recently got the following communique from a person I will call Roy Jones:
"Greetings,Fidelbogen. I'm a big fan of yours, and I watch all your videos. I completely agree with your philosophical views about feminism. There are a lot of concepts you brought up that I was actually aware of for many years but you were the first to speak out what I was thinking. You also brought up some very true points that I never would have thought about such as your video about "female colonization of male space"... I think more individuals like you are crucial to the movement. Unlike Barbarossa and Stardusk, you attack the actual root of the problem which is feminism and not women in general... Women are actually the victims of early indoctrination. Whether the concept of Briffault's Law they mention is true or not is one thing, but the question we need to ask is, "is it helping our cause? or is it fuelling the enemy as evidence to claim we're a hate movement?"
And I responded to this in the following terms:
Yes...that is why I like to be agnostic about Briffault's Law, etc. That way, I leave the possibilities open without committing myself to an idea that I don't need in order to accomplish what I seek.
A day later, Roy Jones sent me another message:
"All I'm saying is.. throwing theories around without evidence to confirm
its validity seems like something feminists would do. I mean when you
break down the aspects of Briffault's law, if you think about it, it
is within human nature to want to be with a mate and have an ulterior
motive for staying with them. Barbarossa and Stardusk try to state for
example, that a male having a good sense of humor or the ability to
empathize with a women's personal problem is a way for a women to use
men, and that once men lose those abilities, women would leave them
behind and search for another mate. I mean come on, who can prove if
it's true... for all we know, a women could be under the impression that
a guy she is in a relationship with for many years doesn't care anymore
to interact with her the same as he used to... The point of what I'm
saying is... if Briffault's Law is true, then to an extent, it could
apply to any of us. Here is a nice little scenario to think about: If 2 individuals are standing in front of you, one is a male and one is a
female.. the female states she is a lesbian and has opposite sex
genitals (androgens received during prenatal stages & gonadotropic
hormones which changes brain development to act more like a man).. Let
us say the male's condition is the opposite equivalent of the female. Now for the big question: who is more susceptible to being categorized
under Briffault's Law? Still can't be proven, even if Briffault's
law can be pointed down at a specific hormone, like estrogen. The
average male typically has estrogen within his body, even if it is at
low doses. And that concludes just about all I had to say. Feel free
to give me some feedback, criticism, etc. Or if not, that is fine
After reflecting upon the foregoing, I composed a reply and got a little bit carried away. So it was lengthy, but I share it for what it is worth, as follows:
Thank you. You have summarized some of my reasons for leaving Briffault's Law etc, out of my public rhetoric. Not only do I want to focus on other things for political/strategic reasons, but I do in fact have my doubts. Many of the theorizations which people toss around under the banner of "evolutionary psychology" fall into the category of "non-falsifiable assertion". Which means that a lot (maybe not all) of the talk which happens under that banner is apt to be rubbish.
For the record, i DO believe that there are inherent bio-psychic differences between men and women, despite individual deviations from the norm. However, that does not mean that every spin-off hypothesis or stray statement derived from this has enough truth value to make it a "keeper". Separation of wheat from chaff is clearly the order of the day here, and that is a task I would leave to others who find this realm of enquiry more compelling. I don't need to separate the wheat from the chaff because I am not using the grain from that particular granary in the first place.
For myself, the task at hand is simple. It is to WIN THE WAR. That is the lens through which I view all of this, and that is the imperative which guides and governs me. The way I see it, when group A declares war on group B, then group A has opened a can of trouble for itself. Well, group A is feminism, and group B is firstly men, and secondarily everybody who is not feminist. That is to say, men are the ground zero target, but the fallout spreads. But for now, I focus on ground zero.
As men, we have been bushwhacked, and decked. They made a sneak attack on all cultural and political fronts, and we had no idea what they were up to. And so they have culturally and politically pinned us on our backs and are using their fists -- flailing at will. And we cannot swing our dukes into effective operation; if we try, the screams of "misogyny" and "male violence" will assault and batter us. As I say, they have decked us. And I think it is accurate to call this state of affairs a "war".
So is there a way to overturn this order of things? I believe there is, but it requires a lot of craft, finesse, and a coordination of action by cool heads. The good news is, that we do have such cool heads, and such coordination, and that the necessary slow, patient action is under way. One could wish that the glacial pace would quicken, but for now things are the way they are.
All right. Touching once more upon the starting point of this discussion, I do not talk about Briffault's Law, hypergamy, evolutionary psychology, the mercenary nature of women and so on, because in my considered opinion it would fail a strategic cost-benefit analysis to do so. I feel that my own goal -- TO WIN THE WAR -- can be attained by other means. And I do not mean to discard my own methods of operation. Not only do I deem these methods politically efficient, but I believe it would damage the cause in a material way if one were to give them up.
Additionally, as I have stated elsewhere, I am agnostic about hypergamy, Briffault's Law and all of that. And I don't just say this -- I genuinely am agnostic upon these matters. That is, my outlook truly is halfway between belief and disbelief. So that means I have bracketed the entire subject pending futher information. Meantime, I am not holding my breath. I can go ahead with plans even if I NEVER get further information. I don't feel I need to think about evolutionary psychology, or anything pertaining to it, in order to WIN THE WAR.
In the spirit of science and free enquiry, I leave certain conversations open to those who would pursue such matters. But in the spirit of strategic pragmatism, I distance myself from said discussions, both because my own project does not require them, and because I seek the philosophical advantage such distance confers.
So the question becomes, how to maintain distance. The non-feminist sector is becoming more and more activated -- meaning that more and people are becoming politicized against feminism. And along with such growth comes disagreement, and the proliferation of factions and cohorts. AND THERE IS NO HELP FOR THIS. It is bound to happen, for the way of the world is that humans in large numbers will form separate tribes.
Some have lamented that "the movement" is dead or dying. But I would say that "the movement" was never entirely real in the first place, so there is no entity that could properly be said to undergo "death". In fact, all that we are looking at is a series of shifting patterns and energy transformations. And so when one pattern morphs into another, people raise a cry that "the movement" is dead. Bosh! It is not dead; it is very much alive and kicking, but has moved along to a different stage of development and taken a different form. Yes, that is what movements do -- they keep moving!
The fact that we are growing in number means that we are splitting up into different "schools". And in time, these schools will split up into more schools, and on it will go. This is not a disaster. It is evidence of vitality and a source of strength. It means we are developing specializations. It means we are becoming a complex social organism able to do complex things.
Again, the question is how to maintain distance. How might the different groups within the activated non-feminist sector establish signal differentiation and message clarity? How might they spread out across the waveband and establish their own frequencies, and not JAM each other?
We are only at the beginning of all this, and more questions will arise. But the important thing is to ask the right ones -- when we do, it is like shaking the answer tree and watching the fruit fall.
But to any woman on planet Earth I say this: you have a clean slate. If I do not know you, I will suppose you are a rational adult with moral agency who can make a contract and stick to it. And excepting you prove otherwise, I will continue to suppose this. I give you the benefit of my agnostic uncertainty, even as I mark your actions well and consult my best interest in all matters. In the end, what you write upon your clean slate is entirely up to you. Mark that well.
All right....I guess that wraps it up.