Feminism and Polyamory as Gnostic Fall: The Heresy of the Sacred Feminine

At the deepest ontological level, both feminism and polyamory—despite their outward appearance of liberation and plurality—represent a Gnostic fall and a heresy against the sacred feminine. The true sacred feminine was originally all-embracing, transcending gender binaries. It embodied a gender non-dual understanding of reality, one that sought integration rather than opposition. The fall, however, inverted this non-duality. Through the Cathar–Manichean heretical framework, the sacred feminine became hijacked and dualized—fractured into polarized, adversarial genders, and redirected toward ideological warfare.

This ideological mutation is not unique to feminism. Like many thought-systems, gynocentrism itself contains a kernel of inner tension that drives its perpetual reinvention. In Judaism, this tension appears in the debate over who determines halacha—God or man. In Islam, it surfaces in the question of who is the legitimate political heir to Muhammad. In gynocentrism, this core question revolves around the place of men within the gynocentric order.

This Gnostic–Manichean structure—expressed through the dualistic view of woman as light and man as darkness—finds an intriguing theological analogue in the internal tensions of Christianity itself. The Christological debate over Jesus’ dual nature as both fully human and fully divine mirrors this metaphysical tension. Although orthodox theology tried to resolve this paradox through the doctrine of the hypostatic union, the deeper cultural and symbolic associations of divinity with purity and humanity with fallenness persisted. Here too, a latent dualism emerges, not just in moral terms but as an ontological structure: the divine is good, the human suspect—just as woman is sacred, man suspect in the gynocentric mythos.

This parallel reveals a broader principle: every enduring civilizational worldview contains within it a “kernel of tension”—a foundational ambiguity or unresolved dialectic that both sustains its inner development and motivates its mutations. These tension-kernels are not bugs in the system; they are the very mechanisms of its evolution.

This principle is evident across major ideological and religious systems:

In Christianity, the central question revolves around the dual nature of Jesus: is he human, divine, or both? This unresolved tension fuels theological debates, mysticism, and various heresies.

In Judaism, the kernel is the struggle between divine authority and human interpretation: who ultimately defines the halacha—God or man? This tension sustains rabbinic evolution and intra-religious discourse.

In Islam, the foundational tension is political-theological: who inherited Muhammad’s authority after his death? This question underpins the Sunni–Shia divide and continues to shape Islamic history.

In gynocentrism, the core tension centers on the place and nature of men within a woman-centered cosmology. While gynocentrism outwardly celebrates femininity, its metaphysical kernel is a paradox: are men necessary, secondary, redeemable, or inherently flawed? This tension drives the radicalization of feminist thought.

Liberalism contains a built-in contradiction between the promise of universal freedom and the need to regulate that freedom to protect it—or between universal freedom and individual rights—which paradoxically justifies growing state control in the name of liberty.

In postmodernism, the tension lies between the denial of fixed meaning and the ongoing search for interpretation—an epistemic loop that deconstructs itself into nihilism.

Each of these systems appears coherent on the surface but harbors within itself an internal dialectic that both sustains and destabilizes it. It is this very contradiction—this “kernel of tension”—that allows such systems to evolve, mutate, and retain relevance in changing historical and ideological contexts.

Each appears stable or unified from the outside, yet internally, they are self-perpetuating dialectical machines. Their internal contradiction is what ensures their ability to mutate, adapt, and survive historical upheaval. Gynocentrism, in this framework, is not an exception but a continuation of this deep pattern of sacred ideological development—rooted in myth, encoded in theology, and radicalized in modern ideological forms.

Yet the true sacred feminine seeks transcendence beyond binaries, not domination through them. It yearns not to entrench gender duality but to overcome it through a non-dual, initiatory, and transformative mystery.

In contrast, the fallen gnosis, posits the belief that "men are the problem" as an ontological axiom. This belief—unfounded yet undying—is not a conclusion of feminism but its very starting point. It did not emerge from feminist thought; rather, feminist thought emerged from it. This foundational belief existed before feminism and was inherited—not through reasoning, but through cultural conditioning and a lack of philosophical rigor.

The origins of feminist misandry are not singular but polygenetic. They include:

1. The dualistic cosmology of Manichaeanism and Catharism.

2. Mainstream and esoteric Judaism (especially Lurianic and feminist Kabbalah).

3. Christian theology, including Marian cults and anti-male ascetic ideals.

4. Islamic Sufi mysticism and traditionally balanced reinterpretations of the sacred feminine that were falsely portrayed as patriarchy—or what may be coined, in light of Émile Durkheim's legacy, as gynopatriarchy.

5. Indian influence, particularly Shakta tantric distortions and post-Vedic reimaginings.

Feminism, then, never created the idea of misandry. It inherited and magnified it—manipulating the world not to seek truth, but to confirm and exploit an inherited animus against men. Feminist reasoning never objectively analyzed the world to discover this premise; instead, it began with the premise and molded the world to fit it.

Feminism thus constitutes not merely a social ideology but a Manichean cosmology in political dress. In this cosmology:

Men = darkness = evil

Women = light = good

There are no grey zones, no gradients. Even when a woman appears to embody “evil,” feminism insists it is either an illusion, a result of male oppression, or a narrative mistake that must be corrected. Feminism cannot tolerate ontological ambiguity because its foundation rests on axiomatic dualism, not empirical or dialectical reasoning.

Just as Manichaeanism posited two eternally opposed, uncreated principles, feminism posits two irreconcilable genders, locked in a cosmic-moral war. These principles were not shaped by socio-cultural processes but were assumed as original. To question this is to de-sacralize feminism's mystical misandry and collapse its ideological architecture. For feminism to retain its logic, men must always be wrong. Male “original sin” is perpetual and collective. Feminist logic demands not justice, but moral surrender by men.

Hence, feminism does not and cannot accept a two-party model of gender politics. True political opposition implies reciprocal legitimacy. In contrast, feminist logic—rooted in dualist metaphysics—refuses the idea that men and women can be legitimate equals within a shared moral space. The very act of asserting that men might not be inherently evil is seen as a heretical challenge to the aura of feminist supremacy.

This leads to a form of ideological totalism, in which political struggle is less about fairness and more about one-sided war. Modern terms like “male ally” or “deconstructing toxic masculinity” are simply rhetorical euphemisms for male submission. Feminism, stripped of its metaphysical foundation of male culpability and female moral superiority, would collapse like a banana that is all peel.

The hidden Manichean engine driving feminist ideology requires that female supremacy be morally validated by male inferiority. It cannot survive in a paradigm of complementarity, synthesis, or non-duality. And when feminists deny this structure, we must turn to the fruits, not the claims: By their fruits, ye shall know them.

Feminism’s fruits reveal a project not of reconciliation, but of conquest—moral, political, and ontological.

Where structure collapses, thought rebuilds.

Peering through the veils of power and illusion.

Telegon Project: A new cartography of consciousness.