Wednesday, November 06, 2013

The Manifesto of Coalition JS38

JS38 - Operational Overview

JS38 is a coalition of politically conscious non-feminist or counter-feminist groups and individuals. The name itself is a random character string which serves only as an identification tag. However, it is euphonious and memorable.

As a project, JS38 is designed to combat the problems which labelling often generates - such annoyances as branding, false grouping, conflation, stereotypification, message degradation and the like. We who oppose feminism are plagued by such difficulties either because we fail to transmit a clear, unified message signal, or because we fail to adequately differentiate the multitude of signals that we do transmit. Call this lack of coherence or call it lack of planning, but either way it comes back to haunt us. Worse yet, the legacy has been accumulating for years and we are now in it up to our earlobes.

We must first recognize that we are in a contest to sway hearts and minds, and that this contest is played out on the field of public rhetoric - by which we mean things audible to the world at large. Fortified with that understanding, we must set about to craft a message as best we are able.

Hence the JS38 coalition.  Our project is designed to boost and clarify a chosen message signal in a way which cuts through the chaotic background noise from other feminist-averse groups and individuals. In this way, our chosen message will gain a more individuated presence within the public discourse.

Think of the JS38 message signal as a tidy corner in a messy room: it naturally draws attention and creates focus. It becomes a center of orientation.

Members of JS38 (called "signatories") are aligned with each other under the terms of a Prime Constitution - a list of points encompassing a mission, a code of principles, and a practical worldview. The Prime Constitution is only moderately detailed and may sometimes raise questions that it doesn't quite answer. However, it includes enough key information that the signatories will share a mission-critical body of discourse which stands apart from other feminist-averse discourses. Conflation, in the public mind, will be avoided.

So JS38 offers the advantage that any kind of "chorus" would offer - it punches a message through by boosting the volume. But additionally, it permits each signatory to establish a clear self-identity. Signatories may readily disavow affiliation with groups and individuals who do or say untoward things - it would be as simple as pointing to the Prime Constitution and saying "I sign to THAT, and I stand upon it. If you want to know more, talk to ME."

What is more, the JS38 signatory may disaffiliate not only from random feminist-averse others, but from any other JS38 signatory as well! Hence, JS38 offers the best of both worlds because it permits you to be part of a group without the risk of being tainted by this.

In the end, JS38 is neither a moral collective nor an organization but only a joint intellectual effort to distill a message signal, and to differentiate this from what other feminist-averse groups and individuals are transmitting. It is based not on personal association, but on message affiliation.

JS38 separates the message from the messenger, and the personal from the political. The message is everything, the messenger nothing, and efforts to derail the message by making the messenger the subject of conversation, will be disallowed. In principle, JS38 is pure message. More precisely, it is a genetically related range of messages which set the parameters of a discourse. So if conversation strays too far afield, or if misrepresentation multiplies, reference to the Prime Constitution will pull the discourse back on track.

The points in the Prime Constitution are not listed in order of priority, and there is no linear progression of ideas from one item to the next. However, the items do form a loose holographic unity. The purpose is not to make everybody agree clear down to the last decimal point, but to confine their disagreement within a clearly mapped terrain of understanding.

The possible flavors of JS38 are unlimited. Any JS38 signatory may, if so inclined, publish a sub-constitution which enlarges on selected points from the Prime Constitution or adds new points. Any sub-constitution so created may then collect its own signatories, and any of these signatories may again publish a sub-constitution, and so on.

Ideally, every sub-constitution would list its entire chain of linkages, leading eventually back to the Prime Constitution, which is deemed canonical. In the end, this would generate a pyramidal structure of variations which cascade from the Prime Constitution.

We realize that signatories to the present document may at times differ sharply on matters of policy or interpretation. We believe that they can "agree to disagree", and remain within mission parameters. We believe that such disputes, if creatively managed, needn't compromise the mission trajectory as a whole.

Prospective signatories are advised to trust their intuition. Reading through the Prime Constitution, you might say to yourself  "this sounds about right - I think I can roll with this." If that is the sensation you get, you will probably do just fine.

To be a JS38 signatory, you need only make a mental decision that you are one. That is all. It is not a matter of public record unless you choose to make it so.

The Prime Constitution follows. Points are listed in a numbered format, for ease of citation.

JS38 - Prime Constitution 

1. We repudiate the use of violence except where self-defense requires it. We are prepared to confront violence from others if they initiate this.

2. We reject all forms of racial, religious, or ethnic identification. We view such identification as conflating the messenger with the message, or the personal with the political.

3. As non-feminist men and women, we eschew denigration of the opposite sex.  We recognize such expressions to be counterproductive on all levels, and we maintain that every individual ought to be characterized by merit.

4. We are opposed to collectivist and totalitarian thinking. Furthermore, we classify self-identity as a personal property right - meaning it is right proper to the person.

5. We value self-containment and aplomb in our spoken and written communications. As a rule, we favor a philosophical tone. Furthermore, we believe it is good practice to "think like a lawyer."

6. We define our method as query-based rather than theory-based - although it is true that we theorize. But feminism owes us answers, and not the reverse. We consider the feminist regime as subjected to an inquest. Thus, if we declare that "feminism is x", we are anticipating proof that feminism is NOT x, and shall expect our concerns to be sensitively and respectfully addressed.

7. If a particular idea is not expressly stated in this document, it cannot be attributed to the document. Equally, however, it cannot be said that the document excludes it.

8. Our discourse shall be mainly of a political or world-historic character, set upon the great stage. Accordingly, we shall not dwell upon the mundane micro-realities of personal relationships or the puzzles which arise in that realm.  Above all, we eschew the element of personal complaint in this realm.

9. We shall make it our chief business to agitate against feminism, and shall touch upon men's issues as a subset of this topic, when we are talking about the damage feminism does to the world. In this, we consider that we are striking the root of the difficulty rather than hacking at the branches.

10. We recognize that the de facto consequence of feminist innovation has been to make "male" and "female" into separate political interest groups, or power blocs. We maintain that this does not bode well for the long-term viability of civilization.

11. We recognize that men as a group are unaware that they have political interests as a group, and that said unawareness makes them vulnerable to erosion of their well-being within the social polity.

12. We assert that all men are men, and shall waste no time disputing what is a "real" man, or otherwise. A man may be a good man, a bad man, or an indifferent man - but he is a man all the same, and never less than a man.  As men, we shall treat other men with brotherly kindness and forbearance unless they give us compelling reason to do otherwise.

13. We endorse political solidarity among non-feminist men as an indispensable part of the non-feminist work in general. We recognize that political headway cannot be made against feminism unless a critical number of men acquire male political consciousness.

14. We recognize that the growth of male political consciousness could increase the male-female political split and exacerbate the dangers inherent to it. Yet we cannot deny that the growth of male political consciousness is NECESSARY. In consequence, we recognize that we are in a paradoxical double-bind, a catch-22, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma. That is what feminism has brought us, and a nuanced, high-level understanding of this reality is necessary if we hope to extricate ourselves.

15. We recognize that, regrettable though it be, men in growing numbers might have no choice but  "go their own way" in the face of growing anti-male conditions in the world. We shall not judge them or condemn them on that account. This is not a prescriptive statement, but a reality-based prediction. It is proferred in the understanding that such things might be prevented, and the worst avoided.

16. We affirm that males and females possess, on average, bio-genetically based differences  in psychology and behavior not due to cultural training. We maintain that it is foolish to pretend such differences, on average, don't exist.

17. We affirm that the existence of male-only social space - in the form of groups, clubs and organizations of whatever sort - is a POSITIVE GOOD. We assert that such things ought to make part of any future society we would aspire to, and that the formation of male-only spaces should begin immediately.

18. We seek to bring about a decolonization of the non-feminist mind. To that end, we claim an epistemic standpoint independent of feminist discourse, and from said standpoint we develop a counter-discourse.

19. We assert that the non-feminist community is an autonomous power in relation to the feminist community. As such, diplomatic courtesy from the feminist community will be expected.

20. We assert the prerogative to define feminism in the light of our own study, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is. Our authority to make this claim is equal to any other, and our audacity in making it marks an historical violation of previously accepted authority.  As such, our action is revolutionary.

21. When we state that "feminism is x", we are describing what feminism is FOR US, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint, in terms of our experience and observation. We would underscore that the feminists have always done the very same thing from their own standpoint, and would affirm that they are quite entitled to their own linguistic usage within their own community. However, when they venture into the world at large, they must not presume upon the linguistic usages of others.

22. We recognize that feminist issues and talking points, whether singly or as a list, are not in themselves feminism. Feminism as a thing is transcendent. It is greater than the sum of its issues and talking points. It is in fact a worldview. For that reason, it is possible to agree with a feminist on a great many points and yet be adamantly opposed to feminism as such.

23. We affirm that feminism generates a cloud of inconsistency or indefiniteness about itself, and switches from one set of rules to another as need dictates. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

24. We recognize that feminism is a product of the entire cultural spectrum, and not merely of the political Left as so many have insisted.

25. We affirm that feminism, as a cultural project, seeks to increase the individual and collective power of women with no limit. In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

26. We affirm that the feminist drive to increase female power involves a willful attack upon men and maleness as such.

27. We recognize that according to feminism, everything wrong with the world flows from a male source, or as the saying goes, that "men are the problem". We work to expose this way of thinking wherever it crops up.

28. We affirm that men and women share the same social ecology, and that harm to any part of this system will generate systemic consequences. Consequently, we recognize that feminism's attack upon men amounts to a war of aggression against the world at large, and that this war will damage men and women alike.

29. We affirm that feminism is dynamic, must remain perpetually in motion, and that if forced to become static, would expire. We refer to this condition as "perpetual revolution". In that light, our endeavor shall be to instill upon feminism the strictures of a finite game.

30. We recognize that the feminist campaign for "equality" between the sexes is fraught with hypocrisy in practice. Furthermore, we realize that the term "equality" itself, as a free-floating abstraction, is deeply problematic by its nature.

31. We affirm that there is a cultural taboo which suppresses open critique of feminism. We propose to violate this taboo in a methodical way, and we have calculated the effect that such violation will produce.

32. We affirm that there is a cultural taboo against recognition of male suffering and against recognition that male life has inherent value. Some have called this "male disposability". We propose to violate this taboo in a methodical way, and we have calculated the effect that such violation will produce.

33. We call for an end to the feminist stranglehold in the realm of public education.

34. We call for a full intellectual auditing of all feminist claims and theories, from a non-feminist epistemic standpoint. We call upon credentialed academics to join in this work, along with all manner of people everywhere.

35. We affirm that misandry (disaffection toward men and maleness) is a real thing with cultural and institutional presence.

36. We affirm that misandry and misogyny are two aspects of an underlying unity, that they cannot be understood separately, and that they increase or decrease in direct proportion to each other.

37. We affirm that misandry, rather than misogyny, is the primary driver behind the present crisis.

38. We recognize that radical feminism, far from being at the fringe the movement as so many would insist, is in fact the core, the motive source, the very fuel rod of feminism as a whole. Without radical feminism in some form, there would virtually be no feminism at all.

39. We affirm that the growth of freedom without responsibility is pernicious, and we recognize that feminism, as a movement and as an ideology, has encouraged precisely such growth among the female population.

40. We seek to generate solidarity among non-feminist people of every sort, worldwide.  We seek to instill in them a common understanding of what feminism is and how it operates.

41. We assert that feminism is like a product that must be sold, and that nobody is obligated to buy.

42. We assert that non-feminist men and women have no duty to stay current with the discourse in the feminist community. The case is rather the reverse: that the feminist community must listen sensitively to what non-feminist men and women are saying, and address respectfully any concerns they might raise.

43. We maintain that feminism, in its ideological and politicized form, was imposed on the world as a social innovation and that the impacted population was never consulted about this. For that reason among others, we view feminism as a primary aggressor.

44. We maintain that the aggressor in any conflict sets the terms of engagement. Feminism, as a primary aggressor, will predictably find itself engaged upon the terms which it (the aggressor) has originally established. There is no reason not to anticipate this, since we have never known the world to operate otherwise.

45. Failure by any feminist to display diplomatic tact when dealing with a non-feminist, shall be considered a form of feminist aggression. Given that feminism is the primary aggressor, the primary burden of establishing diplomatic trust shall fall upon feminism accordingly, and any individual feminist who wishes to parlay with our side ought to show especial diligence in this connection.


Anonymous Redwoodwriter said...

Excellent approach - you must be a lawyer. This could be the genesis of something big and exponentially expanding. Great work!

The on-the-fly redefinition of terms is a favorite strategy that feminists have been using for decades. Bill Clinton attempted to use it with the Monica affair, but it didn't go over very well (sex is sex). Nonetheless, nail the terms to a wall, and with this you have done that. Now, we will have something solid and unchanging on which to build.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Well no, I am not really a lawyer. I just think like one!

12:04 AM  
OpenID Eric said...


This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure whether or not it could become the nucleus of a general movement; however it has some appeal to the potential 'leaders' of such a movement. For example, I had a bit of uneasiness about point #6:

"Our discourse shall be mainly of a political character, and shall not dwell upon the mundane micro-realities of personal relationships or the puzzles which arise in that realm."

The first statement about 'political character' seems to imply influencing the changing of laws---now this could be a positive thing; be we know the tendency of politics to corrupt any movement; in addition to that the laws themselves are mostly in the hands of feminists.

The second statement about 'personal relationships' seems that it would defeat the purpose of turning women against feminism. Actually feminist indoctrination has crippled most women's ability to have or sustain a worthwhile relationship (point 9 actually alludes to that indirectly). Most women too are going to find anti-feminism's appeal based more upon how it benefits them personally rather than in the larger context of social reform. A few men probably think this way as well.

8:20 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


"Political" means anything concerning the larger stage of world history, with the interplay of ideas and the struggle for power among competing factions.

As distinguished from the "personal" - i.e. talking about "relationships", dating advice, complaining about these terrible modern women, etc, etc, etc......

There is GOOD reason to stay completely away from that field of talk, at least in the realm of public rhetoric, and stick to matters of a more lofty tenor.

And to leave 'relationship' talk to the touchy-feely crowd, the dating gurus, etc, etc .... I mean, it's not like the world will ever lack for such conversations - but there is a time for everything, and a time to exclude anything. . . .

So, item n. 6 stands as written.

10:25 PM  
Blogger Cinzia La Strega said...

I sit here, mouth literally agape, at this prodigious flood of verbiage.

7:26 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

I see you have a short attention span, like children of the modern media age often do. In earlier days, people weren't afraid of reading.

If you want to see an actual prodigious flood of verbiage, I could recommend "War and Peace", or Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", or the Bible.

10:40 PM  
OpenID Eric said...

Thank you for the clarification. FYI (and as further proof that the manifesto has merit), Futrelle's already written a snotty hit-piece about it:

2:58 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


Yes. "Turgid" as in "I don't want to process what is being said here."

But that's okay. I don't expect people like David Futrelle to "get" what is being said here. It is literally impossible for them to do that in any case, because if they DID get it, it would so radically transform them that they would no longer be the same people. Ipso facto.

7:05 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


BTW, I've got another manifesto in the works which will be out in a few weeks. So if he thinks THIS little ol' thang here is "turgid". . hooooooo boy!!

He's gonna have a FUN time with "Feminism Poisons Women"! Oh yeah!

(This thing here is nothing - I dashed it out in less than twenty-four hours, on an impulse!)

7:16 PM  
Blogger Craig G said...

I'm a long time Fan of yours, Dr. Fidelbogen.

Long ago your work gave me hope that the MHRM wasn't doomed to failure, with us hanging our heads like school-kids in front of a feminist marxists dictator.

I love your work on "The Manifesto of Coalition JS38", and wholeheartedly agree. I can't wait to get caught up on your other works, work that I have missed out on over the last several months.

Respectfully, may i offer these points for your consideration:

Think-like-a-Lawyer, #5, paints a less than a positive picture in my mind, nor is it descriptive of mode & method. Building on your own start; "philosophical tone", why not state something along the lines of: our words & actions must follow our principles, & our principles must stay true to / be aligned with our philosophies.

2) At a personal level, I completely & totally agree with item #4. In fact, as it is a political statement, I, at a personal level would include something about Natural Law. That said....

3) item #13 is more important than it appears at first glance, is perhaps worthy of strengthening, and yet it clashes with item #4, as collectivism & totalitarianism are political stances. Thus specific political doctrine should perhaps be removed?

Highest regards,

12:57 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home