Men’s Rights in a larger political framework

In 2007 – after George Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, replaced nearly a dozen district attorneys mid term, a highly irregular, and apparently politically motivated intervention in the judicial branch of government, he was required in 2007 to testify before the senate judiciary committee, then chaired by Senator Arlin Spectre.

I spent several months watching him on C-Span – reciting variations of “I don’t remember.” I remember feeling a chill. The attorney general being the head of the judicial branch of government stonewalling the judiciary committee’s investigation of his politicization of the justice branch. The A.G. appointed by the definitively corrupt Bush Administration. Many characterize Bush the younger as incompetent, yet he achieved what generations of presidents before him failed to do, namely, to dispense with the bulk of the Bill of Rights as a thwart to the supreme power of government. This is not a small accomplishment, George-bush-the-clown was a masterful bit of misdirection.

When I realized that the justice branch of government was corrupt from the head down, I wondered at length how any citizen could find redress of grievance through legitimate channel – when the legitimate channels of redress are so openly corrupt.

In such a perverted system, it seemed that the only redress of grievance against public officials run amok, such as Mr Cheney, Mr Rove, Mr Rumsfeld, and Mr Bush was through legally illegitimate methods, outside the accepted mechanism of political participation. A sudden uncivil correction to a corrupt system appeared to be the only remaining recourse in a society whose legitimate checks and balances are broken, but I regard such violent correction as unpalatable, and unlikely.

In 2007, the continued and accelerated erosion of human rights appeared to have no viable brake.

The endless, ineffectual talking in senate chambers, political pulpits, court rooms, press galleries and news studios was all I expected then, and nearly all I have seen since.

I realized that in a climate of near universal corruption at the highest ranks of public life, the public would not stir themselves to act except through the ritual puppet show of “polite” political engagement through the wholly fictional, but legitimate channels of voting, petitioning, editorializing, and placard waving. Fortunately at the personal scale, but unfortunately at the societal scale – the public weren’t and aren’t going to shed any blood of patriot or tyrant. It’s not that they are asleep, as some with a libertarian bent protest, simply that they are beaten. They are, and depending on the audience of this article, by “they” I mean you … they, are scared, exhausted, and hoping if they just keep their heads down, somebody else will be selected to be thrown into the volcano rather than themselves.

That’s the balance – between the public’s outrage over a ruling elite at the heads of corporate, political and financial North America, and the emotional exhaustion of human beings terrified that they might say the wrong thing and loose their homes, jobs, children or future. The unfortunate consequence of this calculated cowardice is that sacrifice of freedom in favor of safety will result in the retention of neither. So, sadly, the public did not seem in late 2007 likely to reject consensus authority of the corrupt elite. I predicted a long dark future history.

This was all before I had any awareness that such a thing as the Men’s Right’s Movement.

Option 1
Apathy : the ritual but ineffective participation in public life through voting and other “acceptable” channels.

This is where we are now, and its useless.

Option 2
Violent disruption and dispossession of corrupt governments and courts. This is no good either, not least because it’s brutal, but also because it’s likely to replace the old criminals with new criminals.

Fortunately, there’s a third option, and the Men’s Rights Movement is it.

Feminism’s Role in social engineering:

The effects of the corrupt and violent social institution operating under the name “feminism” are arguably what brought many Men’s Rights Activists to the movement, but feminism as a political ideology has no end point, because it’s actually only a tool.

The goal of feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with equality, and for earnest feminists waking up to a wider political reality this is a bitter pill to swallow. Feminism, is, and always has been an astroturf movement, conceived and funded by the elite – and sold to the public as an egalitarian movement by appealing to the vanity of politically unsophisticated women. Weak men have also been coerced into compliance because agreeing with the self righteous rage of female is easier, and has the illusory benefit of female approval.

Unfortunately as most within the MRM know, feminism’s stated goal of social and legal equality between the sexes is completely false, rather it is a corrosive, violent ideology engineered to create social discord, to infantalize women and criminalize men. Dividing men and women against each other, and eroding the social power of families within civil society is one of feminism’s major successes. A civil population of individuals severed from the traditional support structure of strong families is much easier to control. For active MRAs, understanding that feminism as a tool in a longer goal of social control is important.

While feminism’s influence is pervasive, violent and corrupt, getting wrapped up too closely in feminist arguments can become a distraction from the larger context. That context being that feminism is a tool to weaken public resistance to the transition of open societies to closed, police states.

Recommended Content

22 thoughts on “Expanding the Fight”

  1. What a fantastic article. I don’t know of a better definition of feminism than what you’ve given. Also, you’re advice about avoiding too much of a direct confrontation is also insightful. We men’s activists all tend to get hooked into an eternal debate with feminists/feminism, which is an endless argument. The devil doesn’t want the argument resolved, and will keep throwing new shit at you. Similar to feminists.

    1. That’s why you try to reach the undecideds and allies. If you are going to argue with them do it on your turf that way they can’t edit your comments or do other damage.

  2. FascistOrigami

    Thanks for saying this so eloquently. This is precisely why I became interested in MRA in the first place.

  3. J.G. te Molder

    Option 1 can still be viable, but it has one requirement: at minimum third political party. One not started by the elite, but by people metaphorically speaking, in the streets.

    Until that, at minimum, third party is not started, option 1, is useless.

    1. An Canada we have 3 main political parties and a few fringe freakshows.
      The number of parties does not make much difference.
      Organization makes a difference. All politicians oil the squeeky wheel to get votes. What we need are groups like NOW or the old National Action Committee on the Status of women that focus on matters affecting men. Getting face time in interviews explaining clearly and calmly how now it is MEN that seek equal treatment.
      There is no doubt at all that many countries currently persecute their own men. And I am sure that we can reach critical mass much faster than feminists did as we don’t have anyone suggesting that women should be interred in concentration camps.

      Once I get this new pc set up I will make a shock video. At first it will appear very racist and make people mad. Then It will explain that every single racist statement was lifted straight from feminists and instead of “men” various ethnic groups were substituted. Then I will ask how anyone with a conscience can support such open hatred of half the worlds population. No royalties will be required for any MRM or MRA that wishes to use it to further our cause and awaken all of the blue pill addicts out there.

      1. As vile as feminism is, we often don’t see how much more vile chivalry is:

        If you attack feminism alone, effectively, it will not stay down but will spring back up due to chivary being the nourishing root of feminism.

        BUT, if you attack chivalry effectively the war is over and done, for feminism cannot revive dead chivarly nor can feminism stand on it’s own.

        1. Point taken and conceded.
          Atleast on chivalry.
          However, feminists, like any lobby group will continue to seek preferential treatment for women in all matters……… And they will get it if there is no equal and opposite force to hold them static.

          1. Once chivalry is defeated, the elite male power mongers (the divide and conquer crowd) are defeated.

    2. Until that, at minimum, third party is not started, option 1, is useless.

      I don’t buy that. Activism works it worked for our enemies and it can work for us. The problem is that a lot of guys just buy into the status quo because it is safe and/or they get laid or some other benefits. They could instead send email to politicians,journalists or other people of influence promoting our cause. We get our cause out there the more neutrals are going to see it and it may sway them to our side.

      Have you tried activism or are you merely dismissing it?

  4. “… infantalize women and criminalize men …”

    This is very important. Feminism disrespects women more than the most die hard Muslim burqua pusher. By calling for a permanent legal framework that casts all women as automatically “victims”, and all men as automatically “perpetrators”, feminists have gone farther in humiliating and denigrating women than any traditional society in history.

  5. Great article………I think the main point to be taken from it is that “”feminism” and “feminists” are not the main problem….The main problem is the “enforcers” who are “just following orders”.

    1. Not a surprise. I’ve stated long ago, what i’m afraid of is the totalitarianism, not feminism.

      Feminists will be used, and thrown away.

      1. The damage done by the feminists will never be mitigated unless we do it. And that will keep men and women too busy battling eachother to do much about tryanny. Step by step rights will erode until we have no autonomy. Those old cold war propaganda stories about how the commies decided for everyone what their job would be will exist in reality here. The government might be the one telling you what to do but it will be at the bidding of the corporations those same governments lick the boots of today.

  6. @ Herbal Essence

    Nicely said.

    As was discussed in the previous post on gutting of our most basic human rights to a fair trial facing your accuser, this is all being done by executive fiat.

    At what point to we wake up to the what this has been called all throughout history: Tyranny.

    I have learned alot from this article. I thought Obama was the tyrant, and he is, but GW II was a bigger tyrant, at least at this point.

    Maybe I’m a jaded MRA, but I bet, if you look hard enough you will see the predatory marks of the Clintons, the AAUW and the femi-Judicial group ( forget the exact name) and of course NOW on this trashing of our basic human rights.

    But thats what we live under now, full frontal feminist tyranny.

  7. @ Mr. J

    I agree but that is like saying the real problem is Hitler not the millions of young German men with guns, tanks and planes.

    Yes feminists may be serving a manipulative master, but that does not make them innocent, they are complicit, up to their necks. And their motivation is simple: Sheckles.

    Also, feminists are the foot soldeirs. You defeat the foot soldiers and the leader has no protection.

    In our system these mysterious mastermind leaders get voted out or their lackeys get voted out and they lose political influence, IMO.

    It’s not like I think it will happen. I don’t think these frogs are waking up till the water is too hot. I think it may already be too late.

  8. Appeal for citations – I know of two examples of this, but I’ve lost the links to back it up:

    1) certain nations’ governments deliberately encouraged feminism in order to get women to work and thus increase national industrial output. (this was above and beyond ‘Rosie the Riveter’ – I think it was North Korea, but I’ve lost the article)

    2) ‘womens rights’ was used as AN (if not A Primary) excuse to drag the US into war with certain middle-Eastern nations.

  9. This is a great article.

    “Fortunately, there’s a third option, and the Men’s Rights Movement is it.”

    I was hoping you would have explored how you see the 3rd option further and what will transpire. Personally, I have times I am optimistic and other times very cynical towards enough men (and women) joining the MRM.

  10. Feminism:

    Stating being for equality, whilst in reality attacking maledom, posting only about crimes men commit and then proceeding to complain about men.

    Stating that men are in control of everything and ignoring the 30 international female prime ministers, presidents and premiers.

    Stating that in a world where the overwhelming majority of human beings abhorr rape, that there is a rape culture.

    Stating that men should pay child support because they should take responsibility for their actions, but also stating single mothers should receive a living wage, because they shouldn’t have to shoulder the responsibility for a child which is a biological outcome.

    WTF that means????

    And on and on and on their hypocrisy goes whilst they say one thing, do another and clearly hate men.

  11. Pingback: (Don’t) Fuck the Police « A Voice for Men

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *