Leaving left and right behind

As a left-leaning MRA, I’ve noticed that some men active in the movement continue to cast the issue of human rights of men and boys as a left versus right political debate.

It is certainly true that collectivist doctrines, like termite mounds, find ideological support from the philosophy of the political left. It is also true that small government, personal liberty and the human rights of individuals (rather than collectives) are ideas found in conservative political philosophy. However.


The modern political landscape, populated (in America, anyway) with Democratic and Republican politicians, pundits, commentators, policy wonks and other actors uses the language and rhetoric of left and right political philosophy, but labels and talking points are as far as those pretty words take us. Outside of ineffectual debating societies, there is no such thing as a real political philosophy. The smiling, suited whores who lie with varying degrees of charm in front of crowds and cameras are not men and women with convictions, or beliefs, or anything like a philosophy of governance, whether it be left or right. They are simply very well dressed sociopaths, pretending to conform to this or to that party dogma, while being handsomely paid by lobbyists to recite whatever gibberish tests strongly in their focus marketing surveys. Once elected, these smiling zombies have no more interest in their electors or in a political philosophy than pinworms care for interest rates.

Political philosophies exist, certainly, and people even care about those views, but none of those people occupy political office. Those in seats of power care to the extent that they read the right slogans from teleprompter, then vote on whatever policies the bankers and corporations who own them dictate.

To imagine that either the political left or the political right has real goals beyond the cancerous scope creep of bloated government, the escalation of public enslavement through debt, and the wholesale eradication of human rights requires wilfully ignoring the enacted policies of both major parties on the past 40 years.

Unfortunately, many, if not most people continue to believe in their own enfranchisement through engagement with the political process. This is understandable, as we are bludgeoned throughout our lives with the message that this is how government works, our representation by honourable men and women, enfranchised to act in our best interests by the vote. We believe in this because the alternative is very ugly.

That alternative is that voting, or any other non-disruptive engagement with out established political system is a placebo, an ineffectual puppet show in which the puppets, operated by a single puppeteer distract us as we are robbed, murdered and sold by our governments, en mass, as collective human debt-service-drones.

This is a hard option to face, because effective change within such a system requires leaving behind the comfort of our established political machinery, cancerous and inefficient as we all recognize it to be. This means that whatever system or solution we develop and embrace is, from the present perspective, unknown – and to many conventional thinkers – impossible.

The difficulty of mapping a complete path into an unknown framework is, in my opinion, why many highly intelligent and politically sophisticated advocates of the human rights of men and boys frame their argument in the context of philosophical conservatism versus collectivist political viewpoint. The idea that the existing political system still retains some of what is stated in public political rhetoric.

Unfortunately, this is a more optimistic view of modern political reality than the routine destruction of male human beings by our courts, education system, and media warrants.

Obviously, for men to stand up on their hind legs in defiance of our current system of dehumanization of men requires powerful optimism and strong will. However, placing confidence in the actors within a demonstrably corrupt system, even when their public rhetoric includes small government and personal liberty, but this faith is not warranted in a broken, corrupted system.

This is what is what is meant by statements that the men’s rights movement is not a political left or a right leaning movement. The political infrastructure of our court houses, governments and political institutions are a rotting corpse with no utility except the maintenance of a continuously bloating parasitism on the public, and the forcible exclusion of innovation in human progress.

Currently, this is one of the drivers of the growing currency of the MGTOW movement. Men opting out of a system they see as no longer viable. This has the obvious benefit of protecting men from predation and cannibalism in a system disregarding male humanity, and considering only male utility. However, a growing fraction of male society taking their own income and utility off the table for thievery and exploitation by a cancerous political establishment is already re-shaping the ecosystem in which broken government feeds and thrives.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: