Stalking in alt-right circles : how conservatives have made me a radical feminist

[M., a young 24-year-old moth­er whom some of you may have heard in the Radio Cha­ton pod­cast that she did with Solveig Mineo in 2018, gives her tes­ti­mo­ny about her harass­ment in so-called “right-wing” con­ser­v­a­tive cir­cles, which has had a sig­nif­i­cant impact on her life and her health. There has­n’t been a #MeToo on the “right” cir­cles yet, but it’s not the seri­ous cas­es of misog­y­nist harass­ment, revenge porn, and sex­u­al assault that are lack­ing in this envi­ron­ment. The French ver­sion of her tes­ti­mo­ny is avail­able in this link. We know for sure that this tes­ti­mo­ny will pro­voke hatred and con­tempt. It is in full aware­ness of the risks that we pub­lish it, because it seems urgent to us to encour­age women to raise their voic­es freely, these women who have been remain­ing silent for too long, hid­ing in shame, thus giv­ing the harassers a full space to con­tin­ue their vio­lence in impuni­ty.]

This sto­ry is divid­ed into two parts. The first, more gen­er­al, aims to expose the pure­ly ide­o­log­i­cal rea­sons as well as the con­tra­dic­tions inher­ent in so-called “right-wing” move­ments that can lead a woman who has always felt this polit­i­cal sen­si­tiv­i­ty to deny it and to leave its activism. This is writ­ten from a pure­ly sub­jec­tive point of view : my words are sole­ly mine and I do not claim to speak for oth­er right-wing women.

The sec­ond, more per­son­al, aims to tes­ti­fy about the (cyber) moral harass­ment that I have been through, as well as oth­er women, in the same cir­cles.

It took me an enor­mous amount of courage to write this arti­cle. First of all because it is not easy to dive back into trau­mat­ic events from your past, espe­cial­ly when you have nev­er real­ly man­aged to turn the page ; sec­ond­ly, because the unpleas­ant reac­tions it is like­ly to pro­voke are quite pre­dictable. You could argue that these events only con­cern an echo cham­ber and there­fore it is not inter­est­ing to talk about them. Moral (cyber) harass­ment, in its misog­y­nis­tic form, affects absolute­ly all cir­cles and all polit­i­cal, activist, social and cul­tur­al spheres : we can­not fight against a phe­nom­e­non of such a large scale by min­i­miz­ing the scope of the tes­ti­mo­ny of some­one, because it would only con­cern a restrict­ed envi­ron­ment. The scan­dal of the “Ligue du LOL” in France also con­cerned a small sphere, that of left-wing jour­nal­ism, and its scope was nev­er­the­less excep­tion­al. The same goes for the #MeToo phe­nom­e­non, which has its roots in the denun­ci­a­tion of rape and sex­u­al assault with­in the com­mu­ni­ty — restrict­ed and inac­ces­si­ble to the major­i­ty of us — of cin­e­ma.

Dif­fi­cult then because, as in all cas­es of harass­ment, break­ing the silence can lead to being tar­get­ed again — in this regard, we will remem­ber the Mila case where, togeth­er, asso­ci­a­tions help­ing vic­tims of cyber­bul­ly­ing, the school and almost all of Mila’s rel­a­tives advised her to shut up, to delete her social medias, to make peo­ple “for­get about her”, if she want­ed, one fine day, to return to a nor­mal life. This injunc­tion to silence, root­ed in the fear of a new wave of harass­ment, is absolute­ly unbear­able and con­sti­tutes a dou­ble penal­ty for the vic­tims : first, they suf­fer unjust, immoral and crim­i­nal­ly rep­re­hen­si­ble acts, which in the most trag­ic cas­es can destroy their lives, result­ing in sui­cide — then we tell them to dis­ap­pear, not to rely on jus­tice because “it is use­less”, “it is only the Inter­net”, and final­ly we offer them as an ulti­mate solu­tion to con­sult a psy­chi­a­trist to heal their trau­ma (in the mean­time, stalk­ers con­tin­ue to exist freely on the web with impuni­ty, and above all will sure­ly not go to see the psy­chi­a­trist which they would bad­ly need).

How­ev­er, it is essen­tial that some stand up and take the risk, despite the poten­tial con­se­quences : in my case, I see it as a moral duty that I would have towards my daugh­ter. If I want her to grow up in a world where she would not have to under­go these kinds of expe­ri­ences, where harass­ment in the broad sense would be hunt­ed, social­ly stig­ma­tized and con­demned to the height of the (immense) harm that it caus­es, each tes­ti­mo­ny counts.

Like­wise, in a polit­i­cal con­text where the debate on anonymi­ty on the Inter­net is resur­fac­ing, and where this right to anonymi­ty, accom­pa­nied by its essen­tial corol­lary — free­dom of expres­sion — is threat­ened by the pub­lic author­i­ties, it seems essen­tial to alert and to fight firm­ly against indi­vid­u­als who abuse these rights to the point of endan­ger­ing them. Because yes, beyond the lib­er­ti­ci­dal poli­cies car­ried out by the gov­ern­ments, I per­sist and sign : the cyber-delin­quents are the FIRST respon­si­ble for the hard­en­ing of the leg­is­la­tion in this mat­ter. Yes, free­dom of expres­sion, when it con­cerns the realm of polit­i­cal ideas and opin­ions, must be absolute. No, it does not encom­pass the inalien­able right to dri­ve young women to sui­cide. Yes, the right to anonymi­ty on the web must be guar­an­teed and pro­tect­ed, and yes, if it is not also pro­tect­ed by com­bat­ing doxxing (the prac­tice of research­ing and dis­play­ing on the inter­net infor­ma­tion on iden­ti­ty and pri­vate life — real or fan­ta­sized — of an indi­vid­ual with the aim of harm­ing them) with­in the polit­i­cal, activist, social and cul­tur­al cir­cles in which one evolves, then one is a hyp­ocrite.

Thank you very much in advance for your atten­tion. Good read­ing.

Part one

Two essen­tial things brought me, at an ear­ly age, to get clos­er to so-called “right-wing” cir­cles :

• Like many women, a reac­tion to what I was going through on a dai­ly basis. My teenage days in the South of France were dri­ven by inci­vil­i­ty and sex­ist and misog­y­nis­tic attacks com­mit­ted by for­eign­ers or “French” peo­ple of for­eign ori­gin. Every­one knew that these indi­vid­u­als were respon­si­ble for the major­i­ty of harass­ment and street assaults per­pe­trat­ed against French and native Euro­pean women, but speak­ing open­ly about this prob­lem was a real fac­tor of social exclu­sion. The fear of being labeled as “racist” out­weighed the need to name the prob­lems in order to be able to solve them.

• A rea­son relat­ed more to my per­son­al­i­ty and my back­ground : com­ing from a work­ing-class bro­ken fam­i­ly with con­flict­ing rela­tion­ships, I appre­ci­at­ed the impor­tance giv­en to fam­i­ly val­ues ​​by the “right”, which I did not find with­in my orig­i­nal polit­i­cal sen­si­bil­i­ty (anar­chist).

Like many young adults of my age los­ing their bear­ings, I was also going through an iden­ti­ty cri­sis and want­ed to learn more about the his­to­ry of my coun­try, my ances­tors and my civ­i­liza­tion. I thought that get­ting clos­er to my roots would allow me to bet­ter under­stand who I am, as well as how to act in a world whose codes I did not under­stand. In this regard, it seems impor­tant to me to clar­i­fy my autis­tic type per­son­al­i­ty, which makes it extreme­ly dif­fi­cult for me to under­stand and apply social codes.

That’s what I came for when I got involved in activism. Not exact­ly what I found there. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t intend to throw the baby out with the bath­wa­ter. In addi­tion to great encoun­ters, the so-called “right-wing” cir­cles have been a gate­way to my her­itage, to essen­tial things which struc­ture my life today, such as the redis­cov­ery of my pagan roots and ini­ti­a­tion into dis­ci­plines that fas­ci­nate me such as runol­o­gy. While they don’t have a monop­oly on it, the “right-wing” cir­cles have allowed me to awak­en a whole bunch of polit­i­cal and cul­tur­al sub­jects and I thank them for it. How­ev­er, if I have come to deny them and leave them with­out regrets, it is because these pos­i­tive find­ings were large­ly out­weighed by the neg­a­tive expe­ri­ences that are the sub­ject of this arti­cle.

With hind­sight, it seems obvi­ous to me to have been immersed in move­ments that were built in reac­tion to the excess­es and ide­o­log­i­cal absur­di­ties of the left, and that para­dox­i­cal­ly have become the exact reflec­tion, the mir­rors.

Faced with the ide­ol­o­gy of decon­struc­tion* and cul­tur­al rel­a­tivism advo­cat­ed by the left (*any con­cept, even if it is anchored in pure­ly bio­log­i­cal real­i­ties, is a social con­struc­tion that should be decon­struct­ed), the “right” essen­tial­izes, gen­er­al­izes, cat­e­go­rizes and labels exces­sive­ly, also becom­ing an envi­ron­ment ill-suit­ed to free thought, inno­v­a­tive ideas and, more gen­er­al­ly, to any devel­op­ment.

Thus, faced with gen­der the­o­ry (the­o­ry based on the pos­tu­late that bio­log­i­cal sex and gen­der iden­ti­ty are mutu­al­ly exclu­sive and that there are a mul­ti­tude of gen­der iden­ti­ties oth­er than “male” and “female”) the “right” laps­es into an essen­tial­ism that is just as delu­sion­al and pushed to the lim­it, with an almost sick­ly obses­sion with the assign­ment of each bio­log­i­cal sex to the gen­der iden­ti­ty that is sup­posed to cor­re­spond to it nat­u­ral­ly. Thus, men are intrin­si­cal­ly made to lead, gov­ern, work out­side and ful­fill them­selves in the world of ideas, while women are made to be moth­ers, nuns or whores, con­fined to the pure­ly mate­r­i­al world of domes­tic work, and sum­moned to be the rep­re­sen­ta­tives of a “fem­i­nin­i­ty” (as opposed to a car­i­cat­ur­al vision of fem­i­nism) char­ac­ter­ized by these beau­ti­ful “qual­i­ties” that are sub­mis­sion, pas­siv­i­ty and silence — to sum­ma­rize, by this beau­ti­ful “qual­i­ty” that is domes­ti­ca­tion.

A rather fla­grant con­tra­dic­tion that I was giv­en to see dur­ing my stay in these spheres also resided in the con­stant crit­i­cism (which seems to me to be found­ed and legit­i­mate) of the hyper-sta­ti­za­tion of our soci­ety led by the left, accom­pa­nied by its increas­ing desire to reduce our indi­vid­ual free­doms and to muz­zle dis­sent­ing voic­es in total con­tempt for free­dom of expres­sion. That being said, the so-called “right-wing” cir­cles turned out to be just as rigid and ide­o­log­i­cal­ly dog­mat­ic as the sta­tist left which they intend­ed to oppose. The posi­tions oppos­ing the “clas­sic” reac­tionary ide­o­log­i­cal cor­pus were not only debat­ed and test­ed — which seems nor­mal to me in cir­cles with a cul­ture of debate — but their voice car­ri­ers (espe­cial­ly when they were women) severe­ly vil­i­fied and ostra­cized in order to be silenced.

The exam­ple of Occi­den­tal­ist fem­i­nism car­ried by Solveig Mineo seems to be the most obvi­ous exam­ple to illus­trate my point. I am in fact con­vinced that this form of fem­i­nism is the most empir­i­cal­ly rep­re­sent­ed among West­ern women : indeed, “main­stream” so-called “left-wing” or “inter­sec­tion­al” fem­i­nism, sprayed with pub­lic sub­si­dies, has large­ly demon­strat­ed its betray­al of west­ern women. White women, of West­ern cul­ture and athe­is­tic sen­si­bil­i­ty (the major­i­ty of West­ern women, there­fore) can­not decent­ly approve it unless they kneel down and sub­mit to the inter­ests of reli­gious extrem­ists whose are the exact oppo­site of theirs — to sum­ma­rize, to deny fem­i­nism. At the oppo­site end of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, reac­tionary anti-fem­i­nism speaks even less to West­ern women, and the dichoto­my made by the “right” oppos­ing “hys­ter­i­cal” fem­i­nist ten­den­cies & “social jus­tice war­rior” to “trad­wifes” (tra­di­tion­al sub­mis­sive women of the 1950s) is com­plete­ly absurd and out of touch with real­i­ty. The social jus­tice war­rior and trad­wife ten­den­cies, in addi­tion to rep­re­sent­ing almost no one in real life, are two forms of reli­gious activism at the antipodes of the con­cerns of West­ern women : on the one hand, we have the reli­gion of “Progress”, under­stood neg­a­tive­ly as a syn­onym of decon­struc­tion (I insist on the neu­tral­i­ty of the word progress), on the oth­er hand tra­di­tion­al­ist Chris­tian­i­ty. For­give me, but I know women well enough to know that the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of them do not rec­og­nize them­selves in the decon­struc­tivist delu­sions of third gen­er­a­tion “fem­i­nism”, nor in the ide­o­log­i­cal con­tor­tions of inter­sec­tion­al “fem­i­nists”, who attempt with incred­i­ble acro­bat­ics to com­bine fem­i­nism, import­ed patri­ar­chal reli­gions and uncon­di­tion­al wel­come of indi­vid­u­als of intrin­si­cal­ly misog­y­nis­tic cul­ture, and reac­tionary anti-fem­i­nism intend­ing to deprive them of rights which they con­sid­er to be fun­da­men­tal and acquired.

Despite this promis­ing mar­ket of “right-wing” fem­i­nism, the “right” refus­es to get out of its los­ing repul­sive preach­ing of bliss­ful anti-fem­i­nism, just as it per­sists in want­i­ng to reduce the rights and free­doms of women in the name of fam­i­ly val­ues, with­out ever defend­ing them by pro­mot­ing pos­i­tive mea­sures that would gen­er­ate new rights for all.

For exam­ple, and I say this after years of pres­ence in these spheres, I have nev­er (or very lit­tle) heard some­one pro­mote the exten­sion of the length of parental leave, the reduc­tion of school work­ing time — at it’s done in cer­tain Euro­pean coun­tries — for the ben­e­fit of out­side school activ­i­ties and more “fam­i­ly” edu­ca­tion, nor even the reval­u­a­tion of fam­i­ly ben­e­fits from a natal­ist per­spec­tive — we speak rather, in cer­tain “right” spheres, of grant­i­ng a “salary” to mar­ried house­wives only.

On the oth­er hand, there are still many peo­ple to fight in the name of “the children’s best inter­ests” against assist­ed repro­duc­tion for all, known as “father­less” repro­duc­tion. This article’s aim isn’t to dis­cuss the mer­its of La Manif Pour Tous’ claims, so I will refrain from say­ing what I think, sim­ply note that these activists want, again, to block the road exclu­sive­ly to new rights accord­ed to women by tak­ing the children’s best inter­ests hostage. Why exclu­sive­ly ? Because I have nev­er, for exam­ple, heard these activists protest against fam­i­ly aban­don­ment in the name of the children’s best inter­ests, there­fore pro­mot­ing mea­sures such as the facil­i­ta­tion of forced recog­ni­tion of pater­ni­ty, a mea­sure that would ensure at a min­i­mum the finan­cial par­tic­i­pa­tion of the resign­ing “father” in the main­te­nance and edu­ca­tion of the child.

Let’s talk about it, the resign­ing “fathers”, those absent from the stereo­typ­i­cal speech­es of the reac­tionary “right”, which is nev­er short of superla­tives when it comes to vil­i­fy­ing sin­gle moth­ers, con­sid­ered nei­ther more nor less as respon­si­ble for all the mis­for­tunes of the world. The sin­gle moth­er, this woman who nev­er­the­less had the courage — accord­ing to reac­tionary stan­dards — to embrace her nat­ur­al role of moth­er by refus­ing the “ease” of abor­tion, is por­trayed as a woman inher­ent­ly dan­ger­ous and destruc­tive of civ­i­liza­tions, this through biased & ide­o­log­i­cal­ly ori­ent­ed “stud­ies” com­par­ing the rates of crime, delin­quen­cy, sui­cide (…) of chil­dren from sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies and those from “tra­di­tion­al” fam­i­lies. This kind of study, obvi­ous­ly biased in that it does not indi­cate from what social back­grounds these sin­gle-par­ent fam­i­lies come from, what finan­cial means they have to ensure their chil­dren a healthy and secure liv­ing envi­ron­ment, as well as the oth­er crim­ino­genic fac­tors to be tak­en into account (drug addic­tion, alco­holism, vio­lence etc), are used as “sci­en­tif­ic” sup­port by “right” cir­cles to stig­ma­tize sin­gle moth­ers and fight against “father­less” assist­ed repro­duc­tion in the “children’s best inter­ests”. How­ev­er, strive to reduce these crim­ino­genic fac­tors through forced recog­ni­tion of pater­ni­ty, as well as by more sub­stan­tial finan­cial sup­port for those who need it most (yes, it is indeed sin­gle moth­ers and not rich mar­ried house­wives) in the “children’s best inter­ests” is not part of the pro­gram.

This “dou­ble stan­dard” is large­ly explained by the prox­im­i­ty of the “right” to the manos­phere and mas­culin­ism (move­ments whose aims are to pro­mote men’s rights and their inter­ests in civ­il soci­ety, stat­ing in par­tic­u­lar that they are vic­tims of the “excess­es” of fem­i­nism). One can once again won­der about the obvi­ous con­tra­dic­tion of crit­i­ciz­ing sta­tism on the one hand, and embrac­ing the wacky the­o­ries and claims of mas­culin­ists demand­ing more and more state on the oth­er. Among these demands, we no longer cite the apt­ly named sex­u­al com­mu­nism, which starts from the pos­tu­late that all men, regard­less of their mer­its and per­son­al efforts as well as their men­tal, social and phys­i­cal con­di­tion, would have the RIGHT to a wife. So the whole soci­ety, with the help of the State, should mobi­lize to pro­hib­it the sex­u­al free­dom of indi­vid­u­als and pro­vide a well-built, vir­gin, docile and gift­ed in cook­ing wife to these gen­tle­men BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO IT.

If I had to sum­ma­rize my point, I would say that as a per­son advo­cat­ing for intel­lec­tu­al free­dom and tired of the ide­o­log­i­cal for­mat­ting of the left which almost con­fers on Stal­in­ism, I did not find on the “right” what I was look­ing for. I have found a cir­cle dom­i­nat­ed by reac­tion to the left and which has noth­ing to envy it for when it comes to total­ly dis­con­nect­ing from real­i­ties. I have found an envi­ron­ment that does not want to win, that per­fect­ly enjoys play­ing the role of an oppo­si­tion fig­ure and tak­ing posi­tions that are inten­tion­al­ly car­i­ca­tured and repul­sive. As a woman, who arrived in these cir­cles as a “mod­er­ate” fem­i­nist, who has always been attached to crit­i­ciz­ing alleged­ly mar­gin­al behav­ior with­in her polit­i­cal fam­i­ly with­out ever falling into a form of stu­pid misandry, I found an envi­ron­ment deter­mined to silence women who do not accept to be a show­case for the reac­tionary agen­da.

And well… To play the game is to accept hav­ing to do per­ma­nent acro­bat­ics to sat­is­fy fun­da­men­tal­ly con­tra­dic­to­ry demands : it is fash­ion­able to appear “fem­i­nine” and attrac­tive (as opposed to the sup­pos­ed­ly “ugly”, “mas­cu­line” and “sex­u­al­ly repul­sive” fem­i­nists) while adopt­ing a prud­ish appear­ance and atti­tude. We will be con­grat­u­lat­ed for expos­ing our life as a “devot­ed” stay-at-home mom as long as our pres­ence remains rea­son­ably dis­creet (a “real woman” does not expose her­self pub­licly to excess, she is sup­posed to be sat­is­fied only with the atten­tion that she receives from her hus­band and mas­ter). We will be expect­ed to sat­is­fy unre­al­is­tic puri­ty stan­dards while our “com­rades” are admit­ting all the pos­si­ble com­pro­mis­es regard­ing the rather lib­er­at­ed lives of their — mas­cu­line — favorite opin­ion mak­ers (because yes, the reac­tion to the insane egal­i­tar­i­an­ism advo­cat­ed by the left is man­i­fest­ed on the “right” by the con­se­cra­tion of the inequal­i­ty in rights and con­sid­er­a­tion between men and women, under the guise of respect for the “nat­ur­al order”… Because Moth­er Nature, it is impor­tant to respect her, except when it comes to protest against nat­ur­al phe­nom­e­na as old as the world, such as fem­i­nine hyper­gamy (the fact that a woman freely selects, among her pre­ten­dants, the spouse with the high­est sta­tus).

We will be praised, pro­mot­ed, relayed, if we coura­geous­ly denounce import­ed for­eign reli­gious misog­y­ny… But sum­moned to silence if we wish to show hon­esty and also denounce indige­nous misog­y­ny, because we should nev­er “sow divi­sion” and “fuel the sex war” with­in our ranks (which is strange­ly less of a prob­lem for “our ranks ” when it is the manos­phere that does it).

I hear the accu­sa­tions of schema­ti­za­tion, of gen­er­al­iza­tion of mar­gin­al behav­ior to the whole of an activist cir­cle… If this is indeed the case, how to explain the colos­sal efforts which have been deployed to silence the few women dar­ing to pub­licly denounce these “mar­gin­al” views ? How to explain that cir­cles want­i­ng to be the gate­keep­ers of the indi­vid­ual free­doms of cit­i­zens — fac­ing state inter­fer­ence — and of their right to express their polit­i­cal opin­ions with­out being doxxed, indexed and social­ly ostra­cized for this, reg­u­lar­ly remain silent when some of their activists redou­ble their inge­nu­ity to stalk and pub­licly expose the pri­va­cy of peo­ple who don’t suit them ? The answers to these ques­tions (they will sur­prise you) will be the sub­ject of the sec­ond part of this tes­ti­mo­ny.

Thank you for read­ing.

 

Part two

My sto­ry begins in 2017 : I was 21 at the time and lived alone in Paris, where I stud­ied. This year cor­re­sponds to a very strange moment in my life : my moth­er passed away two years ear­li­er, so I was now an orphan — this tragedy, added to oth­ers, plunged me straight into the abyss, and I was diag­nosed with melan­choly (this is the most severe form of depres­sion, where all the symp­toms of the dis­ease are exac­er­bat­ed). At that time, I escaped bore­dom, lone­li­ness and depres­sion on social media, where I got involved in activism and, as one thing led to anoth­er, I had a lot of meet­ings with­in the Parisian “alt-right”.

Look­ing back, it’s hard to know what I was doing there. If I had to draw up the soci­ol­o­gy of the cir­cles in which I was involved in Paris, I would say that it is less about mil­i­tant cir­cles than idle bour­geois clubs, Macro­nists deploy­ing con­sid­er­able efforts to be inte­grat­ed into the “high­er spheres” of Parisian soci­ety by day, “dis­si­dents” by night, whose polit­i­cal and metapo­lit­i­cal activism is more or less unload­ing an accu­mu­la­tion of frus­tra­tion online — frus­tra­tion that has its source in liv­ing per­ma­nent­ly in a state of cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance, in want­i­ng to be “far right” with­out giv­ing up the mate­r­i­al com­fort of the beau­ti­ful dis­tricts of Paris, which nec­es­sar­i­ly implies the sac­ri­fice of one’s intel­lec­tu­al and moral integri­ty on the altar of a start-up stuffed with left­ist idiots…
For my part, let’s just say that I grew up in a pop­u­lar envi­ron­ment, far from suits and ties, heeled bal­leri­nas and medal­lions bear­ing the effi­gy of the Vir­gin Mary. The con­trast was accen­tu­at­ed by the fact that I liked to wear a “goth­ic” style, to dye my hair black and to get tat­toos. Ide­o­log­i­cal­ly, the ditch that sep­a­rat­ed me from my “friends” of the Parisian “right” was as great, if not more, than the one that sep­a­rat­ed our ways of dress­ing our­selves. As stat­ed in the first part of this tes­ti­mo­ny, what brought me to get clos­er to “right-wing” cir­cles was first and fore­most the desire to fight against the vio­lence suf­fered dai­ly by indige­nous women, because of immi­grant pop­u­la­tions. If I was also fond of Euro­pean his­to­ry and tra­di­tions, this had nev­er made me a reac­tionary, and I had always pre­sent­ed myself to my “com­rades” as a fem­i­nist. Indeed, while I firm­ly reject­ed so-called “third wave” fem­i­nism, its inter­sec­tion­al­i­ty and its ide­ol­o­gy of decon­struc­tion, I was com­mit­ted to equal­i­ty in rights and con­sid­er­a­tion between men and women in the West. Beyond sim­ple equal­i­ty in rights, I was proud to live in a soci­ety where the des­tiny of indi­vid­u­als was not pre­de­ter­mined by their bio­log­i­cal sex, where women could become what­ev­er they want­ed (includ­ing being house­wives, which is the choice I made) and where the fun­da­men­tal­ly misog­y­nis­tic debates of anoth­er cen­tu­ry (dare I say anoth­er cul­ture?) about vir­gin­i­ty, phys­i­cal appear­ance and the sex life of women def­i­nite­ly belonged to the past. Orig­i­nal­ly of anar­chist sen­si­tiv­i­ty, I attached great impor­tance to the notion of free­dom, and if I could con­ceive an estab­lished order, I appre­ci­at­ed that it was prag­mat­ic and did not inter­fere with reli­gion or ide­ol­o­gy.

In addi­tion to these rather incon­gru­ous con­nec­tions in Paris, I cre­at­ed, on the advice of a friend, an account on the social media Twit­ter, in order to exchange more eas­i­ly with peo­ple shar­ing my polit­i­cal views as well as my per­son­al inter­ests. So, in 2018, I met Solveig Mineo, the lead­ing fig­ure of “Occi­den­tal­ist Fem­i­nism”. Very quick­ly, I real­ized that I had much more in com­mon with her than with all of my “friends” on the Parisian “right”; I rec­og­nized myself in her vision of fem­i­nism cen­tered on the defense of West­ern women’s inter­ests, nei­ther decon­struc­tivist nor reac­tionary, in her inter­est in pre-Chris­t­ian Euro­pean civ­i­liza­tions (although being at that time of Chris­t­ian faith myself, which Solveig has nev­er reproached me for) as well as in her uncon­di­tion­al defense of free­dom. Quick­ly, we became friends and exchanged our expe­ri­ences after sev­er­al years of “right-wing” activism : Solveig explained to me that her right-wing fem­i­nist activism has caused her many prob­lems with the reac­tionar­ies, tra­di­tion­al­ist Catholics in par­tic­u­lar, and that she used to be the vic­tim of vio­lent cam­paigns of harass­ment car­ried out by per­son­al­i­ties straight out of a psy­chi­atric asy­lum (we will come back to this) — this in order to silence her and pre­vent her from offer­ing an alter­na­tive to the clas­si­cal reac­tionary and pre­dom­i­nant­ly Catholic “right”.

She told me sor­did doxxing sto­ries of her fam­i­ly mem­bers. She told me that a tra­di­tion­al­ist Catholic bragged about spread­ing her address to some­one linked to the ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion Daesh. She warned me that she was also the tar­get of an anti-Semit­ic Catholic rap­per, infa­mous for his escapades mix­ing drugs, stays in prison and domes­tic vio­lence, and that he invent­ed her Jew­ish and Maghre­bian ori­gins. (I will find out lat­er that this is a clas­sic dehu­man­iza­tion tech­nique of the “right”: if the first nut­case pro­claims that you are not Euro­pean — let alone that you are Jew­ish — then it will absolve him of the dis­gust­ing behav­ior he will adopt towards you, and he will be free to insult you, to slan­der you, to harass you and to doxx you at best with gen­er­al indif­fer­ence, at worst with applause), and that the main occu­pa­tion of this sad char­ac­ter was to write “arti­cles” and to dif­fuse slan­der­ous videos about the per­son­al­i­ties which he didn’t like. I learned that the wacko por­trayed my friend as a pimp moth­er “infil­trat­ed” into “right-wing” cir­cles, and that she was at the head of an occult pros­ti­tu­tion ring run by Jew­ish high mason­ry. Just that.
“But… nobody can decent­ly believe that, can they?”

She replied that the video in ques­tion had more than 20,000 views on Youtube. So I sin­cere­ly hoped that these views were from idle guys want­i­ng to have a good laugh… I will learn that this is not real­ly the case, and that the micro­cosm of mis­fits that fol­low this guy is obsessed with “infil­tra­tion”. I then won­dered : how can peo­ple who have nev­er built any­thing of any con­se­quence to fight against the sys­tem they claim to want to over­throw, who any ratio­nal per­son at least takes for crazy peo­ple, and whose dan­ger is only direct­ed against them­selves, pre­tend to believe that some­one is seek­ing to “infil­trate” them ? Social ostra­ciza­tion, bulim­ia of anx­i­ety-induc­ing con­spir­a­to­r­i­al con­tent and con­fine­ment in echo cham­bers where one only exchanges with fun­da­men­tal­ly para­noid indi­vid­u­als are rel­e­vant ele­ments of the answer.

On my side, I hadn’t dived deep enough into the abyss yet, but I still had a few sto­ries to tell her. I have indeed observed for some time the poros­i­ty of so-called “right-wing” cir­cles with the manos­phere and mas­culin­ism (see part 1). The peo­ple I fre­quent­ed, in real­i­ty and on social medias, gave me the impres­sion that the “right” was far removed from the real con­cerns of our fel­low cit­i­zens : while France is on fire and the absolute and obvi­ous pri­or­i­ty is to make our coun­try safe again, my “com­rades” seem to indulge in help­less activism. Con­vinced that the West is in a state of “moral deca­dence”, “del­i­ques­cence” and “mor­tal sin”, if they do not all agree on the solu­tions, at least they all agree on the guilty : women of their own blood. For some, Euro­pean men should stand togeth­er with Arab-Mus­lim men with “tra­di­tion­al” val­ues ​​against “deca­dent” white women : the most rig­or­ous Islam would be a source of inspi­ra­tion, a mod­el for Europe, and the estab­lish­ment of a “White Sharia” (basi­cal­ly the same as the Sharia, but with­out the Arabs) the solu­tion to all our prob­lems. I even read a guy won­der­ing whether, in order to save Europe, we had to legal­ize rape… For oth­ers, Euro­pean men should aban­don the women of their peo­ple in favor of Asian women, alleged­ly more sub­mis­sive (where­as Euro­pean women who choose a for­eign part­ner deserve death), or in a soft­er ver­sion, they choose the way of sex tourism in “tra­di­tion­al” East­ern Europe. West­ern Euro­pean women, for their part, should be left alone with deeply misog­y­nis­tic import­ed pop­u­la­tions, and deserve to be assault­ed, raped and slaugh­tered if they ever had the mis­for­tune, strict­ly hypo­thet­i­cal­ly, to “like” a Face­book page pro­mot­ing diver­si­ty.

All these find­ings led us to work togeth­er on two pod­casts in the spring of 2018, one being about the Toron­to mas­sacre per­pe­trat­ed by Alek Minass­ian, and also about the MGTOW (men going their own way) and Incel (invol­un­tary celi­bate) move­ments, the oth­er, in the log­i­cal sequence, to the poros­i­ty of this manos­phere with the so-called “right”. Since these pod­casts are still avail­able online. I won’t dwell on their con­tent, but rather focus on the vio­lent and com­plete­ly dis­pro­por­tion­ate reac­tions that fol­lowed. These pod­casts were about denounc­ing extreme misog­y­nis­tic ide­olo­gies car­ried by mar­gin­al com­mu­ni­ties but con­stant­ly try to enter what I con­sid­ered to be my polit­i­cal fam­i­ly. Regard­ing the moral harass­ment which fol­lowed and which con­tin­ues today, sev­er­al years lat­er, in a spo­radic man­ner, the deaf­en­ing silence of the major­i­ty of my “com­rades” and the total absence of pub­lic sup­port from oth­er women in the cir­cle (who were telling me in pri­vate, how­ev­er, that they rec­og­nized them­selves in my expe­ri­ence and adhered to my speech), I quick­ly real­ized that the intrud­er was me, and that the stalk­ers were here at home.

• So I was the sub­ject of an absolute­ly delu­sion­al doxxing cam­paign on social media. My old “friends” of the Parisian “right” turned their backs on me and, like cow­ards, let my anony­mous cyber-stalk­ers do the dirty work by just send­ing them pri­vate pho­tographs from my per­son­al face­book — some were pic­tures of my teenage days, oth­ers pic­tures tak­en dur­ing par­ties, in order to shame me and por­tray me as a “degen­er­ate” (in their vocab­u­lary, this is meant to refer to a per­son devoid of moral val­ues ​​with an exces­sive­ly “lib­er­at­ed” life. In fact, this means any woman who has had a nor­mal life, not meet­ing their unre­al­is­tic puri­ty stan­dards). They also gave them my legal name, which I had to change because of the fol­low­ing threats of phys­i­cal vio­lence direct­ed at me and my fam­i­ly.

• I dis­cov­ered per­son­al­i­ties straight out of a bad hor­ror movie ; in a nut­shell, the sto­ry of my harass­ment with­in “right-wing” cir­cles could be summed up as a dive into the heart of human mad­ness and social mis­ery.

So I had the immense priv­i­lege of being the new tar­get of a long­time stalk­er of my friend Solveig, that “rap­per” men­tioned in a pre­vi­ous para­graph. A true out­ra­geous­ly anti-Semit­ic tra­di­tion­al catholic, who sees anti-Semi­tism and reli­gion as a means of redeem­ing him­self with­in the most extreme fringes of the “right”. He, in fact, des­per­ate­ly wants to make them for­get about his for­eign ori­gins and his drug addict past. Pub­licly denounced by his ex-part­ner and moth­er of his child in a video which record­ed, at the time of its dele­tion, sev­er­al tens of thou­sands of views, this one por­trayed his deeply vio­lent, unsta­ble and para­noid per­son­al­i­ty (it is impor­tant to note that he is also known for his stays in prison as well as in a men­tal asy­lum), not to men­tion the stag­ger­ing list of domes­tic vio­lence com­mit­ted by this sad indi­vid­ual on her per­son in the pres­ence of their child.

I thus learned from the mouth of this curi­ous char­ac­ter who I have nev­er met in my life that I was Jew­ish (obvi­ous­ly…), that my part­ner was also Jew­ish and that we were part of an occult BDSM/prostitution club direct­ed by — I give it to you on the spot — Jew­ish High Mason­ry. To back up his claims : a Fifty Shades of Gray par­o­dy web­site which does not even exist to this day and which absolute­ly does not con­cern us, that web­site hav­ing been cre­at­ed sev­er­al years ago by an inter­net “friend” that we have nev­er met. Pho­tos of a sex work­er were also released, awk­ward­ly try­ing to por­tray her as me, but the oper­a­tion was a fail­ure (we did­n’t have the same body type or the same tat­toos …)

As mis­for­tune nev­er comes on its own, I was also the tar­get of anoth­er uplift­ing per­son­al­i­ty This time, it was about a failed YouTu­ber who, not con­sid­er­ing him­self to be rec­og­nized as the genius he is, spends his free time foment­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries to explain his lack of suc­cess. In real­i­ty, if no one lis­tens to him, it’s because the main sub­ject of his chan­nel — that he reg­u­lar­ly feeds with eleven hours live (!) filmed with a poor qual­i­ty phone and a low-speed con­nec­tion — con­sists of his fight­ing against the “whore-ifi­ca­tion” and the “degen­er­a­cy” of “mod­ern women”, and that this does not inter­est any­one sane. Indeed, who of nor­mal con­sti­tu­tion would want to lis­ten to some­one explain to him for eleven hours that his moth­er, his sis­ter, his daugh­ter, his girl­friend and his friends are “whores” for a whole lot of absurd rea­sons (which include — and I swear I’m not mak­ing it up — hav­ing acne, lov­ing Eng­lish bull­dogs, own­ing a horse …)?

Thus, even if this men­tal case had a small audi­ence due to the extreme length and the appalling tech­ni­cal qual­i­ty of his pro­duc­tions, we should remem­ber that his obses­sions and his ide­ol­o­gy are not excep­tion­al : the only pur­pose of the youtube chan­nel of Eng­lish speak­er “Black Pigeon Speaks” con­sists in affirm­ing that “women destroy civ­i­liza­tion”, “fem­i­nism has emas­cu­lat­ed men and” Islam was right about women “. He has 547,000 sub­scribers on Youtube and is even cer­ti­fied. His ide­ol­o­gy influ­ences the entire manos­phere and reac­tionary cir­cles more broad­ly.

All this lit­tle world thus spent months harass­ing me on social medias, insult­ing me (dirty whore, drag, degen­er­ate, drug addict, scum­bag…), writ­ing defam­a­to­ry texts of sev­er­al pages against me (in which they always had to invent for me a sex life and unbri­dled occult activ­i­ties), broad­cast­ing pho­to mon­tages of my face from a video filmed with­out my knowl­edge in a pub­lic place, cut at the most dis­ad­van­ta­geous times to make me look “ugly” and “fat”, threat­en­ing to harass me even more vio­lent­ly if I don’t shut up and delete my social medias — when it was­n’t threat­en­ing me of phys­i­cal vio­lence… When I got preg­nant in 2019, it was about attack­ing my fam­i­ly, say­ing that my daugh­ter had been con­ceived dur­ing an “orgy” and that I would not know the iden­ti­ty of the father of the child… Going into the small­est details of my harass­ment would take too long ; just remem­ber that my san­i­ty had dete­ri­o­rat­ed hor­ri­bly and that my stalk­ers were enjoy­ing the sit­u­a­tion, my old “friends” hav­ing told them about my men­tal health issues. Know­ing that I was deeply depressed, some did not hide the desire to push me to sui­cide.

Even more dis­tress­ing and deeply twist­ed are the reac­tions of these false friends and false pro­tec­tors who pre­tend­ed to want to help me. Their first “advice” was pre­cise­ly to nev­er fill a prop­er com­plaint, telling me that in these cir­cles, it was very frowned upon to denounce a “com­rade” to the “sys­tem” by going to the police. I learned that the harassed women had to have a racial sol­i­dar­i­ty with the white harassers of the “right”, because these would already be per­se­cut­ed enough by the “sys­tem” (I thought that was fem­i­nists who liked to vic­tim­ize them­selves…). Even if these “com­rades” insult them, harass them, defame and doxx them in total ille­gal­i­ty and impuni­ty. On the oth­er hand, few “com­rades” feel in sol­i­dar­i­ty with white female vic­tims of harass­ment and dare to stand up for them pub­licly. I was sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly advised to delete my social medias, to make peo­ple “for­get about myself”, if I want­ed peace. Strange advice from activists who are sup­pos­ed­ly uncon­di­tion­al­ly gate­keep­ers of free speech.

What was even worse is that I was in a state of huge psy­cho­log­i­cal fragili­ty, that I was iso­lat­ed and drowned in my prob­lems, so that I end­ed up swal­low­ing the non­sense of these false friends who had suc­ceed­ed, through incred­i­ble meth­ods of psy­cho­log­i­cal manip­u­la­tion, in mov­ing in my mind the source of my sad­ness from my stalk­ers to my lifestyle and fem­i­nist beliefs :

“Being a fem­i­nist makes you mis­er­able. You have been manip­u­lat­ed into believ­ing that you can be equal to men, expose your­self pub­licly and be an activist, when you are not designed by nature for this. You can see where that got you (imply­ing it’s expos­ing your­self to the prob­lem, not the harass­ment). All this isn’t made for women, you’d bet­ter find your­self a hus­band, start a fam­i­ly and be ful­filled in the edu­ca­tion of your chil­dren and the domes­tic work. You will be much hap­pi­er and peace­ful. ”

“Okay, this harass­ment has gone way too far, but you still have to admit that you are degrad­ing your­self… You should­n’t dye your hair, dress like this, go to par­ties… You are quite intel­li­gent and ‘catch­able’ to change and advo­cate for the real woman, the tra­di­tion­al woman. We will even­tu­al­ly for­give you.”

So stuck in the echo cham­ber of the reac­tionary “right”, I end­ed up hat­ing myself for absolute­ly triv­ial things, which would­n’t even raise an eye­brow in nor­mal peo­ple, in the major­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion : hav­ing adopt­ed a slight­ly provoca­tive style dur­ing my ado­les­cence and the first years of my stu­dent life, going out in the evening, not hav­ing “pre­served” myself for mar­riage, being tat­tooed, not prac­tic­ing reli­gion assid­u­ous­ly, hav­ing drinks from time to time with my friends at 22 rather than think­ing about get­ting mar­ried…

I got to such a lev­el of indoc­tri­na­tion that I won­dered, in the end, if my harass­ment had not ben­e­fit­ed me, in that it had allowed me to “open my eyes”. Worse, I was now con­vinced that I had some­thing to be for­giv­en for (why and by whom?), that I should repent.

Fun fact : I would nev­er be “for­giv­en”, because the unre­al­is­tic puri­ty stan­dards advo­cat­ed by the peo­ple who do not meet 10% of the spec­i­fi­ca­tions are a great excuse to despise women in their almost total­i­ty. The goal is not to help ele­vate one­self by preach­ing what one believes to be right, the goal is to bring oth­ers down, to smear them, to defile them.

So when I got preg­nant, my part­ner and my unborn child were insult­ed bad­ly. It does­n’t mat­ter that I “set­tled down”, that I gave up work­ing to take care of my home full time, that I start­ed preach­ing their non­sense myself. When I was a fem­i­nist activist, peo­ple tried to silence me because I refused to preach the reac­tionary non­sense and, when I did, they tried to silence me because “I took myself for what I was not. ”, because I was“ rot­ten for­ev­er ”,“ bro­ken ”,“ destroyed ”by fem­i­nism and a most­ly fan­ta­sized “ lib­er­at­ed ”past.

I have nev­er felt so bad in my entire life. My self-con­fi­dence was total­ly shat­tered by months of dai­ly harass­ment. I was plagued by the dis­con­nect between my efforts to reform my life and my way of think­ing and the despis­ing and insults I received. I received extreme­ly threat­en­ing emails from some­one who tried to black­mail me, threat­en­ing to dis­play inti­mate pho­tos (even though I had not sent inti­mate pho­tos to strangers, but I had become so para­noid that I end­ed up believ­ing that it could be true …) and ele­ments of my pri­vate life if I did not dis­ap­pear from the net­work.

In 2020, I am bet­ter : I live in the coun­try­side, I have a sim­ple and hap­py fam­i­ly life, I have cut myself off from polit­i­cal cir­cles and from these tox­ic peo­ple… I still have an account on Twit­ter, but it does­n’t refer to activism, and it main­ly serves me to inter­act — espe­cial­ly in Eng­lish — with oth­er users shar­ing my inter­ests (pagan­ism, per­ma­cul­ture…) But it would be wrong to say that these weirdos left me alone. My stalk­ers have writ­ten to the users I inter­act with reg­u­lar­ly, say­ing the worst hor­rors about me, bla­tant­ly lying about my iden­ti­ty, my back­ground, my life, my her­itage, eter­nal­ly spread­ing my old pho­tos and oth­er delu­sion­al slan­der intend­ed to shame me. I made up my mind : my stalk­ers’ obses­sion with me bor­ders on ero­to­ma­nia, there is some­thing deeply psy­chi­atric about it, and the dis­cov­ery of some of their iden­ti­ties only con­firmed my sus­pi­cions.

So I found out that some of my stalk­ers were failed peo­ple that I reject­ed roman­ti­cal­ly, and who felt that if they can’t have a spe­cif­ic woman, then no one should have her, and you have to spoil her rep­u­ta­tion by hop­ing that all men will behave like them, like cuck­olds, because you real­ly have to be one to favour the opin­ion of an anony­mous stranger over the desire that you have to build some­thing with a woman you are attract­ed by… In the mid­dle of this freak show is also an old­er woman whose part­ner I had the mis­for­tune of dat­ing before she even met him, “fem­i­nine but not fem­i­nist” as she says, but who looks, speaks and behaves like a man who, accord­ing to the state­ments gath­ered from com­mon friends, feeds a mor­bid and sick­ly jeal­ousy towards all the ex-girl­friends of her part­ners.

I was there. Rot­ting my exis­tence fight­ing against pro­ba­tio dia­bol­i­ca, aka try­ing to prove some­thing impos­si­ble, that you are not some­thing, to strangers who will nev­er have a place in your dai­ly life. Get­ting lost in inter­minable argu­ments wor­thy of kinder­garten… Try­ing to dis­man­tle the slan­ders of mar­gin­al peo­ple straight out of “Strip Tease” or “Con­fes­sions Intimes” [French real TV shows about social cas­es…], with­out ever hav­ing met them in real life… I wast­ed pre­cious time and ener­gy, and messed up my soul con­vers­ing with sewage rats.

I would like to avoid this hap­pen­ing to young women who read this tes­ti­mo­ny, and who have been, who are or will be cyber­bul­lied, whether this cyber­bul­ly­ing takes place in “right” cir­cles or else­where. To you, my sis­ters, I advise :

• To give no cred­it to the words of strangers on the Inter­net. Anony­mous trolls are by def­i­n­i­tion immac­u­late : you don’t know any­thing about them and you don’t know their back­ground. They try to make you feel mis­er­able because they very like­ly have mis­er­able lives in real­i­ty (dis­cov­er­ing the iden­ti­ties of some of my stalk­ers con­firmed this intu­ition). Block these peo­ple. File a com­plaint and defend your­self judi­cial­ly if you wish.

• Nev­er give in to bul­ly­ing. First­ly because you have the inalien­able right to exist, whether on the Inter­net or in real life. They are the ones who have ille­gal activ­i­ties, who should see a psy­chi­a­trist and hide them­selves, not you. Misog­y­nis­tic cyber-stalk­ers hate women who do not want to be silent and that they can­not con­trol ; soon­er or lat­er they will find anoth­er vic­tim, once they real­ize that you are a “hope­less case”. Resist. Just as pub­lic space does not belong to street stalk­ers, the Inter­net does not belong to cyber stalk­ers.

• Don’t stay alone. Sur­round your­self only — I firm­ly insist — with peo­ple who dare to sup­port you in pub­lic. False friends who pri­vate­ly “sup­port” and “advise” you, while con­tin­u­ing to be around your stalk­ers, must be elim­i­nat­ed from your cir­cle of friends. They may even be pro­vid­ing your stalk­ers with infor­ma­tion.

To all my sis­ters, I wish good luck, from the bot­tom of my heart. Many thanks for read­ing me.

Autre article de Solveig Mineo

Attentat de Turku en Finlande : le terroriste “ciblait les femmes”, annonce la police

Le deman­deur d’asile maro­cain de 18 ans qui a poignardé à mort...
En savoir plus