply of female-focussed quangos and State sponsored outreach and awareness groups, that burden our shared economy, the State increases its control of the 'democracy', and the economy, via feminised employment laws. All this is achieved by displacing natural spontaneity with contrived systematic feminist fashion.

Consider the oxymoron of equality and diversity. This subversion of logic serves to generate, via edict and law, a homogenisation of all cults; thus rendering a 'culture-less'  society, composed of all views across the political spectrum. Indeed, a truly balanced society would be incapable of making a democratic decision, because left and right would be 50:50. But if one cult was allowed full sway, and by identity self interests, persuaded 20% of the electorate to vote in accord to the fashion, then that 'democracy' could be controlled by that cult, as all future votes could potentially resolve to as high as 60:40 majorities, all other things being equal. If the cult of feminism didn't exist, then a Socialist State would have to invent it: "You shall have no other gods before me".

Socialism, that feminists advocate, will lead to Totalitarianism; because any systematic control of the economy by the State that represents a special needs group, especially if those in 'need' are members of the State executive, will inevitably divert wealth towards their own power, at the expense of the market. Hence a destructive self-perpetuating extortion ensues, which can only be maintained by the power of the State being used in an absolute fashion against any spontaneous attempts to establish a free market:

Politics is mapped by two orthogonal axes: the good/bad axis versus the true/false axis. The exclusively rational of us would only see the line of 'truth'; and the those who are exclusively passionate, will only see the line of 'good'. The whole populace, however, will be distributed between these extremes as a result of both individual diversity, and personal conceit, as nobody has an incentive to contradict themselves. Furthermore, they will regard being 'right minded' as the virtue of being both true and good, albeit to different extents and emphases, according to the subject matter, and their personalities. Therefore in the political landscape of representational democracy, right and wrong can change according to either principles of truth, or popularity of good:

In a natural society, the laws of equilibrium prevail, and Le Chatelier's principle, applies. Hence, there are no rebels with a cause, only radicals are seduced by these inventions. Therefore radical politics must appeal to self interests, in order to overcome the natural cussedness of the human condition that tends toward the status quo. So, in order to persuade the self interest group to change from a natural state to a contrived state, the politician can appeal to their passions of special wants and needs; hence radical politics will promote the 'good lie' via fashionable propaganda. Meanwhile, all those not in the cult, will spontaneously oppose the propaganda with unfashionable rebellions of 'bad truth'. Famously caricatured in '1066 and All That' by the line: "The Roundheads were right but repulsive; whereas the Cavaliers were wrong but wromantic." And of course, since nobody has an incentive to contradict themselves, the propaganda of the opposing faction, is the wisdom of the other. The ensuing sectarianism is the temporary divorce of one part of humanity from the other, thus they no longer contribute to mutual stabilisation of each other, as each sectarian group now resides in its own quasi-society. Prior to feminism, men and women were complementary sexes of a symbiotic life; after feminism, men and women became 'opposite' sexes.

And in modern times, with the evil of feminism hijacking State ethics, we have the fashionable 'good lies' becoming the 'big lies' such as: 1 in 5 men are paedophiles, and 1 in 4 men are rapists; which induces the cussed and unfashionable 'bad truths' that most children murdered, are murdered by women, and 94% of rape accusations are judged to be false. Despite the best efforts of State-Feminist propaganda, to pervert reality, present 'traditional' freedoms allow independently minded folk to counter it, via the internet. Therefore the internet community represents its own 'counter-cult', that the various  centralised socialist States, or pseudo-democracies, must either thwart or control, if they are to continue their totalitarian ambitions and investments.

Because feminists have become their own autonomous quasi-society, they too are prone to internal sectarianism, as their sense of righteousness includes elements from both political axes. So even self serving groups may show signs of schism, owing to the variations of selfish motive from within. For example, there are at least two types of identity feminism. The first type views womanliness as exemplary: the argument from inclusive conceit, relying on feminism as a 'virtue by identity', in and of itself; driven by fashionable, radical academia, and its Narcissistic self-regard. The second type regard men with contempt: the argument from exclusive piety, relying on the puritanical slant of man as pariah; driven by the evil of State controlled media propaganda. These standpoints can only cohabit in a synthetic reality; but when a real political event, or choice of propaganda, turns up, it helps expose the demarcation of these forms, thus highlighting the incompatibility of trying to map popular 'truth' and principled 'good' onto the same axis; both fail, as one exposes the shortcomings of the other:

What is the difference between a 'good lie' and a 'bad truth'? The unpopular truth is spontaneous, discovered, and real; whereas the popular lie is manufactured, fashioned to flatter, and deliberately fake. For lies have the function to deceive, they are systematic; unlike the truth, which at worse, is random. Therefore the intent of deception can be divined by the means of correlating all the data. Thus we can separate lie from the truth in much the same way that we can eliminate systematic experimental errors, by the meta-analysis between other systematic errors.

Alas, if the powers-that-be have the blanket influence of mainstream media propaganda, to control all the data sources, then all meta-analyses will simply compound the 'good lie' of systematic fashion. Whereas the truth can be made to look bad simply by overstating its random qualities, or juxtaposing it with fake correspondence, and fabricated conspiracies.

Positive feedback is induced; it can be revealed, via Google search term trends, that feminism is likewise induced, simply by comparing 'feminism' against a truly spontaneous subject like 'atheism':

The graphs show that Google searches using the word 'feminism', tend to take regular holidays during summer and winter, indicating the professional profile of 'feminism', via its Google search trends; compared to the spontaneous movement of 'atheism' as a search term. This indicates that feminism is a synthetic idealism, driven by an agency other than its followers: idealists leading the fashionable; whereas atheism is generally rebels leading rebels.

Feminism, the toxic spawn of socialism, is a form of collective Narcissism. This is because it is an 'identity politic', whose compliant flock profess to seek equality; yet they never aspire to the heights of others, instead they demand, in a Procrustean fashion, to force others to fit their frame; as though they were a self evident exemplar. And since the nature of identity politics is the exclusion of the 'other', then all those not in the fold will be condemned by the edicts of 'equality'.

Because the human condition is natural and spontaneous, it will comply with natural laws of evolution and dynamic equilibrium. And because positive feedback subversion opposes the natural spontaneous order of the human condition, cults like feminism and socialism invariably lead to the perversion of life, and the death of freedom and culture. Any society foolish enough to be duped by the synthetic promises from an identity cult, will be selling their humanity for a mess of fashionable pottage. It is therefore a moral imperative of any natural society, to oppose the systematic idealism imposed by any Socialist State.

“The Soviet bureaucracy is like all ruling classes in that it is ready to shut its eyes to the crudest mistakes of its leaders in the sphere of general politics, provided in return they show an unconditional fidelity in the defense of its privileges... It is possible to build gigantic factories according to a ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command – although, to be sure, at triple the normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the problem of quality, which slips out of the hands of a bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet products are as though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized economy, quality demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and initiative – conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and flattery. ” [Trotsky, 1936: Revolution Betrayed.]