Thank you Fidelbogen for your clarification, which I have cited below.
I wanted to make a video response to this, but unfortunately I don't have the time. I will however highlight a few disagreements and/or clarifications in regards to several points you've made. -apologies ahead of time for grammar as I'm typing this from my phone-
"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."
To this commentary on agnosticism,
Again you say
"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. "
My question to you is why the agnosticism? Why the claim of not claiming to know, when my assessment of these things can in fact be known, if one is simply willing to asses it fairly. What me and stardusk have created in essence, (I use the word -created- loosely since our theories borrow from past assessments), but all me and stardusk have created on our channels is as you've called it, a predictive model for general female behavior, that's it, nothing more. Our theories do not and have never been claimed to predict individual female behavior because it's not possible to do so.
So all one has to do to know the validity of our theories is...to test them. When we speak of hypergamy, Briffaults law etc, we are in fact discussing all the manifestations of "big better deal, provision at all costs" behavior exhibited by women in general. There is instinctual hypergamy and politicized hypergamy, (women voting in the majority for the party who provides to them the most benefits and entitlements). I claim that women will express this politicized hypergamy even if its playing a major part of their nations bankruptcy. To test this simply look at the fact that women have been voting democrat in the majority for decades now. Why can we accurately predict the way women will vote in the majority? Because we can infer from the nature of women their voting patterns, financial decisions, marriage fidelity and a great many more things that will follow general trends, which is once again all that the theories I posit claim to do.
The purpose of agnosticism is to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of something that is untestable, something that we may suspect, but is to enigmatic for us to understand and grasp. There is nothing enigmatic about female nature, im sure many advertising companies construct their entire business models around the exploitation of it, Barack Obama exploits it, joe Biden exploits it, in fact, I'm sure a large amount of their campaign was dedicated to understanding and exploiting it. Shit even women do it, Oprah is one of the richest people in the world because she exploited it. Advertising agencies and politicians exploit female nature to extract wealth from men, so it's only fair that mgtow exploit and understand female nature to keep from having their wealth and happiness taken from them.
So in short I talk about hypergamy and Briffualts law because historically it seems that everyone but the average everyday man is clued into female nature and is using it to their advantage. And In a time where women default to their most base biological imperatives, after expertly exploiting male nature, to justify what can only be described as legal theft of male wealth, (divorce being one of a myriad of examples of this) there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of reciprocation on the part of men. Keep in mind that our goal is merely to conserve our wealth, economic power and freedoms, where as the so called fairer sex's goal is unfortunately all to often to deprive men of theirs, which is why I follow a basic rule when deciding the importance of what I should or shouldnt say in my videos.
I ask my self... if I had a son, would I want him to know about a particular topic, no matter how un-pc or offensive to women it may be? if the answer is yes then I have no problem talking about it in a video of mine. If its important enough to warn a son about, it's important enough to warn men and boys about, and if it has to be said in a way that sounds sexist against women...so be it.
This variant of Mgtow is designed to instill both cultural and economic sovereignty in men and boys. In short, we are not concerned with the "nature of women" for any other reason than the fact that male ignorance of it leads to male suffering, misery and disenfranchisement. We have no interest in faulting women for hypergamy, we have no interest in coaxing women toward repressing it like our traditionalist predecessors, what we want is for men to understand when and how it expresses itself, because it is dangerous for them not to.
This context allows feminism to be viewed as an expression of female biological motives, and the rest is simply an exposition of how the state is capitalizing on this. We don't see feminism as being some great novel evil that corrupted womankind, we see it as being an eventuality of technological advancement and inefficient traditional familial norms that projected what are generally male qualities (familial fidelity, loyalty etc) onto women, (who were only there for children/protection/provision), which resulted in the evil effects of feminism being carried out against men.
There is nothing random about feminism, it behaves the way it does, not because of feminist's or Marxism or leftist's, but because women and men behave the way they do, and certain taboos are no longer in play. Since women have categorically refused to not indulge their base biological drives for the benefit of men, I've drawn the conclusion that men should take control of their base biological drives for their own interests. Since male biological imperatives are so interrelated with those of women, we must learn to discern when and how these imperatives interact -precisely-, so that men have the capability to protect themselves.
Hence the need for a comprehensive understanding of hypergamy, and all other associated male/female drives that can be harmful to/exploited against men. We wish the Mra's much success in their goal of reforming marriage laws, but if they fail, mgtow will not have gotten married in the first place, why? Because we understand that marriage in the historical sense, was in many respects, nothing more than a repression of female hypergamy. We've seen what happens when these restraints are lifted, and as such, for our own male interests we will NEVER participate in the institution of marriage again. So essentially, we are not MRA's and are positing different solutions to similar problems, there need not be any conflict over this, simply an understanding that our approaches are different.
So when Fidelbogen says something like:
"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."
We see this as a way of saying, something to the effect of:
-I don't personally care if they call me a mysoginist, but I'm going to play their game and expend energy on making myself sound non-mysoginist- (they'll call you one anyway btw)
What I do is simply say to myself:
-they derive their power precisely by the fear others have of being called misogynist, thus I'm going to say what I please and let the cards fall where they may-
I think one of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume that if we just make our case logically enough, if we just take extra care to phrase things in a way that cannot be said to be misogynist, that feminists won't still successfully portray us as such.
They care nothing about your not giving them an opportunity to call you a misogynist, they actually know you're not one. The people we're up against are the actual misogynists, they go along with affirmative action for women because, although they'll never admit it, they believe, deep down that women are inferiors. They are the bigots and they know it, they don't fluster because you show them through measured rhetoric that you aren't one.
Bigots recognize bigots just fine. Their(feminist's) power to exist as bigots is derived from their ability, or rather their social authority to define what a bigot is, and they define it in a way that thier bigotry is always beyond scrutiny, that's why they nestle thier bigotry deep into their programmed rhetoric of violence against women, domestic violence and rape, because once a Fidelbogen, even broaches the topic of violence against women in any way that doesn't acknowledge feminism's victim narrative, it will put women on the defensive, and furthermore once they hear you talking about how domestic violence is usually reciprocal, and that women are just as violent, if not more violent then men are, you can successfully be branded a misogynist.
That's all it takes. It doesn't matter how non-misogynistic you phrased it, they've got you squarely pegged as a misogynist. Feminist's know that if they can cordon debate around the primal fears of women, no amount of male logic will win him the debate, feminists are extremely good at this, women are extremely susceptible to it, hence my belief that it is a waste of time trying to convince the masses of women on this subject. In the general sense, the only ones that can objectively understand it (in large numbers) outside of thier hind brains are men. these people (feminist's) know they're the mysoginists and they also know that the more you point it out, the more society will perceive you as a misogynist. And unfortunately too many women are willing to blindly defend this lie because they know that the benefits made available to them by feminism are intimately related to the this authority given to feminists to obfuscate their bigotry by defining anyone who points out thier bigotry as being bigots themselves.
Victimhood is power in our society as we all know, and victimhood status must be maintained at all cost's. The feminists and the large blocks of women that support them, and even the men that support them aren't going to let a trivial thing like fidelbogen or barbarossaaaas tactfully phrased non misogynistic refutation of feminism get in the way of that power.
Feminism is a power grab, (read female [em--powerment]) , most women don't even identify as feminists, but start attacking the privileges that feminism gives them and they behave in a way that suggest an unspoken understanding that feminism is a well organized female privilege/advocacy group. Feminists provide women with female privilege, often times directly at the expense of men, women provide feminism with the majority of thier political capital. It's a symbiotic relationship that we caught a glimpse of, when republicans targeted vawa and the whole Sandra fluke birth control fiasco kicked off. What did feminist politicians call it? a war on women, not a war on feminists but a war on WOMEN. What does that tell you? Where were the women that lecture MRA's on how bad it is to generalize women then, when feminists decided to call an attack on laws passed by feminists, an attack on women themselves?, women didn't quite have that much of a problem with that conflation of women and feminist's did they?
so when we hear or read
-feminisim is an ideology women are a gender, we shouldn't conflate the two-
This is correct, this is absolutely correct. And yet somehow this phrase conveniently overlooks that this also holds true for the millions of women divorcing thier husbands. Are we to believe that it is millions of feminists, who see men as either inherent opressors or rapists deciding to marry, start families with and subsequently divorce and extort millions of men? No. These women arent feminists, and neither are most of the women filing false domestic violence/rape accusations, they are everyday average women, taking advantage of privileges given to them by feminism, in order to destroy men.
So the question I ask men everywhere, and particularly men concerned exclusively with gaining legal equality between men and women, is what evidence do we have to suggest that women even want equality?, because I can show you plenty of evidence to suggest that they don't, and as it stands feminists offer women privilege, protection and provision, while all we have to offer is equality (with all of its implied loss of privilege), what incentive do women have to choose equality over privilege?
The answer to that question is in my honest opinion none, and all I'm saying is, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put any hard earned cash in favor of women voluntarily relinquishing their privilege anytime soon, would you?
Again I don't classify feminism as a female supremacism movement, I classify it as a female advocacy at all costs movement, (although supremacism exists within its ranks) female advocacy is what feminism is really about. Behind the veneer of male hatred and misandry, there is an interconnected-ness between women and feminism, where the female advocacy for the female vote trade off functions as feminism's blood brain barrier.
This is why unmarried women in particular backed president Obama in the election by a 38% margin, those type of election demographics don't happen by accident. There must exist huge incentive for record breaking numbers of women to vote for what is the most feminist president in history in such large numbers, were the millions of women that voted for president Obama all radical feminists? Or even feminists at all? No, most were everyday women that simply understand the bottom line, which is i(she) give feminists my support politically, they keep my privileges in-tact.
So saying for the purposes of clarification that feminism is a political ideology and women are a gender doesn't really clarify anything for men, instead we ought to propose saying that feminism is a massive political female advocacy group that women support in the majority, as an actual statement that will help men understand feminism the way it actually exists in the real world. At the very least this is the statement that I would give to any man who has simply given up on working within the system and with women (whom I view as a competing social, political and economic class that will look out for their own interests, regardless of what men think their relation to women is),
Again it comes down to differing approaches to similar problems between Mra's and mgtow. This is the exact reason why I don't call myself an MRA any more, I simply do not approach our mutually acknowledged problems in the same manner. And am quite happy to explain to others that my words and arguments should not be taken as MRA rhetoric.
In regards to Fidelbogen's splc commentary:
"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."
This is incorrect for the same reason that most people have no idea who pens the annual list of new/current groups likely to espouse or engage in terrorism. I couldn't possibly tell you which terrorist watch group said it, but I know that there is a big push to label the "new terrorist threat" as being homegrown, "patriots" "lone wolves" etc. The vast majority of people don't know it either, and yet the media is repeating it, and this meme will surely be used to ram some constitution scrapping post patriot act monstrosity through congress, the meme self perpetuates, the consequences don't care who said it.
Feminism operates on mimetics, it's method of propagation is the constant repetition of lies. A constant mimicry of an authority figure's talking points, (so and so said 1 in five women are...), it's a reflection of our societies abdication of critical thought to the "expert class". The reason it doesn't matter that many people don't know what the splc is, is because it makes no difference in terms of the danger that their classification of mens groups as hate groups poses. It's the same reason why so many lies and so much pseudoscientific drivel is so often prefaced by the words... "Experts say" or "scientists have found", or the "authorities have discovered" etc. In this society, for all intents and purposes, we have now been conflated by the splc with white suprmacists, the new black panther party, the Westboro baptist church and so on, and when the mens movement actually starts to receive television interviews on CNN or other mainstream media outlets, believe me, the general public will be reminded of it.
The fact is that if the splc had no use for classifying the mens movement as a hate group, they wouldn't have bothered to do it in the first place. It doesn't matter that we're not a hate group at all, because in Oceania all that matters is that it was said by an authority figure that we are. The rest is taken care of by female solipsism and herd thinking. Remember what Winston said about women in George Orwells 1984,
"He disliked nearly all woman, and especially the young and pretty ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy"
This amazing little quote encapsulates our situation perfectly, and is the reason why the particular feminist in the recent Warren Farrell debacle, equated MRA's with "being pro-rape and incest"...she knows that women will parrot it. Can you find misogyny in Orwell's statement? if your looking for it, sure, and if you look deeper you'll notice that there isn't a disgust here for any inherent femaleness, but towards the oppressive behaviors they exhibit, the destructive memes they perpetuate, and that my MRA friends is a source of feminisms power, whether it sounds mysoginist or not.
Lastly fidelbogen wrote:
"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."
You've (Fidelbogen) referred to feminism as a cancer, i perceive it differently, but similarly. i perceive feminism as a malignant tumor. Cancer is caused by genetic predispositions (male and female nature), environmental factors (the changing roles of men and women that technology has facilitated) and a host of other usually unseen factors (govt figuring out that they could guarantee female votes by exploiting hypergamy). Tumors on the other hand are the symptoms of the cancer. We do not treat this tumor cell by malignant cell, we deal in collections of cells, cell masses and growths, tumors and whatnot. When a tumor is found we radiate it, we target it with chemotherapy, we know some healthy cells are going to be affected by this radiation, just like some women will be unfairly generalized, and yet the tumor must go, and the generalizations must be made, because the tumor, (feminism), has the potential to be a hell of a lot more dangerous then a couple of misplaced generalizations.
That is my simple metaphor for feminism. And that is why I can accurately say that I am not a non feminist or an anti feminist. I simply exist outside of such a binary. Saying that I'm non or even anti feminist is like saying I'm non or anti tumor, one cannot be anti tumor, but i am pro cancer prevention, before our poor guy ends up on a chemo radiation cocktail, I wish to sit him down and tell him... look, you have a predisposition to lung cancer, and cigarettes cause lung cancer, and lung cancer causes malignant tumor's so DON'T smoke cigarettes.
Similarly I sit men down and tell them, you have a predisposition to want to please women, things like hypergamy are explained to him in the same way that one would explain the dangers of cigarettes to someone with a predisposition to lung cancer. I'll explain to him that cigarettes have always been carcinogenic, but recent developments in technology coupled with zero regulations on what cigarette manufacturers can put into cigarettes have resulted in a cigarette with dozens of more carcinogens then the first cigarettes ever had, the equivalent of telling men that women have always been hypergamous, but our current level of technological advancement and the loosening of checks on hypergamy, the collapse of traditionalism, has brought about women which exhibit advanced hypergamy, such that it has now become politicized and this is what we collectively see and identify as feminism.
Hopefully this will clarify some of my reasons for speaking on these topics.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Well I'll still play the game, but this ensures that as long as this policy stands, I'll never spend a single dollar on a halo game. If the poor darlings can't handle trash talk, then don't play halo.
Well I'll still play the game, but this ensures that as long as this policy stands, I'll never spend a single dollar on a halo game. If the poor darlings can't handle trash talk, then don't play halo.