Stepping Over Hate

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he act of writing from a MRA point of view can sometimes seem like shouting into a hurricane. It is not merely a matter of being ignored and censored by the vast majority of the world. It is also not merely the issue that public discourse is almost totally dominated by the wilful repetition of false facts, repeatedly and decisively debunked, but repeated in defiance of truth. In fact, the arguments fielded by MRAs, including that men are treated as disposable appliances, that in criminal matters women are partially, and sometimes wholly exempt from legal accountability, that affirmative action programs are equivalent to apartheid,  and the celebration of male targeted violence, as if injury when inflicted on men is comedy.

These issues are known to the entirety of the general public already, but a cultivated smog of cognitive dissonance serves to enforce and escalate the grotesque hatred and marginalization which persists in western culture. The obdurate failure of opponents as well as disinterested bystanders to grasp men’s rights issues is not legitimate confusion, it is pretence.

[quote float=”left”]To indulge in hate is to afford the object of that hate control over oneself.[/quote] This pretence is easily demonstrated by reversing the sexes in almost any statement about men as a sexual demographic in the mainstream media. It’s also evident in the continued existence of the phrase “man up”; which means – whatever pain you experience is invalid, so suck it up and continue providing labour, money, or violence on behalf of people who discount your humanity.

[box icon=”none”]To anyone who would demand the claims summarized herein be demonstrated with examples, kindly refer to my previous writing on this site.[/box]

The product of this, for a man not wilfully deluding himself that he lives in anything but a violent, hateful matriarchy is a natural and justified anger. In fact, a growing understanding that prevalent wilful denial of what is already understood underlies the apparent obtuse failure to comprehend, to act, or to even answer an argument from an MRM view with anything but lying accusation and abuse brings one quite easily to hatred.

And that, my friends, is the trap. The hatred of women we are so frequently accused of by the bad actors, the collaborating male-feminists, the lying, and privileged ideologues; that hatred is the trap we are meant to fall into. Because justified as any human is to resent a climate of relentless, puerile vilification and belittling lies, if we allow ourselves to fall into this trap, we vindicate the very liars who have heaped injury and insult on the entire male sex for decades. The sneering retort to any argument “you’re just bitter” or “you just hate women” will have been made forcibly true.

So what is the answer? To be servile, or saintly, or endlessly tolerant and forgiving of permanent hatred and injury?

No, definitely not. In the collective silence, conformity, and bobble-headed agreement with our culture’s debasement of masculine identity there is culpable complicity to the undeclared war on men. This complicity bridges not just feminists, and not just the vast majority of “normal” women, but also most men who out of denial and fear of censure go-along with every bit of male-marginalizing double standard that is heaped on them.

The rage is present in these collaborators too, but buried behind the contradictory delusion that a “good man” is equivalent to a male accommodating of every childish female caprice. Denied and obscured behind a wholly self-inconsistent and externally sourced male identity. This anger denied behind pretence is most dangerous, because it goes unaddressed. But for cognizant men, there remains the problem of the trap of anger. The hazard that through prolonged abuse and censure – we render ourselves politically impotent by conformity to our enemies lies about us.

There is another reason to consider in treading carefully over the boggy ground of this understandable hatred. If indulged, it diminishes the quality of your own life. It is a poison, one which however much you may direct it outward onto your philosophical opponents – also poisons yourself. At this point, it might appear that I am offering a saccharine, Pollyanna view akin to the tone-trolling and concern trolling presented by bad actors in the comments threads of so many MRA forums. My focus, however is not on presenting an agreeable face.

[quote float=”right”]The urge to fisk the minutia of ideologues can be a trap.[/quote] To indulge in hate is to afford the object of that hate control over oneself. On recognition of this, it ceases to be a question of how to avoid falling into a self consuming cycle of hatred and anger, and simply a choice of effective thought and action, versus infective indulgence. I refuse to allow those in opposition to self actualized masculine identity to divide me away from joy, or love, or enjoyment of any area of my life. This would be the outcome of indulgence in hatred – a path I’ve observed in a relative after his brutalization by the family court system of a feminized society. He is effectively crippled by his rage. It owns him. There’s the land-mine. Don’t step on it.

As suggested earlier, I don’t endorse or practice a philosophy of tolerance to hatred or even disavowal of anger. The line is drawn at affording control over any aspect of my point of view. Hatred of ideological bigots, or of women, provoked and cultivated is a technique of control and manipulation.

Conversely, without trying to, and simply by persistence as an MRA – I have earned the scorn and hatred of a small segment of the active radical feminist world who have read my writing. The control some feminists afford me by their hate is gratifying, but is also a distraction.

Recently, a protein-deprived male apologist for male vilifying gender ideology posted a collection of characteristic and insubstantial personal attacks against AVFM’s Paul Elam. Like most other such feminist quacking – the purpose wasn’t to make a critical rebuttal of any particular argument. It was simply to provoke and insult. It wasn’t a particularly effective example – as the quisling in question was punching above his weight, but it was sufficient to illustrate a point.

It is futile to attempt honest discourse with the adherents of a dogma built on transparent lies and class hatred. However, we’re all susceptible to being drawn into these supposed arguments – but the purpose of so much oppositional rhetoric isn’t to convey a point, it’s to belittle and dehumanize the members of the not-preferred sexual demographic. That’s you. The urge to fisk the minutia of ideologues can be a trap wearing down anyone with the stamina and the will to try drinking from the fire-hose of male vilifying lies. These lies are easier to fabricate and recycle than they are to debunk – so shovelling the produce is best approached (in my opinion) as an exercise to illuminate the character of an argument based on hatred of an entire segment of humanity based on their sex.

Detachment from concern for the opinion of members of the preferred sexual demographic sidesteps the tendency that being relentlessly heaped with hatred and abuse from fostering a disposition to consuming anger. Its also with great pleasure that having clearly identified the human plankton following a dogma of violence and hatred – I can cheerfully and belligerently lend my attention to the political goals of these ideologues – and without hatred or violence, to persistently fuck their shit up.

Recommended Content