The Growth of the Movement and the Differentiation of Signals
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.
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
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:05 AM
6 Comments:
Diverse opinions = kerfuffle?
Just calmly disagree S and B,
forego the feathers ruffled.
Fidelbogen:
I have a question that's related to this issue:
As a rule I don't care much for hypergamy, or much of these other notions about pre-programmed behaviors. While it's true that there are distinctive biologically-based inclinations between the genders, I believe that most of human behavior is based on perceptions of reality. Now there are absolute truths; but when perceptions are at variance with those, then it is the mistaken perceptions that cause morally aberrant behavior.
For example, many people believe that the earth is flat; but that perception doesn't alter the actual shape of the earth one iota.
Now to the question: most of objectionable female behavior is environmental produced by the false philosophy inculcated by feminism. Do you believe that it would be a valuable approach to stress that aspect in fighting feminism? That the female behavior complained of by so many in the Manosphere is the result of disinformation and miseducation?
I believe the tendency towards hypergamy exists, but then I also believe that some people achieve character, to a high degree, including some women, including some men.
Perhaps it is time to create a school of your own? How about the Fiedelbogen Institute of Equality Theory? It has a nice ring to it.
I do like you’re metaphor about the orchestra. However the missing piece of the metaphor is the underlying musical theory. It is implied that each quartet would play in unison with itself yet in discord with every other group. The shared theory of the quartets is taken for granted.
You, and other people are moving from mere opposition of feminism to having theoretical identities of your own. However the completeness of one school does not mean it cannot be compared to another. If something is complete, if it has an identity, it thus can be compared to other like things. Where comparisons can be made ‘the worse’ and ‘the better’ will inevitably arise. This necessarily means competition.
Do all roads lead to Rome? I have my doubts; but if so, some are certainly more direct.
Why the need to harp on hypergamy? Clearly, as a rhetorical tool, it can be used against radical feminists. It provides a counter argument against the supposed innate badness of men. However this tactic cannot be much of a theoretical cornerstone as it is really just a ‘you too’ argument. Highlighting the specific innate forms of evil may serve to strengthen our guard against attack, but it cannot create a home to defend.
On the other hand, if law is meant to restrain our beastly nature, hypergamy may inform us of the kinds of restraints needed. However without an ideal to strive for all we can do is flee from evil. In other words, without a concept of that which constitutes the good person/citizen/member, the constitution of the bad member cannot be wholeheartedly chastised. One may make the analogy of a master knowing what’s best for his dog and beating him when ‘bad’ without an ideal in mind of what a good dog might be. This may be a just relationship between man and dog, but between equals the ideal must be put in place before discipline can be justly enforced.
What I’m getting at here is that Feminism has become most ugly by trying to marry itself to state power. It highlights the evils of men and it concentrates power under the auspiciousness of benevolence. If the MRM goes for the same strategy and only builds a story of male victimhood, not only are is it no better, it is just as foolish to think it can safely hold the reigns of State power.
You celebrate the possible takeover of cultural terrain and because this will make it harder to target the MRM. I agree that such a change would be strategically advantageous. But isn’t the slipperiness of feminism a large point of contention with you? It is with me. Is there some cognitive dissonance in celebrating the proliferation of schools on your side and cursing the proliferation on the other side? Or have I missed the point?
Also I was wondering, do they call you a traditionalist? I know they call Chapin that. I think it’s absurd. I see the good core of the MRM as springing from our classical liberal tradition. So clearly I’m a ‘traditionalist’ though I know that MRAs have a different meaning for the term. You two are the only ones I listen to regularly and I do so because you two seem to be the only ones who understand the need to have a clear ideological position. As I see it, if you do not, it is like laying siege to a fortress without a supply line—perhaps you will be able to conquer, but how long can you hold it?
I appreciate the above comment. The marriage of feminism to the state is indeed a formidable pitfall, as to "fight fire with fire" would be as dangerous as it distasteful - I don't want laws parsing out who does what in the home, no matter whom it might favor, etc etc ad nauseum.
Perhaps this is why feminism must first and foremost be brought out into the light and be shown to a hateful power-grubbing cult established in our very midst. It must be revealed as vile, despicable, dishonest, nothing more or less than a cult grasping for as much political power as it's able.
I also enjoy Fidelbogen and Bernard Chapin particularly, I often have thought I come here for a more global, philosophical enlightenment of, the problem, and Chapin I think has laser like perception of how feminists behave in all manner of personal situations. He calls them out perfectly on their dishonesty and false entitlement again and again. I am never really sure if I could toe his line however, regarding left/right issues, and I think he may alienate a lot of men who differ with him on some specific topics.
To some degree, I think the warning, of hypergamy, applies to men, more than the issue of feminism, as a warning, at least for now. If modern women can finally fall under the light of society's scrutiny, perhaps the issue of hypergamy will be helpful in exposing their inherent state if moral imperfect (just like all people). Perceiving is important, perhaps of first importance.
The problem of feminism is fundamentally a political one. Feminism is anti-family. Radical feminists understand this while moderate feminists erroneously think they are merely giving more choices to women.
If we look at the political and social structure of Medieval Europe we find that it is indeed ‘male dominated’. The state was seen as a larger version of the family and the family was like a small state. Men were punished for the misdeeds of women and children just as a King may be held accountable for the actions of his subjects. Likewise, landowners were responsible for their serfs. Thus there was a social and political hierarchy with women and children at the bottom followed by men in general, then by Lords etc., right up to the King. The system was essentially a hierarchy of states within states.
When this system broke down land owning men were given the vote. The hierarchy still existed but it was flattened. Eventually all men were given the vote and this hierarchy flattened more. At the same time legal rights have evolved to suit these new structures.
The cliché about American being built on ‘family values’ is well founded. The family was the final vestige of this kind of hierarchy of states within states. The old 1950s American political/social structure was still very family oriented. Marriage was still seen as a kind of union rather than a contractual agreement. This mirrors the kind of paternalism of Medieval times where the principality was considered a spiritual and physical part of the prince; the prince was the head and his subjects were part of his body. In the same way a married man owned his wife yet was spiritually and physically inseparable from her.
Feminists fight for the ‘emancipation’ of women but this is the same as fighting for the breakdown of the family, the separation of marital union, of marital powers. In essence this emancipation is the legal separation of powers within the family. In a way this is the ultimate flattening of hierarchy and is the ultimate expression of equality. Yet, in another, it is the final intrusion of state power into the private homes and bedrooms of us all. It’s as if the executive functions of power have been divided and subdivided in the name of equality while the judicial functions of power gradually formed an invisible tyranny. Are we more free, or less free? I can’t tell. One thing is for sure: the MRM will soon come to the reality of politics and the role of government. That’s when things will get interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home