As already stated, we are creating a map. This map specifically charts the workings of feminism as a socio-political organism. However, it neither pretends to be or needs to be exhaustive. Nor does it pretend to be the most effective map for every conceivable task that might arise in the course of future campaigning. It claims only to map the terrain in terms of master strategy - or more to the point, macro-strategy. Tactical maps for localized scenarios may be drawn at need by those of more localized expertise.

We operate independently of feminist self-description and feminist subjectivism. Those things are an involutional microcosm intended to wrap a fuzzy, suffocating blanket around our heads while the spider spins a silken mummy-bag around our lives. We prefer to view feminism from the outside, in terms of a larger socio-political pattern, and in terms of what we need to know about it in order to let the air out of its tires. We feel doubly well-advised in our policy when we consider that feminists have difficulty agreeing among themselves what feminism is. But we know what feminism means to US, and that suffices for our plans.

Counter-feminist analysis understands feminism as an unstable system of restless energy which seeks continually to arrange the surrounding world according to its needs. However, since feminism's needs are themselves shaped and guided by the evolving condition of the surrounding world, feminism must accordingly modify its demands to suit the changes which it introduces in the first place - simply in order to sustain expansionary equilibrium. This fuels another round of change, and another and another - a situation that we call perpetual revolution.

If feminism stopped moving it would become meaningless, as when air stops moving, wind becomes meaningless.

Perpetual revolution operates as an endless loop of change driven by feedback. However, one thing endures as an unfluctuating core, namely: the drive for female supremacy arising from disaffection toward males.

This core constancy explains why feminism so often contradicts its own dogmas. Those dogmas lack the true character of dogma, having instead the character of convenience doctrines - to be jettisoned when they are no longer convenient. Convenience doctrines lack constancy. For feminism, constancy appears in one point only, as stated above: the drive for female supremacy arising from disaffection toward males.

Feminism's status as a perpetual revolution dictates that feminism must remain in motion. The necessity for this is initially evident both from feminism's nature as a hate movement, and from its never-ending quest for a chimerical "equality" with men.

Let us consider the former case. Here, we find hatred of men built upon selective use of data as a means of generating validation, and such a process must remain in motion, continually seeking new material in order to function effectively. Its inherent lack of stability derives from what can only be termed "willed ignorance" - which is to say, a form of deception entailed in the first place by the element of selectivity, which implies partiality, or partial truth. Stability would render further deception impossible because it would make the core of that deception plainly apparent simply by forcing it to sit down and keep still. The questions and criticisms would thereupon press in from all sides, and the dynamo of perpetual revolution could no longer generate a counter-tide in its usual manner - by perpetually shifting the discussion like a game of three-card monte which hides the deception.

Now, let us consider the latter case - concerning "equality." The feminists love to remind us that they are just looking for "equality". Oh, the saving power of clichés! The heart of this particular flim-flam has already been scrutinized, so I will pass efficiently to the matter at hand. And that is, that sexual equality is just another shimmering heatwave mirage which moves ahead of the deluded traveler in proportion to his travels, and so stays forever out of reach. This ideally suits the requirements of perpetual revolution.

A two-fold task, one that might seem laughably self-contradicting, sets a particular burden upon feminism's perpetual revolution. It must establish the fictional world of feminism as the concrete, living actuality of daily life, and yet simultaneously prevent this new state of affairs from stabilizing itself. Any such stabilization would annihilate the movement along with all hope for a complete subjugation of men. The feminist movement must at all cost prevent a growth of normality from which a static pattern of life could evolve.

In a static pattern of life, feminism's habitual and constitutive fictions become progressively harder to sustain. Yet these fictions remain imperative as ever. The campaign for total subjugation of the male population (and the erasure of non-feminist reality) is structurally integrated into feminist ideology; the end of these things would spell the end of feminism itself.

If feminist culture becomes a static pattern of life with clearly understood rules and boundaries, feminism will lose its irrationally all-encompassing dynamism. But this it cannot afford to do - it has power because it is a dynamo, and it is a dynamo because it is dynamic. No dynamism, no power!

Feminism cannot settle into a static form of existence - for this would entail a static (and rational) distribution of power between the sexes, which means that men would be able to regain their equilibrium and their autonomy. Having done so, men would soon master the situation and master the game - if only by re-grouping their forces - and then they could no longer be subjugated. It is necessary to keep men perpetually off-balance - so they can't get their bearings and adapt to their environment. Hence the need for perpetual revolution. The feminists must continually move forward along their chosen pathway in order to compensate for natural forces that would carry them backward if they sat down and kept still.

How far would, or could, perpetual revolution extend itself? It is our thesis that perpetual revolution will sooner or later collapse under the pressure of competing forces. However, it is of interest to ponder the logical endpoint toward which perpetual revolution points according to the law of its own nature. That endpoint is, the annihilation of "patriarchy" or "male privilege" - and one must understand feminist code language to know what these things actually mean.

It would be necessary to master men "from the inside" - in the totalitarian tradition - in order to bring about the full consummation of perpetual revolution. The reason for this will be evident if we consider that "thought is free", and that destabilization of the social environment might not be quite enough, all by itself, to impinge upon the sanctity of inner space.

Thus, any man who remains in control of his emotions and ideations would have (at least in theory) the power to think ill of feminism, and such a man might turn into an organizer. So the collaborationists (consisting of the pro-feminist men's movement and other males supportive of feminist political energy) are working to instill the necessary deferentiality and servility in as many men as possible, as an erosive prophylaxis against such eventualities, such equilibriums, such autonomies......

Feminism's central project - the colonization of male space - can never be complete without the colonization of male inner space, and so long as feminism continues in existence, it will exert directed energy (under whatever system of camouflage) toward the fulfillment of this goal.

The above (purposefully brief) article treats in summary form what counter-feminist analysis holds to be the essential facts about feminism upon which any viable counteractive policy ought to build itself.

More Here...