Evolution of Understanding

May 5, 2011
in Activism, Chivalry

When I first began writing about men’s rights, it was from an evolution of the rants I had been writing about American politics. I was aware of the existence of feminism, but at the time believed more or less in the cultivated public image that feminism is a synonym for humanism. Writing on the topic of men’s rights resulted naturally in substantial attention paid to the actual goals and produced outcomes of organized feminism.

What I found was an unpleasant surprise. The first wave of the feminist movement was one which had the overt goal of legal equality, wage equity, and political inclusion for women. These goals were good ones, and indeed, early feminists were justified in their demand for social and political equity.

What’s not widely known about feminism is that it is not now, and has never been, a grass roots movement. It was conceived, organized and funded by bankers who actually run the corporations and governments of the world. Some of this was revealed by Nicolas Rockefeller to the documentary film maker Arron Russo. Some is revealed by the employment of feminist activist Gloria Steinem by the american CIA[1], and her relationship with Henry Kissinger[2].

What’s grown out of that early and faux-humanist feminism is a dogmatic philosophy of female-centric socialism, driven by contempt for men. This is the political movement centred on the false tenet that society operates under a male conspiracy to oppress women. The pillars of thought which have emerged from this falsehood are a poisonous collection of ideals running directly contrary to a philosophy of individual civil rights; the real goal of feminism. It is a tool for dividing men and women against each other, destroying the strength of the family and making a society more pliable to totalitarian control. At this point, the tinfoil-hat comments should start flying. To anyone offering such commentary, a suggestion to re-read the previous paragraph, comparing it to modern realities, might be helpful.

Feminism’s recognized purpose as a bludgeon against men, and a dividing force in society provides scope as well as increased reason for opposition. It also informs the focus of resistance to a movement manufactured by bankers to reduce our society to a mirror of orwell’s nightmare. Men are the target of a top down astroturf social movement to fragment society, and it’s men who are going to carry this fight.

An examination of a few public lies accepted as truth makes the utility of feminist doctrine to ratchet society towards a police state clearer.

Stopping violence against women.

This is a catch-phrase intended to confuse you. It implies that violence against women is a prevalent issue. A quick visit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website shows clearly that for non-domestic violence, the principal victims by sex are men[3]. In contrast to this, in the realm of domestic violence, agencies purporting to address the problem of DV produce mountains of “awareness” literature and video, all addressing a view that men are the aggressors, and women are the victims. Unfortunately for anyone with a legitimate goal of reducing domestic violence, all of this propaganda portrays a false narrative.

The peer-reviewed research on DV shows clearly that the majority of DV is reciprocal – borne out of dysfunctional relationships. It also shows that in the minority of DV which is one sided, women are the primary aggressors. The research demonstrates that far from being some sort of helpless fragile species of rare flower subject to mythical male violence, that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men[5]. That’s right, women are human beings, subject to all the same failings of reason and bad behavior that DV service agencies are so eager to pretend belong solely to the male 49% of the human race. But this brings us to the question of why. Why do the organizations claiming to “stop violence against women” maintain a public pretence that women are overwhelmingly the victims of violent men?

For the money, obviously. The maintained narrative Women-as-victims produces public sympathy, and taps into all of our traditional chivalric values, our natural desire to protect women. And in maintaining this narrative, these so called anti domestic violence agencies and service providers tap directly into everyone’s wallets.

And what of the the cost to men of being permanently typecast as evil violent subhumans? Who gives a fuck, as long as criminalizing masculinity keeps the money flowing. And as for stopping violence against the group most effected, well there’s no money in that, if you are male, and subject to violence, well, you can shut up and quit being a fucking sissy. In fact, you can man up, and just take it.

The subtler and deeper consequence of this is that men are kept on a defensive posture by the pretence that they’re evil violent patriarchs, while weathering the majority of all violence. As long as men are perceived as “bad,” they are ignored as a sex. Men are also prevented by this social marginalization from acting in their historical role as society’s defenders. It is not a coincidence that the social pre-eminence of feminist values matches the obsolescence of what we might call a stable family as the norm for most people, and the erasure of traditional and constitutional precepts of human rights and civil liberty. An itemization of the bill of rights, noting which articles still have any currency would be redundant, except to state as an imperative to anybody unfamiliar with the content. Go now and read it[5], and answer for yourself what remain of your constitutional rights.

The dissolution of your rights is actually feminism’s goal.

The continually escalating narrative of “protecting” women by affording them ever greater protection and privilege above and beyond the legal rights of “bad” men is designed to produce a society in which nobody has legal rights except for very few hereditarily rich, including those banking families everybody like to throw around the names of. Not even women, not even feminist tenured academics will have human rights in that world, because the men who would have protected them will be, and are being reduced to the legal status of furniture and appliances.

Any protection of the rights of a subset of humanity not identifying the protected as “everybody” is implicit suppression of the rights of those outside that group so “protected”.

The insistence that women are, and have always been victims, and that men are privileged patriarchal oppressors is a potential achilles-heel of the use of female-elevation as a tool to ratchet western society towards a nightmare police state. It runs contrary to the real world experience of ordinary people, and ignores the real and obvious mutual interdependence of men and women in society. There must also be a growing cognitive dissonance in traditionalists and chivalric men between the narrative of women’s oppression, and the accelerating disenfranchisement of males. How is it that women are oppressed by the patriarchy in a world where they live longer[6], earn more degrees[7], spend more of everybody’s money[8], and the practice marital hypergamy[9][10]

Hypergamy for those who don’t know is the socially normal practice of women marrying economically or socially upwards.

The simple, truthful answer is that women are not now, and have never been oppressed as a class. They are now, and have always been protected by historical chivalric values. Feminism is an amplification of chivalry, the protection and elevation of women. Taken to the currently absurd level, the elevation of women takes the form of subtracting rights from men. However the differential between men’s disenfranchisement and women’s legal and social supremacy is a temporary measure, and we are already seeing the levelling these differences by the abrogation of all people’s human rights.

The Elimination of Habeas Corpus and the Repudiation of the 5th and 6th Amendments

The Normalization of Torture

Destruction of Privacy and Abrogation of the 4th Amendment

The Legal Manufacture of Rationale for Murder

Eradication of Private Property

But dont worry, all of this happening as feminism rises to the pre-eminent social narrative – it’s just a coincidence, go back to sleep.

Recognizing that feminism’s unstated but real goals are the advancement of the interests of the few elite banking families who actually run this planet still leaves us with the bludgeon of feminism to contend with. But also informs a useful approach for the men’s right’s movement.

Chivalry must be recognized as a social malaise, and treated with the same contempt and scorn that open racism elicits. Most men are still raised to be traditionalists, and whether they adapt their behavior to something significantly less gentlemanly as they become adults, the core programming remains. This is why women can assault men in public without the near-certainty of a retributive beating that a man exhibiting the same behavior would earn. Chivalry has at it’s foundation some deeply flawed assumptions. The first being that men are disposable. The antihuman ideal that the lives of men are worth less than the lives of women, or of children.

Women and children first – to the lifeboats, to medical funding, to receive justice, or financial assistance, to the front of the line for privilege. Chivalry is the basis for men dying on foreign battlefields to pad the income of oil companies. Chivalry is why 19 of 20 workplace deaths are men and this glaring fact isn’t in the news while feminist academics continue to rend their clothes over an imaginary patriarchy keeping women down.

As men, we must turn our backs on chivalry, and destroy it’s acceptance as a normal system of human value. There is more at stake than just our own continued marginalization. What’s at stake is the human rights and freedoms on which western society is built. Chivalry is the basic poison bankers are using to transform the society born out of the enlightenment into Orwell’s nightmare.


Addendum: The national post article linked from this piece has apparently been removed from their site. I have saved a copy from Google’s cache and uploaded it to AVFM as a reference. NB-case-fuels-debate-over-DV PDF link

 

[1] http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html

[2] http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

[3] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

[4] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

[7] http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/io/research/0601.pdf

[8] http://www.womenwantmorethebook.com/press/septermber9.aspx

[9] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypergamy

[10] http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/06/hypergamy-trumps-ideology.html

John Hembling (JtO)

John Hembling (JtO)

Recommended Content