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.