Thursday, October 11, 2012

Briffault's Law and Public Rhetoric


I was contacted by the creator of the above video, who had heard me speaking on AVfM radio and sought my opinion on certain points. I was happy to oblige, and did so in the following terms:

Your video was thought-provoking, and I enjoyed it.

When I was on the air at AVfM, I was unable to be expansive about my thinking. It was a free-flowing conversation and it flowed along too quickly to dwell upon anything much.

But I was discussing how pro-male, non-feminist partisans ought best to present themselves in their public rhetoric -- meaning any talk or writing which the world at large is likely to overhear.

For the most part, my focus is political rather than personal or social. This war that we are fighting (yes, it is a war) is largely a war of words. Politics is nothing if not words, and the purpose of all those words is to sway hearts and minds in a chosen direction.

So I am not talking about anybody's private thoughts. I am talking only about their public words. Yes, in the realm of public words (public rhetoric), it is both counterproductive and unnecessary to engage in "women are parasites" theorizations.

Why counterproductive? Because it would alienate plenty of people, and spawn a "moral ghettoizing" effect at the expense of anybody at all with a strong pro-male stance, or a harsh-on-feminism stance. So in the end, it would be politically inefficient.

And why unnecessary? Because any conceivable good thing that might issue from airing such theorizations publicly, can as well be gotten circumspectly. And in the end, that would be politically efficient.

My own policy upon these matters is simple. I adopt a stance of principled agnosticism. That is, I do not claim to know if Briffault's Law, or any similar notion, is either true or false. I merely place the entire question in a state of intellectual abeyance, and treat any woman I meet consistently with this.

Thus, any woman I meet must earn my trust, and meet my standards, as would any man. I don't play favorites. I am neutral. I am impartial. Clear down to the last particle.

Any woman I meet would receive a "level of clearance", both relative to her demonstrated trustworthiness, and relative to the nature of the business being transacted. My maxim is, that any woman I meet is free to prove that she is what she is.

One could ask, how might women as-a-group be expected to behave in all of the turbulent politics which lies ahead? And I would reply, that each woman, singular, would maximize her singular advantage. I am totally confident of this.  I am equally confident, that entire tribes of women would maximize their collective advantage.Therefore it all depends on what, precisely, is to the advantage of whom. And when. And how.

So when it is no longer to the advantage of a critical number of women to uphold a thing like feminism, then feminism will die for lack of life support.

And it is unnecessary to postulate such a thing as "Briffault's Law", in order to feel confident that women either individually or tribally will maximize their advantage. You can believe in Briffault's Law, or not believe in it, and in either case agree that women will maximize their advantage.

Very well. One may think worse of women, or one may think better of them, but either way it is politically efficient to keep such thoughts out of our public rhetoric. So I don't think it is the best idea to publicly talk about things like Briffault's Law.

The forces of history will make the final choice here. And if worse comes to worst one need only wait, and know that the drama will unfold. For if the feminist regime remains in force, history will follow a certain trajectory, and said trajectory will ultimately make the feminist regime collapse -- it's only a matter of time because the feminist regime carries the seeds of its own destruction.

And on the day of collapse, women will most assuredly maximize their advantage.

Yes. Whatever one might personally think of women, I feel confident in predicting that they will maximize their advantage when the hurly-burly at last gets under way. 

But while we are waiting for history to take its course, we can spend our time wisely by explaining these things to as many people as care to listen. Some will be persuaded to make the necessary preparations, so as to cushion the shock of future events when they finally arrive, and smooth the transition into what lies beyond.

Our task is to be the midwives of a growing realization.

I hope that is helpful.





Blogger Simpsons Didit said...

I already have my own version of briffault's law.

"All humans are self interested"

6:33 AM  
Anonymous Gutemine said...

About female virtues in days gone past -- what class is meant?

Amongst the indentured drudges of the middle ages no-one had the
luxury to care about the morals of the upper classes -- morals
are in essence a consequence of having rights which in turn is a
consequence of owning yourself.

If that is not the case, your morals are whatever the morals of
your keeper are. Most of Europe's population in the middle ages
were indentured peasants who often were bred like livestock in
order to supply soldiers, artisans and workers. If your wife was
barren and the manor lord wanted you to have a son(or two) to
pass your trade on, he swapped her out for a fertile girl and
that was your lot. Only the free and few had 'morals', the rest
had masters.

And... even in the golden times of real chivalry, they had quite
a lot of white knights who organised stupid stuff like taking
noble ladies(and their assorted fineries) onto the Crusades and
even have them command armies (with predictable result, gah).

Or how about the German tribes -- if you as a warrior fled in
battle, your own wife would slay you for cowardice and then take
your weapons up to commit suicide by Roman soldier. Talking of Romans, various Caesars bemoaned the lost morals of the modern Roman woman too and quite a few laws were written to remedy that, which all failed epically to achieve change.

So, the good old times when sex was dirty and air was clean wasn't actually all that much better and in many times worse and
feminism is a very ancient problem of society.

I think that the MRA movement would benefit greatly if from studying
and and discussing history, I recommend the following three (free)
audio books to you all if you want to learn about the western culture:

There are of course more great books, but I think those three make a
great appetiser.

If you don't know your past, you certainly will have problems imagining your future!

7:21 AM  
Blogger Astrokid NJ said...

And why unnecessary? Because any conceivable good thing that might issue from airing such theorizations publicly, can as well be gotten circumspectly. And in the end, that would be politically efficient.

How are you confident in this Fidelbogen? I am in the atheist community where we have had this "feminist battle" going on for 1.5 years now.. In the beginning there's only a small set of people who found the feminists' demands anathema and rebelled sharply. I have followed the progress of that group (and other independent smaller Resistances).. and even to this day, they think that feminism is fine in general.. and its only those "lunatic feminists" that are the problem.. we, the "equity feminists" are the good ones.
These guys largely believe that there was "unjust discrimination of women" in the past, largely dont care for discriminatory laws and policies even if you point to them, and dont study the subject in depth etc. And many of them think that MRAs are yucky for sure.
In the beginning, there was an very well informed anti-feminist (not an MRA) that joined this Resistance and tried to convince them.. but nope.. people laughed him off as a looney (because.. they KNOW they are the "good feminists"). So.. the anti-feminist pitch doesnt work either.. let alone briffaults law, hypergamy etc. Only a small set of people were determined to study the subject in depth (I consider myself one of those), and figure out the real deal. And to those, they are not offended by anything.

To buttress your claim, you will have to demonstrate that you have had success with your approach.. it doesnt seem to be very different from what Glen Sacks does..would you consider his progress adequate?

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yo, you 'good countenance' person,

how does your whine compare to W J Sidis and Robert Graves .. not to mention myself (well, i will .. to give you a fighting chance: poetpiet)

also, check the youtube account of william bond (wabond).

1:53 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


What "claim" did I make?

I am talking about macro-strategies, when the propaganda of 'the movement' begins to be more widely heard in general. I'm talking about what to do while casting a broad net.

The scenario you are describing is about micro-strategies in highly resistant corners where "they" outnumber "you". And I don't advocate direct conversion efforts toward willfully ignorant or hopelessly obtuse people within ratholes. It's a waste of energy.

Rule of war: Attack what is weak; fight the easy battles first.

10:47 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...


I am familiar with William Bond. Last I checked, he was a senile old sheepdog who wanted women to rule the world.

10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thank you for engaging, you're the best, as DDietrich likes to say.

i've been answered! A miracle! ... thanks .. but by your leave .. and leafy
groves, covering ground far surpassing any of the stretches matriarchal
confeatheracies have ever managed to LingCup .. allow me to add a finished
touch, to with a mere two (2) letters, i and r .... can you guess where they
go???? Ps: saw pic of million dollar mastiff pup the other day ... it's a near
matriarchy around there. Scratch your head here and, count the mange
flakes and see if you have any to spare.

2:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went and looked up Briffault's Law. I couldn't believe that this was the thing that MRA's and MGTOW's had been talking about. I couldn't believe it b/c, B's Law is just...dumb.

The woman, NOT THE MAN, determines all the conditions of the 'animal family'? (so the man doesn't get to determine any conditions? So the woman can just abuse the man endlessly and he won't leave b/c of the 'not the man' part? Really? Bill Gates has no power whatsoever if he's in a relationship with a woman?

Then it goes on to talk about benefits and I'm thinking "So, men get into relationships without any perceived benefit to themselves? They don't go after a particular kind of woman?" ?

I mean, damn. If I called myself an MRA instead of being MRA sympathetic, I'd be mortified that this idea was being attached to 'my' cause. I'd be really deeply embarrassed.

The idea is, at best, half the equation. If we reworded it something like "People get into relationships to get benefit", that might fly.

Whatever. The big names in the MRM are pretty much on board with this idea of B.L., much as it paints men as slaves, as robots with no choice in the matter, despite the fact that the whole idea flies directly in the face of MGTOW b/c MGTOW are making a choice to opt out of relationships. Something about women doesn't meet their standards. They've set a condition that hasn't been met so no relationship is taking place.


12:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home