Hello. Fidelbogen here. To my fellow workers in the vineyard, worldwide, greetings!
In today's talk, I would like to address a recent video by Barbarosssaaa in which he talks about
hypergamy. Barbarosssaaa's video was prompted by certain remarks I made during my guest appearance on AVfM radio.
I make my
present statement not simply to clear up misunderstandings, but because the topic in question has importance in its own right. It is a conversation that needs to be had, and right now seems a likely time.
My remarks on AVfM triggered a flurry of reaction, generally negative, among MGTOW types in particular. My words evidently touched a nerve --
a nerve I didn't rightly know was there. And it caught me by surprise.
At a certain point in the interview,
hypergamy cropped up as an offshoot of a larger topic. And I briefly mused that hypergamy should go onto the back burner in terms of what the general public hears people like us talking about. This was an off-the-cuff remark, a passing remark, and the conversation quickly moved right along.
For me, it was an off-the-cuff remark. But for some people, it was a matter of weighty import. It appears that I touched upon something mighty close to the center of their discourse, that my speech was loaded in a way I didn't realize.
So I reckon the best plan is to hit the reset button. Therefore, to all concerned, I say this: Talk about hypergamy, talk about Briffault's law, talk about evolutionary psychology, talk about reproductive strategies, talk about the mercenary nature of women, and all that sort of thing, to your heart's content. Go to town! Talk a blue streak! Knock yourselves out! And don't let me stand in your way for one split second!
All right?
All right, I think we cleared that one up, didn't we? So let's move right along.
My statement at AVfM was a policy recommendation, directed first and foremost to myself, and secondarily to anybody who might share my way of thinking. There's no way in hell that the whole wide world will act upon Fidelbogen's recommendations, but there is at least a chance that a meaningful fraction will do so. And that's enough for me.
All right, now let's talk about hypergamy, Briffault's law, evolutionary psychology and so on.
In the end, this all boils down to a very simple question:
What is the primordial nature of woman?
Are women fundamentally mercenary creatures, governed by the imperatives of reproductive strategy? ARE they? Well, some would say they are and others would say otherwise. Yes, I grant you it's an important question, and if the truth can be found, we ought to find it. Intellectual honesty, and the spirit of science, demands no less.
And yet, for political purposes, this question DOES NOT INTEREST ME. My approach to all of this is ethical and philosophical. To me, hypergamy theory would have the value of a predictive model, something to filter and forestall female behaviors that might prove harmful. That indeed would be its purpose, if it has any purpose at all.
Now, I too wish to filter and forestall harmful human behaviors -- which, needless to say, includes the female kind. However, my take on hypergamy, Briffault's law and all the rest of that, is purely agnostic. I declare no opinion on these matters, because I do not claim to know.
That's agnosticism for you!
So, when it comes time to filter out harmful female behaviors, I use a simpler method. Simply stated, I hold women morally accountable. And if they don't measure up, I filter them out. So, any harmful behavior that might arise from the dark workings of primitive programming, would be "cut off at the pass" by my system of ethical standards and security clearances. There is a word for this sort of thing: "civilization".
I should add that this would work for anybody -- even if they secretly do believe in hypergamy et al. Just calibrate your tests and standards according to your theoretical model, without talking about your theoretical model.
But as for me, I'm agnostic. Hypergamy theory might or mightn't be true, but either way my bases are covered. I know exactly what I don't want in my life, so I make my calculations and set my filters accordingly. And once again, I do this simply by holding women morally accountable -- just as I would hold MEN morally accountable. Equality, anybody?
And that is why I don't publicly talk about hypergamy and such. Because I don't need to. Nor do I need to self-censor. Every word out of my keyboard (or my mouth) is precisely what I honestly do think. At no point do I ever feel like I am biting my tongue. Nor do I walk on eggshells. I stomp them consistently, thank you very much, but I do insist that it's an art.
Now, there are considered politic reasons why a person might choose not to speak publicly about hypergamy and such. For starters, you are making it easy for people to call you a "misogynist" or whatnot. And do I personally give a snap if somebody calls me that? No, not personally. I've been called a misogynist plenty of times for no clear reason, and I've got a mighty thick skin for it.
But look, here's my game: I make it hard for them. I make them WORK for it. For the plain truth is that
I never make anti-woman statements. I attack feminism savagely, ferociously. I call it a social cancer and all manner of bloody awful things, but I never say bad things about
women.
That puts the feminists in a moral bind. "Misogynist" is the worst thing they can call anybody, and they want to call me that too, but in order to get away with it they must dig deep into their brains and be highly creative -- which puts them in a mentally strained position. I force them to rationalize their words both to themselves and others, but I give them precious little raw material to work with, which taxes their sanity even as it erodes their credibility.
So in this way, little by little, I draw them onto thin ice. It becomes ever more difficult for them to justify their position, both outwardly to the world, and inwardly to themselves. And this drives them to increasingly desperate and silly outward behavior. In this way, they discredit themselves by making a public spectacle.
Now just picture such operations multiplied by the power of numbers and the strength of organization. I am constantly imagining such a thing; the thought almost never leaves me.
And is the juice worth the squeeze? Oh yes. The juice we can squeeze from them in this way is worth every precious drop. So that is why they mostly stay away from me -- because they'd rather stay out of the wringer.
And what is more, any juice they could squeeze from me would not be worth their trouble. So the only ones who attack me are the fly-by commenters, the crap-and-run commandos, the ones who know they'll never sit in the cross-examination chair.
And yes, I am famous for getting onto the SPLC hate list, but the people who posted that list are a tiny clique of intellectual cowards. They are NOT the general public, for the general public would never throw a second glance at somebody like me. Furthermore, the general public has no idea what the SPLC is up to, and the SPLC knows this, which is why it has the gumption to do what it does.
So in summary, I am not a hypergamy theorist because I want to focus on other issues, because I want to take a philosophical-ethical approach to the problem, because I want to take a political-pragmatic approach to the problem, and because I want to project a separate identity and a separate brand. I would like to discuss the final item on that list.
I think it would be good for us if we were not
monolithically branded as hypergamy theorists. That was the spirit in which I made my controversial remarks on AVfM, and if I'd had more time I would have delved into it.
If we are to be monolithically branded at all, let this be only in the sense that we are pro-male and not feminist. That's it. These two things will group us as a political community just as far as we need to be grouped, but no farther. Beyond that, we should split into separate groups that will register separately on the world's awareness.
What's killing us right now is our lack of message clarity, arising from our lack of
signal differentiation. Two or three months ago, I compared us to an untuned orchestra with no conductor and no common music. I suggested that we are transmitting a bloody lot of dreadful noise which the general public cannot be expected to understand. And so I concluded that the general public has "understood" us in a false, chaotic way which sets us back.
We are transmitting so many signals from a confined space, that the result is nothing but noise. I propose therefore that the orchestra must break up into many different quartets and combos. These new groups must leave the narrow concert hall and disperse through the big broad city where each can set up on its own corner, play its own music, and attract its own crowd.
That doesn't mean we are quarreling with each other. It means that we want to establish the purity of our separate messages, with enough distance so they don't run together into a slurry. That is why we spread out into the big broad city. In this way we become not a "movement" in the customary sense, but a social organism, or if you will, a social environment. That is what it means to "go ambient". Rather than being a point on the terrain which the public can point a finger at, we become the terrain itself by spreading ourselves all over it -- and you cannot point your finger at a terrain because you cannot point it everywhere at once.
Speaking for myself, I know I don't want to be stuffed into the same bag with a bunch of people who talk about things which I, myself, don't talk about. It's not that I oppose what they are saying. Maybe I do, or maybe I don't, but the point is that I am SILENT about those things -- or nearly so -- for reasons of strategy.
So I'd rather my own message didn't get lost in the general buzzcloud of other messages, and I know that other messengers would feel likewise if they gave it some thought. Yes, I believe it is in the interest of all to establish signal differentiation -- because different people with different strategies should attack the problem from different directions.
So in the end, we must force the general public to recognize our diversity, and stop thinking of us as a point source or a target. In this way we spread out and merge with their world. That is, we go ambient. And we make clear that separation between us and them is artificial -- that we ARE them, and they ARE us -- flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood -- and that feminism is something radically separate from all of us. And so the binary of non-feminist v. feminist will settle into place as a foundational pattern of life, and feminism will be isolated and pushed to the margins.
To encourage that future, I would make many pathways available to the many publics. Since a lot of people, men and women both, don't wish to hear that they are driven by primitive biology, I will indulge their sense of lofty morality or appeal to their fear of consequences. Meanwhile, Barbaarosssaaa and others of his school will administer their blunt medicine to all with the hardihood to listen. In the end nobody self-censors, and all roads lead to Rome.
As a parting thought, I note with interest that Barbarosssaaa declines to call himself a non-feminist. Well, since I am pretty sure that he would also decline to call himself a feminist, what does that leave? Yes Barbarosssaaa, it looks like you are a non-feminist whether you like it or not. Unless you prefer to be a feminist? Well no, I didn't think so.
But fear not. Non-feminism is a wide open frontier territory with room to spare for any non-feminist man or woman who wants to carve out a homestead. We are all non-feminists, after all. Or do we prefer to be feminists? Well no, I didn't think so.
Labels: CF Memory Lane
