In Male Fide 3.0: Reflexive Pessimism, Intellectual Cacophony, and the Importance of Values

Fellow iconclast and blogger Ferdinand Bardamu is relaunching his site In Mala Fide as a group venue. But don't sell him short - Mr. Bardamu has bigger visions than the irascible crimethink currently offered by his site. He sees In Mala Fide 3.0 as a smorgasbord of writers and content:

Unlike more narrowly focused and tamer sites like The Spearhead or Alternative Right, the sort of content I want to publish here will run the gamut from political and economic analysis to self-improvement advice (game and whatnot) and other things – an all-access stop for crimethink, amusement and vulgarity. By pooling the talents of multiple writers on a single site, we’ll have a much greater impact than on individual blogs.

And he isn't exactly choosy about who contributes:

If you’re interested in becoming a contributor to In Mala Fide, either by writing front-page articles or on an IMF-hosted blog, I’ll hook you up with an account. You can write about anything you want, be it feminism or game or white nationalism or HBD or economics or Christian patriarchy or stuff from other venues – whatever you like, as often as you like, from whatever perspective you like.

So what exactly is Mr. Bardamu intending to create and how does his vision generalize to the larger political sphere and the alliances within it?

Ferd opines on just about every topic out there, with a focus on gender issues over cultural and political ones. If I'm not mistaken, he started out as a more classical anti-PC Right-winger and has gradually transitioned to a nihilistic, pessimistic, "fuck the world, I'm doing whatever" view. Ferd's strength lies in his ability to entertain, using jocular discourse as a form of societal criticism. Ferd's "yelling from the sidelines" relies more on his delivery than a tight underlying philosophy, but underneath the acerbic quips lies an informed and passionate voice frustrated with the nation as it stands today. So perhaps he doesn't champion a particular doctrine, like Vox Day's libertarianism, Auster's traditionalism, or Buchanan's paleoconservatism. But I see this as a good thing as I also occasionally veer from the narrow range of Right-wing opinions.

However, the openness of his new venture will likely go too far into the abyss of incoherency. A group blog, magazine, or political movement needs a defined set of values. It needs a basic value hierarchy agreed upon by its members. From this foundational structure arises all other positions. Perhaps the details of these opinions vary, given personal interpretation of those values or a different permutation of the foundational principles by some members. But the most basic objectives should, at least, not contradict wildly. The goals of the movement, however nebulous, should have a level of coherency such that necessary concessions won't completely undermine other objectives. Yes all this is very inexact, but I don't want to go into a huge list of examples.

In sum, I foresee Ferd's array of authors putting forth wildly divergent ideas that could never coexist. Sure most of the content will involve societal criticism, generally from an anti-PC perspective. But without a coherent message based on a tenable set of values, what can be accomplished? What can come out of this undoubtedly cacophonous collection of voices who disagree about what we should hold dearest as a nation? How can a ragtag bunch of people come together when they can't even decide on what's most important? When inevitable disagreements arise, on what philosophical grounds will disputes be resolved?

I've recently championed social conservatism because I believe government spending and anti-white and anti-male social, cultural, and economic policies exist because the West no longer values success, its most productive citizens, or itself as an independent entity. I see only social conservatism whereby culture and social institutions return to traditionalist values, e.g. Taylor Swift or Forrest Gump, as potent enough to oppose leftism. Ferd's new blog goes against this concept because it merely reacts without a strong foundation of values besides frustration. And his insistence on including everyone will only push the message in too many directions. In the end, I want a conservatism that heralds America as a traditional land with a viable culture and peoples, not merely reacts to her decline into a land of feminism and fatties.

[FWIW: I was probably one of the first people to ever read and link to In Mala Fide and I've visited it essentially every single day since it started. Ferd is still one of my favorite bloggers even with the criticisms above; though these are almost exclusively directed at his new idea, not his blog as it stands now. And I didn't just add this disclaimer to keep myself on his Sunday links - OK maybe a little because of that.]