If you’re starting up a political movement and want to get the asses into the seats — and then out into the streets — it’s helpful to have a stirring manifesto.
Here’s the opening of the Communist Manifesto.
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
That’s pretty good, you gotta admit. Like the start of an action movie.
And then there’s the classic opening of our own Declaration of Independence. Not quite as dramatic, but pretty damn stately. It starts off with all that “[w]hen in the Course of human events” stuff, and then, BAM:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is, like, really quotable and shit.
Well, our old friend Fidelbogen has been doing some manifesto writing of his own. Let’s see how his new manifesto stands up against these classics.
The Manifesto of Coalition JS38
JS38 – Operational Overview
JS38 is a coalition of politically conscious non-feminist groups and individuals. The name itself is a random character string which serves only as an identification tag. As a project, JS38 is designed to overcome the problems which labels often generate – such problems as branding, false grouping, conflation, stereotypification, message degradation and the like.
What What WHAT?! You’ve named your movement after A RANDOM CHARACTER STRING?
Fidelbogen apparently thinks he’s writing a manifesto for robots.
Let’s see if he can pick up the pace a bit in the second paragraph:
We recognize that we are in a contest to sway hearts and minds.
Yeah, nothing wins hearts and minds faster than random character strings.
We recognize that this contest is played out on the field of public rhetoric – by which we mean things popularly said and heard. We strive, accordingly, to craft a message as well as we are able.
Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you are about as talented at crafting messages as I am at ballet dancing. The difference between the two of us is that I don’t post videos of myself trying to ballet dance on the internet, while you have a blog entirely — if inadvertently — devoted to documenting your failures to “craft messages” with any kind of skill. (And of course there’s your amazing Twitter account.)
The operation of JS38 will boost and clarify the signal of our selected message and cut through the background noise. In this way, the message will gain a more individuated presence within the public discourse.
Uh, see what I mean? Then Fidey, having set forth no reasons whatsoever for anyone to get involved in his little project, gets into the nitty-gritty of how it will work:
Members of JS38 (called “signatories”) are aligned with each other under the terms of a Prime Constitution – a list of points that encompass a mission, a code of principles, and a practical worldview.
He continues on in this fashion for approximately one million words (rough estimate). Here are some more snippets, to give you a flavor:
JS38 is neither a moral collective nor an organization in any sense, but only a joint intellectual effort to distill a message signal, and to differentiate this from what other feminist-averse groups and individuals are transmitting. …
If we establish that an octagon is an eight-sided geometrical figure, the truth of that message remains uncompromised by the messenger. Even if Stalin or Caligula declared that an octagon was an eight-sided geometrical figure, it would not become a nine-sided or seven-sided figure. …
The points in the Prime Constitution are not listed in order of priority, and there is no linear progression of ideas from one item to the next. However, the items do form a loose holographic unity. …
Ideally, every sub-constitution would list its entire chain of linkages, leading eventually back to the Prime Constitution, which is deemed canonical. In the end, this would generate a pyramidal structure of variations which cascade from the Prime Constitution. …
We value self-containment and aplomb in our spoken and written communications. Furthermore, we believe it is good practice to “think like a lawyer.” …
We define our method as query-based rather than theory-based – although it is true that we theorize. But feminism owes us answers, and not the reverse. Thus, if we declare that “feminism is x”, we are expecting proof that feminism is NOT x, and shall expect our concerns to be sensitively and respectfully addressed. …
If a particular idea is not expressly stated in this document, it cannot be attributed to the document. Equally, however, it cannot be said that the document excludes it. …
We seek to bring about a decolonization of the non-feminist mind. To that end, we claim an epistemic standpoint independent of feminist discourse, and from said standpoint we develop a counter-discourse. …
We assert the prerogative to define feminism in absolute terms in the light of our own study, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is. …
We assert that feminism is like a product that must be sold, and that nobody is obligated to buy. …
I’m thinking that Fidelbogen’s He Man Antifeminism Club 4NtevaSh — sorry, “Coalition JS38“ — isn’t going to be making a lot of sales itself.
I’ve read this three times and I do not understand what it means.
I’m beginning to suspect that everything Fidelbogen has ever written is actually an elaborate code.
I can’t help but compare Faithful Booger’s manifesto — unfavorably — to the Manifesto Antropófago (Cannibal Manifesto) by Oswald de Andrade, which starts:
See how that grabs you, right from the very beginning?
de Andrade goes on:
He figuratively cannibalizes Shakespeare here, in a reference to a group of indigenous Brazilians who at one point practiced ritual cannibalism.
He has some great other lines too:
So, which manifesto would you rather read?
Cloudiah, you may not need to make a choice. As Fidelbogen quoth:
Although the Manifesto Antropófago cannot be attributed to The Manifesto of Coalition JS38, it cannot be said that The Manifesto of Coalition JS38 excludes the Manifesto Antropófago.
It is a very mysterious manifesto.
Urrraaagggggh. I’m sorry, I read half of 50 Shades of Bears, Cockrub Warriors of Mars, and ungodly amounts of g0y rhetoric, and I still can’t get through even those paragraphs of Fidelbogen. The guy needs to be voiced by Ben Stein.
The Prime Constitution (aka the ramblings of a lone crank) get’s “to define feminism in absolutist terms” and is “canonical”, so here’s what feminism is and if you don’t agree, shut up, this is totally official. People can sign it and stuff.
No, no. I propose Professor Utonium, creator of the PowerPuff Girls, as the voice of the manifesto. Superficially reasonable, surreptitiously bonkers.
I may print this out and ask my English class to summarize it. Just to fuck with their heads a little.
Also, how did you know “turgid” is one of my favorite words?
Moldybrehd –
“OMG, Fidelbogen is the Basilisk!?!?!? (cuz reading his posts is pretty tortuous… )”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
(btw it is “is torturous” cos reading is singular)
RE: Brooked
I love that. We’ve never had a female president, but feminism means women will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
*lightning!* MWAHAHAHAHAHA! *thunderclap!*
All the charisma of Ben Stein! All the intellect of Pee-wee Herman!
How about sarumanangry doing it? It would be GOLD.
::ducks::
Wait, what? The saying goes “men are the problem”? Have youse guys been holding out on me? Even from the most irrational of tumblr radfems, I haven’t heard that saying. I’ve heard it on a regular basis from MRAs, who believe that it is the definition of patriarchy, but never from feminists.
I have heard that all men are rapists, and that men are a problem, which I will happily call ignorant nonsense based on an overly simplistic view of the world and the people in it, but never that.
‘Certainly,’ said Alice.
‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
— from Through the Looking Glass
Also, I think that bit about refusing to define oneself by race or… whatever the idiot was nattering on about? That’s a classic method by which white dudes try to let themselves off the hook for absolutely everthing historical, by declaring “we’re colorblind! no, we swear! and thus has it always been for all time, amen!” and look at that– they solved white privilege, and now YOU are the racist if you call them out on that shit.
It’s not original, but I suspect it works in some circles because it seems to keep popping up over and over and over again.
kittehs – *throws a virtual cookie at you*
So I read the picture caption, and chuckled a little, because I figured David was saying something like “Fidelbogen’s writing is so incoherent, he might as well just use a random character generator to make things that sort of look like words.”
…Then I got to the first paragraph of his MANifesto, and just… no. David was not exaggerating. That was literally true.
“Feminism IS what WE say it IS so NANA NA!!”
Don’t know if it’s uncouth but I have a new satirical news blog if anybody be interested. My Gravatar name recently changed from the de-lurked misterantimra, so you probably think I’m a stranger hucking my wares. Well, I don’t de-lurk often enough, anyway.
Hope you get a smile out of this:
http://conservativenewswire.wordpress.com/
He sounds like a sci-fi writer to me. A self-published one. Because he’s grandiloquent, and giant egos don’t go over well with readers. Who does he think he is, L. Ron Hubbard?
*catches virtual cookie*
nom nom nom
I read…
“We assert the prerogative to define feminism in absolute terms in the light of our own
studystupidity, regardless of feminist objection to such a proceeding. Simply put, feminism categorically IS what WE say it is. …”*goes to read comments*
The only thing funnier than Fidelbogen is the people who think he’s brilliant. One of his commenters even thinks he sounds like a lawyer!
It’s the Fox News school of argumentation (apologies to non-USers): say whatever you want about your opponent, and leave it up to them to refute it. So maddening.
On what grounds is he basing this expectation? Other than, as someone else pointed out, the general expectation men have that women will coddle their delicate fee-fees. Entitlement, indeed.
In that legalese and Fidelbogen are both incomprehensible to said commenter?
Feminism is cupcake. PROVE TO ME FEMINISM ISN’T CUPCAKE!
That quote is quite literally reeking of cis-man privilege. I can smell it through the internet…and it doesn’t smell of cupcakes.
Side note, Fidelbogen’s always reminded me of the bit in Children of the Mind where Si Wang-Mu poses as a philosopher…only, Si Wang-Mu does pseudo-philosophy a hell of a lot better than Fidelbogen.