What is Evil, and does feminism qualify?

A panentheistic representation of God

“To 'come to terms' means to 'arrive at the name'.” This quote is from, “People of the Lie,” a book on the subject of evil by psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, and this essay is about coming to terms with Feminism.

Peck, who died in 2005, was a moderate Christian (non-fundamentalist), which may have influenced his belief that evil cannot be understood from a purely secular perspective. He clarified this to mean that a science /psychology of evil must “recognize the reality of the supernatural,” itself a vague term that includes anything not currently described by a scientific model. “The supernatural” is thus a moving target and Peck readily admitted that a science of evil was in its infancy – his book is written in a non-rigorous style that features the author's own opinions.

I recommend Dr. Peck's book for the lucid clinical examples that led him to conclude that evil has an independent existence, but I believe that we have the necessary psychological and philosophical tools to identify and describe it without the need to invoke the supernatural

Full disclosure

Some readers may see my entire world view as a supernatural perspective even though it is grounded in science and philosophy. I believe that the universe is best understood as God being born, as described in my essay, “Schopenhauer's Hidden Soul,” rather than as God's finished product as presumed by traditional Christianity. Furthermore, a being worthy of the term “God” may not be restricted to this universe so I would categorize my view as a form of panentheism, somewhat in alignment with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, but modified by the idea that immanent God is in the process of being born. From this perspective nothing is supernatural in that nothing is excluded from reality even though some things lie outside of the reach of science.

Although I recognize the power of biblical metaphors to illuminate moral issues, and use them frequently, I am not a practicing Christian nor do I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. If pressed, I would say that all spoken and written words are of man and that the objects of the manifest universe, including each one of us, are the literal words of God, as implied in Genesis 1:3, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” – light is itself a word of God. Our words, including those in the Bible, merely point at the words of God. “Word of God” is thus a metaphor that points at the way in which God speaks: creation is spoken into existence. Where we speak words that point at creation, God speaks creation. Since some scientists now hypothesize that consciousness preceded life and called it into existence, another way to understand “Word of God” is that the cosmic consciousness dreamt life into existence. The sum of all such words can be thought of as the long poem of creation spoken over eons that ends as a harmonious being of light at the end of time, as described by Nobel physicist Roger Penrose in his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology – all of the drama of Earth being but one verse.

As powerful as it is, science cannot and never will capture reality. It will only provide us with ever more powerful and sophisticated models that we can project onto the universe. Like words, scientific theories point at reality.

Presently some scientists and laymen argue that the universe has no meaning or purpose, which is the central point of conflict between science and religion, but I have defeated this claim in my essay, “Is the Universe Meaningless?” Science is unparalleled in its power to uncover facts and build models, but we will always have to use our intellectual faculties to grapple with questions of meaning, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the literary and philosophical communities for leading the way in this regard. Struggling with questions of meaning and purpose is what keeps us connected to reality. Turning away from this task only leads to existential angst and an unfulfilled life of wandering in hopeless darkness, unconsciously creating chaos, pain and destruction along the way.

This is what Socrates meant when he said that, “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He argued that without reflection a person's life is deprived of meaning and purpose, and he considered such a person a “fool.” This is perhaps the best definition of the word because by lack of self-reflection such a person discards his/her own self.

Aristotle later reasoned that happiness was the meaning and purpose of life. For my part, I believe that we must struggle with the meaning of our own lives until we come to terms with the miracle of existence itself; until we come to terms with God /reality. In this essay I will describe the independent existence of evil and how it shows its hand through Feminism, and leads those possessed by ideological feminism away from reality – away from God.

Feminists loudly proclaim that Feminism is about equality between the sexes, however by their own actions we know that this is not true, and we have shown this in The Fiamengo File YouTube videos series on Studio B (click here and here). But feminism is much worse than simply wrong and deceitful, which is why I have often said that Feminism is evil. In order to justify this claim I need to clarify what I mean by “evil.”

Evil

Evil is an emotionally-laden term often used in anger with the intent to disparage someone that we don't like. I used to think that the concept served no real purpose other than to emphasize that the offending party was particularly odious. I even thought that the accusation made the accuser look melodramatic and no better than the accused.

The concept of evil has been a part of religion throughout history, perhaps most notably as part of the epic battle said to lie at the heart of existence, summarized here by Dr. Peck,

According to the Christian model, “humanity (and perhaps the entire universe) is locked in a titanic struggle between the forces of good and evil, between God and the devil. The battleground of this struggle is the individual human soul. The entire meaning of human life revolves around the battle. The only question of ultimate significance is whether the individual soul will be won to God or won to the devil.”

As a psychiatrist, Peck focused on the inner state of the individual and he shows how a person calls evil into existence by acting upon an idea, specifically an advantageous lie. He then describes how they become the embodiment of evil by creating a world of lies until the deceit of others and self becomes an immutable habit whose origin is forgotten along with any sense of remorse no matter the damage caused. Having become Evil, they desire to cause harm even in the absence of the possibility of personal benefit – to kill for the pleasure of killing. Reading Peck's examples of the destructive nature of the subtle lies that characterize evil can make you feel dirty and nauseous. Perhaps most disturbing is how normal, even respectable or righteous, evil can appear.

Peck describes the case of Bobby, whose brother had recently committed suicide, and it illustrates the creepy, deceitful nature of evil. Bobby was committed to an institution at 15 after running into trouble with the law, which brought him into contact with Dr. Peck. He had asked for a tennis racket for Christmas but his parents gave him a gun instead. Not just any gun, but the very gun that his brother had used to kill himself.

Bobby was withdrawn and unable to put into words any feelings about his brother, his delinquency, or the “gift” of his brother's suicide weapon even though the message in such a gift is not particularly subtle: “you too should kill yourself, and here's how.” This is a horrific action by any measure. It is the opposite of love, and hints at the reasons behind the brother's suicide. How many subtle messages had the parents given before Bobby's brother pulled the trigger of the gun that his parents bought him? Is not the clear absence of love message enough?

Bobby's parents are described as upstanding citizens and conscientious members of the church – the kind of people looked up to in the community. When confronted about their Christmas gift to Bobby, they closed ranks and insisted that they were just hardworking people who wanted to save money by re-gifting their dead son's gun. This is the kind of plausible lie that characterizes evil. Peck describes his separate conversations with Bobby and with the parents in great detail, giving a clear and undeniable impression that something truly awful was at play. The exchange is too long to quote in full but this will give you a taste,

“Giving him his brother’s suicide weapon was like telling him to walk in his brother’s shoes, like telling him to go out and kill himself too.”

“We didn’t tell him anything of the sort.”

“Of course not. But did you think that it might possibly seem that way to Bobby?”

“No, we didn’t think about that. We’re not educated people like you. We haven’t been to college and learned all kinds of fancy ways of thinking. We’re just simple working people.”

After this confrontation and their deflections, the parents invented a further set of excuses to end Bobby's treatment, which suggests that Bobby's fate may have been sealed. Clearly they were not motivated by authentic concern for their son, but something entirely different and characterized by a complete absence of love. Though they were acting on evil ground, it is not clear that this couple had yet become the embodiment of evil. As we shall see evil is about killing, perhaps especially while keeping its hands clean through plausible deniability.

But where is this evil before it is “called” into existence? If it is “just” an idea that is given life, then where do such ideas come from?

The distinction between “evil” and a “person” is baked into the phrase “ideological possession,” which I first heard used by Jordan Peterson. The person is separate from the ideology that possesses their mind, unless or until the “person” inside is “killed” by the invading evil. But if the two are distinct, where was this ideology prior to taking residence in the person? The simple answer is that it lived in another person and that it spread like a virus, but that still doesn't answer the question. We need to find the source of all ideas in order to understand what we are dealing with, so let's break it down further.

The Selfish Meme

As discussed in “Schopenhauer's Hidden Soul,” our minds carry representations of the manifest universe. These representations are constructed of the memes described by Richard Dawkins in his book, “The Selfish Gene,” a concept concisely summarized by the following Wikipedia entry,

“A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme.”

“Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution.”

Memes can spread from one person to another, evolve, grow and interact with one another in the playground of the mind. Furthermore, we can think of an aggregate of interconnected memes as having an existence of its own both within an individual and across a group. They form interconnected networks that together form your world view – your ideological perspective. An ideology thus influences the individuals of the possessed group in the manner of a supervisory control program, which is not unlike the way that your mind controls your body, and nobody is immune to this process.

In computer process control programming, this is known as a master-slave controller. If we call the group-distributed aggregate of memes a Meme Master, then your mind becomes the slave side of the system. Since memes behave as do genes in a biological organism, the Meme Master too must have some sort of a life of its own that evolves over time, and our susceptibility to hypnosis suggests that such an entity could easily take control of individuals. Thus an ideology is a set of interacting memes that has an independent existence and acts as a master controller over the ideologically possessed. We could describe its net effect, and hence its essence, as either good or evil – and we can judge feminism as either good or evil.

This also implies that our thoughts, and thus our behavior, are not as much our own as we would like to believe. The sleep state and the waking state are qualitatively the same, and both are highly suggestible. The dream of the sleep state is but a less restricted version of the convincing hallucination through which we interact with reality during the waking state. We do not see reality, we dream it, and these dreams are taken from a shared Meme Master that evolves independent of any one individual mind.

The take away so far is that memes interact, evolve and spread across groups, and take on a life of their own in what has been called the noosphere – the sphere of human reason. The Meme Master lives in this noosphere and becomes part of the hallucination of reality through which you interact with the world, and it exerts a measure of control over your behavior. This description only scratches the surface and we'll need to address the following questions in order to bring clarity to the nature of evil. What, physically, is the noosphere? Where do the memes themselves come from? Do we have any choice in the matter, and if so, how?

The Noosphere

I'd like to start with the disclaimer that I am adapting and expanding upon the original concept of the noosphere – the sphere of reason and ideas – but in a way that I believe is congruent with its essential meaning. The founding authors saw the noosphere as an emergent property of mind whose growth is contingent upon complex human society within the context of the natural evolution of Earth. The concept was based on the idea of the biosphere, and bears resemblance to the hydrosphere and atmosphere, all of which are directly linked to Earth processes.

I take the approach that we are objects within the noosphere, like cells within the brain, and that the noosphere, along with consciousness, preceded us and perhaps even drives us. You may notice that these two interpretations are not mutually exclusive and could conceivably run concurrently. Although the original authors did not imagine the “noosphere” to exist without a human host on an evolving Earth, I don't think that the concept needs to be limited in this way, and rather than invent a new word, I chose to extend the existing idea of the noosphere.

Let's consider that the structure of matter contains all possible ideas in hard-coded form, and that the noosphere is the sphere of all active ideas, kind of like the code in a computer's volatile RAM memory. At first glance this seems phantasmagorical, but the following examples will illustrate how consciousness can be understood to exist in the space between, and transcendent to, the matter that hard-codes the ideas that it can use.

Imagine the following group of animals: lions, hyenas and antelopes. Each wants to survive, but there's a built-in conflict. The Lion needs to eat the antelope, the hyena needs to steal the lion's catch, and the antelope needs to avoid being eaten. Thus the lion chases the antelope and if caught, the hyena tries to steal it. The lion then tries to kill the hyena and the antelope runs away from both.

The very nature of these animals is due to the evolutionary pressure placed upon each one by the other two, and all three are trapped in this permanent conflict. It does not disappear when the lion sleeps, nor when the antelope is out of sight, and yet the conflict has no visible existence – it lies in the space between them. It is built into the structure of the ecosystem – into the structure of reality – and lies dormant until activated. The conflict could be said to lie in the noosphere.

Consider too an organic molecule. We say that the atoms are attached to one another by the sharing of electrons in the covalent bond. The positively charged nuclei are attracted to the negatively charged electrons that sit in a cloud between them, but where is the bond itself? We cannot discuss anything in chemistry without reference to these bonds, and yet the bond itself is nothing but the observable result of the relationship between the objects and forces involved. It has no independent “physical” existence, and yet it is so real that nothing lives without it. The bond is in the space between the objects – it exists in the noosphere.

Consider our human relationships. Shared experiences create the bonds between us, but where is this bond? Even though they can last a lifetime and motivate someone to give up his own life for another, the bond itself cannot be found. It is but an idea held in the imagination and yet it is so important that without it there is no human civilization and there is no humanity. The bond exists in the space of the noosphere between us, and it is built from “ideas” that were hard-coded into the structure of reality at the beginning of time.

Finally let us consider the economy. In the late 18^th century, Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith introduced the concept of an invisible hand that guides free markets to optimal outcomes. The following Wikipedia quote gives a good sense of the idea,

“Twentieth century economists, especially Paul Samuelson, popularized the use of the term to refer to a more general and abstract conclusion that truly free markets are self-regulating systems that always tend to create economically optimal outcomes, which in turn can't be improved upon by government intervention.”

The metaphor of the invisible hand allows us to visualize an agent behind the aggregate behavior of the “independent” entities that make up the economy.

Your own mind is the invisible hand that guides your life and it arises from the aggregate behavior of the independent entities that together form your body and brain. Moreover, it is your mind that you consider to be the truest, and most real, “you,” as did Descartes when he concluded “I think therefore I am.” It is the one thing that Descartes concluded that he could know for sure, and he simplified it to, “I am, I exist.” To deny the existence of the invisible hand of your own mind is thus the epitome of nihilism. Furthermore, to realize “I am” is to reject the hallucinations of the mind, including the ego, in favor of the reality upon which those ideas are projected – the reality which IS “I am.” It is to see that God and reality are the same, that they include you, and that none of it is limited by the models that fit in your mind. Models which are but hallucinations of reality.

We have now separated you, “I am,” from your ideas about “yourself” that form part of the noosphere.

Like you, God and the Devil both operate in the noosphere, but there's an important distinction between the two. God IS reality, which includes the noosphere, whereas the Devil is called into existence within the noosphere and has no physical form of its own. This will become clear with following short explanation.

Matter and anti-matter serve as a good analogy for God and the Devil. Though it is every bit as real as matter, anti-matter does not exist naturally in the universe. It has to be created in the laboratory. And like all ideas, the idea of anti-matter is coded into the manifest universe, we merely noticed it and then brought it into existence.

Evil does not exist naturally either, but it is just as real as anti-matter – it too is coded into the manifest universe. Like anti-matter, we call it into existence, whereupon it takes on a life of its own and destroys us as surely as anti-matter destroys matter. This is the key to our moral existence – once we notice what is already there, we must decide how to respond. We must decide whether to give it life or let the idea lie dormant. I'll come back to this in a moment.

Taken to the planetary scale, the sum of all invisible hands on Earth leads us to the Gaia Hypothesis, proposed by James Lovelock in the 1970's, which can be summarized thus,

“Living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.”

“The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The hypothesis contends that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.”

There is no reason to suspect that the invisible hand stops at the edge of Earth's atmosphere. It is more reasonable to assume that it has been at play throughout the universe since the beginning of time because the matter of the universe has always existed in relationship to itself, the forces, and the universe as a whole. It is within those relationships – the space between – that consciousness exists.

From the moment that space opened between particles of condensed matter it became a playground for virtual particles and, I propose, the space wherein the noosphere lay in wait. The noosphere emerged along with the universe itself, and the field of all possible ideas was baked into the structure of matter as the universe transformed through its sequential epochs – from the Planck epoch, through galaxy and star formation, to today. Long before God dreamt life into existence, both the noosphere, and the field of all ideas hard-coded into the structure of matter, lay in wait within the cosmic body like an embryonic brain.

We can influence the invisible hand – after all, each of us is a particle of the aggregate of which it is composed – but we cannot control it. If we try to micro-manage the parts of an ecosystem, a biological organism, our human relationships, or the economy through authoritarian control, we diminish the entity that transcends the symbiotic parts of the whole. And if we remove an entity from its larger environment, it dies, and the larger whole is changed. The invisible hand and the entities in its domain form a synergistic body that is larger than the sum of its parts.

The Battleground of Good and Evil

The objects of the phenomenal world exist in relationship with one another. The structure of these relationships represents the hardware codification of “ideas” – in other words, all ideas are implicit in the structure of matter. Even the nature of an “imaginary” thing like a dragon is coded in the structure of matter and the structure of the psyche: it flies like a bird, breathes the fire of which we are familiar, and wiggles like the snake that evokes primal fear. In Jungian terms, “the symbolism of dragons reflects our fears and primal desires, revealing how we grapple with the unknown in ourselves and the world around us.” Though they are not real, all of the parts that inspired the idea of a dragon are real. Thus the dragon, too, is hard-coded into the material universe; otherwise we would not be able to call it to mind. All ideas lie dormant in the structure of reality until one day we take notice.

This is where the battle between good and evil is waged. Evil is encoded into the manifest universe where it lies dormant, waiting to be noticed and brought to life. Our dilemma becomes clear: it is unavoidable that we will take notice of evil, at which point we are forced to make a choice – we are thrust into the battle between good and evil by the simple act of noticing it. Sometimes the flash of an ill-considered decision quickly pushed out of mind, or a sudden impulse changes ones destiny like the young woman who pushed her friend from a bridge into the river 60 feet below. Something noticed and acted upon in a fleeting, seemingly inconsequential and forgotten moment can have grave consequences, and only the cultivated habit of vigilant self-awareness can tip the scale towards the good – a life of self-reflection and authenticity.

We all face temptation, the torturous nature of which is well-described in the story of Christ's encounter with the Devil in which even he, the most holy of people in the Christian story, is not spared. The story of Jesus is the story of the human struggle for integrity written in grand metaphor. We are meant to identify with him and find the courage to maintain the integrity of our own lives, not elevate him to unreachable heights above us and go on our way absolved of responsibility, as so often happens in organized religion.

Metaphors explain what's going on between the soul, the mind, and the manifest universe. They make visible that which is hidden in the space where we face our conflicts and dilemmas – in the noosphere – the resolution of which determines our fate. In feminism we see the invisible hand of evil in the grand temptation set before, mostly, women and it parallels the temptation of Jesus.

After 40 days of fasting and in a weakened, delirious state, Jesus is tempted three times by the archetypal deceiver, Satan. First he is told that a rock can be bread if he believes it to be so. “Believe this and you will be nourished” is the promise – not unlike the woke insistence that a person can be any gender they can imagine, or the more common incitement to, “believe that you are oppressed” and you will be empowered. But Jesus is not fooled, and though famished, he holds to the truth that a rock is a rock no matter how he much he might wish it were bread. He maintains his grip on reality.

Satan then insists that Jesus should throw himself off a cliff because the angels will save him. “To jump off a cliff” is a powerful image whose metaphorical meaning is to abandon self-control and escape responsibility for your present situation. It is to believe that you can abort your own child without consequence. It is to abandon reality in favor of the illusion of freedom that sends heavy drug users to their death as they believe they can literally fly. Again, Jesus is not fooled. He chose his 40 days of fasting in order to solidify his relationship with God – and with himself – not to escape, and he knew that to abandon himself was to abandon reality and lose his integrity.

This was even presented as liberation in the movie Thelma and Louise, whose protagonists literally drove off a cliff in apparent glee – they accepted the Devil's deal. The film presents two women as being constantly victimized by men – clearly a feminist perspective. They became outlaws rather than any number of better choices, and “liberated” themselves from responsibility while holding hands in the final dramatic cliff dive. The feminist take is that “these characters encourage growth, personal liberation, and sisterhood among the oppressed.” It's not hard to see the “hand of Satan” here, and the result is as one would expect from the demonic: death and destruction. It is not a coincidence that feminists loved this film.

To accept either of Satan's first two offers would be for Jesus to let go of reality. His temptation is in the prospect that it would relieve his suffering – all he has to do is abandon God. One who lets go of reality is set adrift and can be made to believe and do anything. She becomes an easily controlled puppet through ideological possession, exactly as we see today in the woke community.

The third temptation of Jesus reveals the subtlety of the lies employed by Evil and leads us to the core of the feminist message. The Gospel of Matthew explains that,

8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”

But the offer itself is a lie. The world is not his to give, he merely has authority over it like a custodian. In Christian theology, Satan “has no autonomy to do anything God does not permit.” The world is, and always was, only God's to give – it already is Jesus' world. Thus Satan tempts Jesus to betray his own nature in order to live in a world of lies created by the grand deceiver himself, whom he must worship.

The unfortunate who accepts this deal is plunged into eternal rage and torment against a world that no longer even recognizes him. He believed that his kingdom lay outside of himself only to find out too late that he traded his soul, the one thing that truly mattered, for a mere mirage of himself. He enters into an infinite house of mirrors in which he can't find his own soul, not unlike the world of ideological gender confusion. His rage becomes increasingly unhinged as he tries to distract himself from his own guilt, until he burns in mindless fury without escape.

Feminists have recently claimed that “the end of men” is near and that “the future is female.” These statements parallel Satan's promise of dominion over the world to Jesus, if only he would deny God and worship the liar. You can almost hear the paraphrased words coming from the Devil's own mouth, “Man's reign is coming to an end. The future is female if you deny reality and accept feminism.” This promise too, can never be fulfilled because neither the world nor masculinity is theirs to give.

Let's look at how the feminist murders her authentic feminine self and is left to seethe in pointless fury as the promised masculine power remains forever out of reach.

Ideological Feminism

No one person created ideological feminism, but its core tenet, that men successfully conspired to oppress women throughout history, was written into the Declaration of Sentiments at the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 organized and led by Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, a woman who by every measure lived a life of pampered luxury and power in upper class American society.

Unable to endure or explain the reality of men's superiority at masculine endeavors, feminists crafted the fiction of women's oppression in order to explain their lack of representation at the top. They switched the story from “men and women have unique strengths” to “men hold women down.” Oblivious to the clear historical record of women's status and power, often far above that of ordinary men, feminists relied upon the claim that not all women could vote as proof of women's oppression, ignoring the fact that most men could not vote either. Details about the lie of women's suffrage are provided by Janice Fiamengo in “Feminism’s False Origin Story: The Struggle For the Vote,” and this lie is enshrined in the feminist Declaration of Sentiments,

“Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.”

This is a clear example of the type of enemy formation used by cult leaders to create a cohesive in-group. If the claim that, “he has oppressed her on all sides” were true, then it would justify the vilification of men, their removal from power and the elevation of women to positions of authority. Thus all subsequent development to the ideological structure of feminism was designed with the need to protect and support this central feminist lie in mind, and every feminist “study” ends with the predetermined conclusion that “more needs to be done for women.”

But the arc of history is more accurately characterized as men providing for the women and children in their community and protecting them from outside threats, as shown in the video, “The Birth of Feminism.” The ease and extent to which feminists have successfully rewritten history in the popular imagination, placing themselves as the central character in a story of oppression, is shocking and reveals the enormous uncontested power that women actually hold in the West.

In the almost 200 years since the Declaration of Sentiments, there has been next to zero academic criticism of this central feminist claim even though a casual look at history shows the glaring lie to be so large that no account of history can be given without destroying the foundation of the entire feminist project. Feminists accomplished this by infiltrating the universities, establishing the doctrine of affirmative action, and intimidating every academic who dared to question their narrative and demands for retribution. No debate over their claims was allowed, and no legal resistance was offered, even though when historical evidence of harsh treatment is examined it is always the elite class, both male and female, who were the perpetrators. And perhaps even more damning, men's suffering invariably eclipsed that of women's throughout history.

The central feminist tenet of man's oppression of woman is but an idea whose power women of high social position noticed. They chose to give it life, and it has grown into an evil hydra with global reach. All that is needed to tip the scale towards acceptance of such a lie is a little anger, a little resentment, a little greed or a little envy. The case of an 11-year-old girl who accused her father of rape out of anger at her parents' divorce serves as an example of how easily evil can take over. Even as a child she recognized the power inherent in such a simple lie, and it was hers in the blink of an eye. Her father was convicted and spent 10 years in jail. Ultimately she could not live with the guilt and confessed her sin at the age of 23. Her own words are a testament to the corrosive nature of evil on the perpetrator's own soul,

“'I just want him to be out and freed,' his daughter told police earlier this year. Then, 'I will be free on the inside'.”

Here we see how the act of evil contains its own punishment. The young girl became tormented and imprisoned by her own conscience, which ultimately pulled her back from the full embrace of evil. This is the deeper reason for Socrates' warning that “it is better to suffer evil than to do it.” The evil-doer can never escape the knowledge of her own deed, and its poison seeps into every crevice of her being until it corrodes her soul. Confession and forgiveness becomes her only hope of escape from the hell of her own creation. This is so important to our psychological well-being that the Catholic Church created the Sacrament of Confession through which the penitent may seek forgiveness and redemption.

For those less inclined to introspection, each new temptation to gain through a subsequent subtle lie becomes harder to resist than the last. Moments of potentially redemptive guilt become less frequent until the memory of the original sinful choice disappears altogether. Her immense web of lies becomes her only view of reality until the voice of her own soul can no longer be heard over the manufactured self-righteous rage that she needs to sustain in order to drown out her own conscience. The truth of her own guilt becomes the wedge between her and reality – between her and God. The evil embraced in a long forgotten moment of weakness ultimately kills its host, the only thing over which it has genuine power. As I will show in a moment, once embraced, ideological feminism ultimately destroys its host.

Evil and Death

Murder characterizes evil, and Dr. Peck explains this well,

“When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. Evil is also that which kills spirit. There are various essential attributes of life – particularly human life – such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, will. It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body. Thus we may “break” a horse or even a child without harming a hair on its head. Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others – to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line.”

Feminists can't hide their obsession with death and destruction as they famously write gems like: kill all men and smash the patriarchy, and urge others to cut off their genitals or abort the baby that holds you back in the masculine world. As if more is needed, here are a few quotes from prominent feminists who cannot contain their giddy murderous hatred:

“Why I Hate Men,” Julie Bindel, Guardian writer

“You can't hate them all, can you? Actually, I can,” Suzanne Moore, Guardian Columnist

“All men are scum and must die,” Clementine Ford, Australian author

"Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." Sarah Jeong, editor at the NYT and The Verge

“I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead,” Professor Victoria Bissell

“All of them deserve miserable death while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine Yes” – Professor Christine Fair

“Only when manhood is dead […] will we know what it is to be free.” Andrea Dworkin

These quotes are not from isolated extremists but from celebrated feminists in academia and mainstream media who have been protected and promoted on the basis of their beliefs. This should wake us up to the fact that feminism is an extremist hate movement, but the Western world funds thousands of feminist groups with untold billions of dollars per year, as I have described in The Birth of Feminism. I'll comment on this at the end of this essay.

The film, “Kissed,” shows how the feminist obsession with death can be taken to perverted extremes. Directed by Canadian feminist, Lynne Stopkewich, the film presents necrophilia as a form of erotic spirituality and it features Sandra, whose love is reserved for the dead. A medical student named Matt falls in love with Sandra only to later discover her bizarre obsession. Overwhelmed, Matt struggles in shock and disbelief, ostensibly hoping that she will abandon the practice in favor of his love. As the movie progresses Matt is forced to realize that he will always place a distant second to the cadavers that Sandra desecrates, yet he can't abandon his love for her. He feels caught in a trap that drives him mad.

There are many ways to analyze this, but perhaps the most twisted is from a male reviewer who ends his review with, “Kissed is one of the best nights I’ve ever had.” He continues,

“Kissed becomes a remarkable treatise on feminism and the need men have to be everything to the object of their affection. How can a man feel fully loved if a woman keeps any part of her for herself?”

Poor, selfish Matt doesn't want to share his girlfriend with a series of corpses and this is supposed to represent a fault on his part. What a twisted world the feminist creates when the conclusion that “men are bad” must be sustained no matter the circumstance. Even to describe this as unrequited love would require us to ignore the fact that necrophilia is unquestionably demented. But to go a step further and re-frame his objection to her necrophilia as possessiveness is to enter fully into the feminist psychosis and become a co-creator of evil.

The movie ends as Matt commits suicide in a desperate and irrational attempt to win Sandra's love – and it works! Sandra is not shocked out of her mental illness by the death of the only man who ever loved her, as might have happened had the film been developed by a healthy human mind. Instead it presents Sandra as transported in glowing, loving, ecstatic release as she watches the life-force drain from Matt's body, and it further asks the viewer to see this as beautiful and holy. It's hard to imagine a more twisted celebration of death and evil – it makes the archetypal devouring mother look like an angelic amateur. There's no attempt to deal with the psychopathy displayed on film, it is intended and presented as an alternative spirituality. It is a veneration of evil.

Yet this film was celebrated in feminist Canada and described as a romantic/erotic drama. Variety magazine opined, “she has crafted a poetic, provocative love story about sex, romance and death that is surprisingly endearing.” The director was interviewed, feted, and given a faculty position at the University of British Columbia.

Dr. Peck's observation that “evil has to do with killing” is spot on, and the abortion issue further highlights this feminist obsession. They do not mourn the killing of a fetus; they cannot even see it as an occasional unpleasant necessity. Quite the opposite, they celebrate abortion as an act of power and independence, and this is not a trivial difference. This is the mark of a self-absorbed, evil orientation towards life itself.

Unsurprisingly, marriage and motherhood are derided by feminists as institutions of slavery rather than celebrated as a rite of passage into adulthood with the accompanying sacred responsibility to nurture the next generation. Everything about feminism is oriented towards narcissistic, egotistical power, and in opposition to the sacred nature of life. And it is all driven by envy.

Before I discuss envy as the driving force behind feminism, I'd like to dispel the notion that death itself is a reliable marker of evil.

A Good Death

Birth and death are the unavoidable bookends of a life. Death connects us to life and gives it urgency, for if we were never to die we would eventually become disinterested and disconnected from everything around us. Existence would become dull and irrelevant because we would not need anything and we would retreat from the world like a hermit into the wilderness, utterly bored of everything that it has to offer. Life would become dreary to the point of torturous. Even worse, if we were to introduce urgency through suffering, without death, then we would have eternal hell.

Birth defines the moment of our separation from the universe as a distinct being, which ends with our return to the universe through death – dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Only our separateness allows us to see that others face struggles similar to our own and thus inspire the pity and compassion that gives birth to love – both birth and death are required in order for love to exist at all. Existence itself seems to be trying to teach us about love and compassion, and death is the most unyielding teacher. No one can avoid it, and it is often only through death and loss – further separation – that the lesson is learned.

Moreover it is our separation that forces us to make a choice. Do we live an unconscious, unexamined life or do we seek self-knowledge? Do we give life to evil by accepting its proffered advantage, or do we leave it dormant where it lies?

One choice leaves the mind clear of internal conflict and thus connected to the soul, while the other demands that you hide even from yourself perhaps by raging at the world in order to distract yourself from the sinful moment of self-betrayal when you choose power and vengeance over authenticity. Each successive choice represents another step down one path or the other – towards or away from the self; towards or away from God from whom we separated at birth, towards whom we are drawn in life, and with whom we are reunited in death. The good news is that we may be reunited with God in this life through the pursuit of holiness – the integrated wholeness of mind, body and soul.

This is captured in the Hindu origin story that Brahma created the world from himself, “out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female.” Nothing can be known, and loneliness cannot be soothed, until reality is fractured into separate parts.

This quote from mythologist Debadutta Pattanaik adds another important insight,

“Every human creates his own imagined version of the world, and of himself. Every human is therefore Brahma, creator of his own aham. Aham Brahmasmi, I am Brahma. Tat tvam asi, so are you.”

The knowledge of our separation and eventual death gives us the impetus to deal with our issues now – to get real – and thus know ourselves. By knowing ourselves, we know Brahma and we become joyful – we become holy. Authentic holiness is even felt as joyful by those in its presence, except to those who deny themselves. For them the presence of joy is infuriating because it is an unbearable reminder of their self-betrayal, and this is the fate of the feminist.

A good death is a life that ends in holiness – in joy – such that the soul rejoins the cosmos fulfilled. Your soul and the souls of the future are joined through the same cosmic soul – in some sense they are one and the same. So it is incumbent upon us to clear the path to holiness for those who come after us such that fewer may stumble, and we do this by exposing evil as it grabs a foothold in the world.

This is what it means to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, and this is why it is so important to expose the evil of feminism, and the source from which it sprung.

Envy

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins identified by the Catholic church. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica,

“Envy is more than simple jealousy because it includes the belief that another’s excellence or blessings lessens one’s own, and it makes one want to destroy another’s good fortune. As a deadly sin, envy is believed to generate other sins and further immoral behaviour.”

“Material envy is resentment toward others who have more material fortune, such as money, talent, strength, beauty, or friends.”

With few exceptions, every feminist demand is some version of, “we want what men have,” and that men conspire to keep it from them. This envious sentiment is usually accompanied by the desire to punish men in various ways.

Feminists never explain why men should have handed control over every new invention to women as soon it was built, but that is the implication since everything they demand was invented, designed and built by men. Nor do they acknowledge that women were spared the harshest realities of pre-modern life by the sacrifices of men who often paid with their lives. That many of men's inventions were designed to make life easier for women or to address a female-specific concern also goes unnoticed: from the tampon to baby formula and the obstetric hand-washing that saved countless women's lives. These are but a few of the facts that undermine the feminist claim of women's oppression, and they further highlight the deeper truth of female privilege.

Feminism couldn't take root in antiquity because men toiled and suffered to such a degree that women wanted no part of it until modernity removed most of the risks. And contrary to feminist orthodoxy, there was very little resistance to women's demands in the modern era. An honest account of history quickly reduces the feminist claim of women's oppression by men to a self-serving and unsupportable lie born from envy. But this envy grew from a female identity crisis triggered by the scientific revolution, which I will explain in the final section of this essay.

More damaging than the fraudulent claim of oppression is the underlying feminist implication that value must be measured almost exclusively in masculine terms: it is always something about the male world that feminists want, accompanied by the paranoid conviction that men conspire to keep it from them. Their thinking and behavior is consistent with psychotic-like experiences (PLE), the symptoms of which include:

• The belief that “others are trying to hurt them”

• Unusual or overly intense ideas, strange feelings

• Decline in self-care or personal hygiene

• Difficulty telling reality from fantasy

A casual look at videos of feminists in the wild and their published diatribes yields unlimited examples of such self-destructive behavior, and we have documented much of this in the Fiamengo File YouTube series as well (see here and here).

Feminists not only envy and demand access to all things typically male, but also demean and devalue all things female. This makes clear that it is masculinity itself, the source of all of the things they covet, that they envy most but can't have.

By measuring value in objective, masculine terms, such as strength, size, speed, and competence at building and managing the physical world, evidence of men's superiority becomes impossible to deny – the average man eclipses even exceptional women. To make things worse, it doesn't matter that most men are ordinary on most measures because ordinary men are invisible. We all tend to notice only the most beautiful women and the most competent men, and at the top of every field of endeavor sit men, and only men.

While most men are humbled at some point by the power of exceptional men, most women cannot even conceive of that level of performance because they are never put to an honest test. Whereas an incompetent man who persists as a pretender will be mercilessly destroyed, a woman will be humored and protected. A woman typically only encounters a man's power to the extent that a child encounters her father's strength during play time, and this has left many to believe that the gap could be bridged with a little effort. Nothing could be further from the truth, as some female athletes have recently discovered.

Clearly there are competent women who delight in male-typical endeavors, even without identifying as feminists. This is perfectly healthy and, contrary to feminist orthodoxy, has been accommodated and celebrated throughout history, as we have documented on Studio B. But even with the plethora of female-only incentives available today, these women remain rare.

To covet the things that men create is to devalue the world that women create: the warmth of home and family, and the social fabric of society and its children, and feminists do this openly and with glee. By their incessant focus on the world of men, the unspoken feminist message is, “woman is worth less than man,” and femininity became every bit as much the enemy as did the male until self-loathing seeped into the heart of the feminist movement.

Having murdered their own feminine essence for a masculine world that is forever out of reach, the feminist rage takes aim at whatever happens to be in sight. It is directed at an omnipresent “Patriarchy” that represents existence itself. In other words, their rage is directed at God, exactly as depicted of Satan whose desire to be God is forever out of reach.

Suicidal Feminism

From every angle, feminism bears the mark of evil and it has clearly wreaked havoc on Western culture. It has destroyed the education system with anti-intellectual policies, its influence has spread from the universities throughout society resulting in affirmative action laws and discriminatory policies that elevate unqualified women and men into positions of authority; it has undermined the family, which is the fundamental stabilizing force of civilization, and so much more.

Feminism convinces women to abandon their natural impulse to knit together the fabric of society and use their skills to tear society apart at the seams, even though the woman herself is often destroyed in the process. We now see the dark side of female nature in full rage: advocating death and destruction, rejecting natural gender in favor of bodily mutilation, hating the family, killing their own children if not in body then in the soul, casting themselves as supreme in a manner that parallels the story of Satan's envy of God, and reveling in their ability to create misery at every turn.

But as damaging as it has been to society, its greatest evil is reserved for those it infects most deeply, the feminist true believer. Like an incurable virus, it slowly poisons every part of the mind until only envious rage remains.

Evil is Uncontrollable

Though we call it into existence as we do anti-matter, once created, evil is not controllable. It is a purely destructive force that ultimately destroys those who think they can harness its power.

As I write this, California is literally burning to the ground after elevating feminist DEI principles above competence and placing an all-female/LGBTQ leadership team in charge of the fire department and the water supply. One member of the team dismissed the concern that she could not carry a man out of harms way by blaming the would-be victim, quote, “he got himself into the wrong place if I have to carry him out.” She expressed no concern about the prospect that a human being could burn to death because of her incompetence.

Evil always absolves itself of responsibility, and this story is repeated everywhere that DEI has been implemented. The disaster is now so obvious that awareness of woke/feminist/DEI insanity may have contributed to Trump's 2024 election victory, and there are signs that the tide is changing throughout the West as one-time staunch feminist organizations, like Facebook, are dismantling their woke initiatives.

A decade ago, the UN celebrated Sweden's first feminist government, which implemented the world's first feminist foreign policy and promoted it as a template for other governments to follow,

“Feminist policies are a valuable resource that enriches and enhances the international community’s more than seven decades of efforts to secure the human rights and autonomy of women in their diversity. These policies also have the potential to advance the care society and the achievement of substantive equality in the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development, as well as the right to peace for current and future generations.”

These grand promises, built upon a foundation of deceit, naturally collapsed, and now Sweden enjoys one of the highest homicide rates in Europe, is plagued with gang warfare, and is part of a “Wave of Muslim rape cases across Europe.” It is no coincidence that Canada too, is struggling with an unprecedented level of corruption under its first feminist government led by Justin Trudeau, who adopted feminism for his own sycophantic purposes.

Feminism has spread around the world and infiltrated everything from the smallest community groups, religious organizations, and Boy Scout groups, right up to the largest global entities. That the WEF is now under attack, the WHO is faltering, and even the UN may fall, is evidence that public sentiment is shifting. All of these organizations, and more, have been overtaken by feminists and none of them can contain the stench of corruption that can be directly attributed to the lies that have proliferated under the guise of the righteousness of feminism.

The Author of Feminism

The power inherent in the idea of women's oppression by men is obvious and tempting, but it is a lie that requires one to deny the vast majority of history, the humanity of men and one's own nature. This lie was used to explain women's lack of representation at the top of every field of endeavor, erase the uniqueness of the male and the female, and to justify elevating unqualified women into positions of power. From the beginning, this central feminist claim implied that men and women were interchangeable and that only oppression could explain the difference in outcomes. To give life to that lie rather than leave it dormant is to invite evil into the world, and feminism has done exactly that. It seduces damaged women to devalue their authentic female nature and grasp in vain at the false promise that they can wield the power of masculinity. But masculinity was never within feminism's power to give, just as it was never within the Devil's power to give the world to Jesus. The willing victim is instead led away from the path to joy that is characterized by love and faith – away from the path to wholeness of mind, body and soul that is the essence of holiness.

This seed, planted hundreds of years ago, has grown to its absurd logical conclusion in our day with the veneration of gender dysphoria as a discovery of “true self,” the claim that men can get pregnant, men clobbering women in sports, and incompetent women putting the public at risk as policemen, firefighters, and more. That woman can take man's place and vice versa has been the most impressive deceit in the history of humanity, and it is far from over. As of 2017, more than half of the world's population identified as feminist – over 4 billion people – far exceeding the numbers of any other movement in history, including Christianity (2.4 billion) and Islam (1.9 billion).

The hand of Satan acts through willing participants who choose the power of the lie only to find out too late that they are themselves targeted for destruction. The global feminist movement is infinitely tricky and has grown too big to take on directly, but reality /God cannot be denied indefinitely. Our strength lies in our ability to identify it, name it, reject it in its entirety, and stand aside while it devours itself.

The Bible was written thousands of years ago and names no daughter of Satan, but if ever there were a candidate worthy of his lineage, it would be the invisible hand behind feminism. And if “to 'come to terms' means to 'arrive at the name'” as Dr. Peck suggested, then I dub it Satanina, daughter of Satan and author of feminism. The true believer feminist is its most precious target – she pays with her own soul and receives nothing but eternal torment in return.

Gratitude

There is one final piece of evidence that feminism is evil: gratitude. It is the one virtue that Christian theologians claim can counter envy and thus keep evil at bay, and its conspicuous absence from ideological feminism and its leadership is not accidental. Evil cannot abide gratitude and will not allow it a foothold in the mind.

Feminists sabotaged women's gratitude for the authentic gifts of the feminine, the most central of which are the ability to knit together human society and to serve as the vessel through which life is renewed in the world. It's difficult to imagine a more profound rejection of reality than the denial of this core of femininity, especially when accompanied by the idea that the womb itself could be male. Only the Devil could sell such an idea.

If the meaning and purpose of life is the journey towards joy and holiness, then there is no one task more sacred than delivering and nurturing the next generation of souls. Not only is the influence of both mother and father necessary in order for a child to develop to the point that it can contribute to society and seek its own fulfillment, but nothing can teach a person about him/herself, and about holiness, better than parenthood. We must reaffirm the central importance of the role of mother and support those women, and men, who choose a path to holiness through their roles as parents.

Feminism stands in direct opposition to all of this and more. It seeks to foster resentment rather than gratitude, damaging mother, father and child alike, while creating instability in society through destruction of the family. Presently Western laws, put in place through feminist activism, even incentivize women to destroy the family by tempting them with unbalanced financial gain through divorce and the ability to lay false charges of domestic violence.

It is no coincidence that organized feminism emerged only after the scientific revolution. Atheists asserted that because science could explain how the universe works, there must be no God – a non sequitur that assumes comprehensibility negates God, but nonetheless an idea that captured a large swathe of the popular imagination. This quickly led to the assertion that life was a meaningless accident, which was far more devastating to the female psyche than to the male. The womb has long been thought of as the vessel through which life is renewed, and it sits at the heart of female identity. If life is judged meaningless, then the womb must be even less so. By implication, those whose core identity is to deliver and nurture new life – women – must be as meaningless as the universe itself. On the other hand, masculine identity as builder of civilization was perhaps even strengthened by the exciting promise of emerging science and technology. This would inspire envy in some women.

It is impossible to over estimate the psychic damage that this worldview can cause to individual women and to society. A crisis of female identity was inevitable and the response came in the form of feminism – full of rage, and bent upon destroying the male and usurping his identity. Unable to philosophically detect and counter the nihilism of nascent atheism, feminists sought meaning in the masculine world because that was all that was left after their core identity was blown to pieces within the very culture that they must live.

The atheist idea that God is a fantasy and that the universe is meaningless is at the root of more societal distress than any other single idea. It has pushed people towards a plethora of nihilistic movements as people try to fill the vacuum of meaning and purpose with lesser causes like environmentalism, cults of various kinds, BLM, Antifa, globalism, feminism and more – none of which is large enough to articulate humanity's place in the universe. One can see the invisible hand of evil in atheism even before feminism was born, but feminism has been its most consequential deceit by a wide margin.

Western culture can be turned around by withdrawing all support for the feminist project and cultivating a sense of gratitude for the miracle of existence that provides us with the opportunity to become the joy that is the meaning and purpose of the universe. Gratitude for the unparalleled quality of life that science and technology has placed within reach and for the cultural traditions that give us insight into how our ancestors found meaning and purpose before us. The Lord's Prayer, a centerpiece of Christian worship, encourages just such an attitude of humility and gratitude, and implies that we know nothing for certain but God – the “I Am” of Exodus, Descartes and contemporary consciousness researchers,

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass
against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

Humanity cannot thrive without a vision that gives us a sense of place and meaning. The scientific revolution was the epicenter of a cataclysmic earthquake whose aftershocks still reverberate through every culture in the modern world, and we have yet to rebuild the damaged cosmological stories that once anchored our lives. We need a reformation of humanity's visions of God such that they are in alignment with our present understanding of the universe, and they must be compelling. Only a cosmology that can integrate all of our intellectual specialties – scientific, philosophical and mythological – into a cohesive whole that articulates humanity's place in the universe can heal our present dysfunction and support our individual journeys to fulfillment through holiness. This is the most important work of our time. Those who take it up will be vilified and rejected by the present woke culture and traditionalists alike, but authentic joy will be their reward.

The battle between good and evil is won one person at a time as each chooses reality over the power of the lie. Our task is to create a culture in which we can readily distinguish between the two, and it is clear that both feminism and atheism stand with Satan, the Great Deceiver, in nihilistic opposition to God.

In short, feminism is evil, but gratitude can save us.