The Golden Rule
Note: This piece explains why it is quite legitimate to attack very
viciously those feminists, police officers, politicians and others who
persistently break the Golden Rule and why, indeed, we should do so.
Regular readers of this website will know that I am not a religious person.
Far from it. In my heart and my brain I would reckon that I am around 99%
This almost wholesale dismissal of the notion that there is some kind of god
up there arises not from any great familiarity with what various religions say
about the world but from my own direct experience and my understanding of it.
Indeed, I know very little about any religion.
And while, for most of my life, I have been mostly of the view that religious
people are just uninformed individuals who have mostly allowed themselves to
bask in the comfort of ignorance about certain aspects of the world - something
that we all do in one area or another - I am now decidedly of the
view that these people were not ignorant at all.
Indeed, neither do I believe any longer that religion has been the root cause
of much of the world's problems; in that I now suspect that the historical
horrors customarily blamed on religion might well have been much worse in the
absence of religion.
I was actually brought up as a Roman Catholic
I was actually brought up as a Roman Catholic but, by the time I was 20 or
so, any belief that I might have had in a god and in all the paraphernalia that
attaches to such a thing had evaporated; perhaps leaving just 1% of uncertainty
in my mind when it came to the question of whether there was any type of god at
Nevertheless, as a Roman Catholic, I had learned the simplified versions of
the Ten Commandments as a youngster and, on the whole, even as I grew out of any
sense of personal religiosity, they seemed to be commandments that had some
The only real problem for me was that these commandments seemed to have many
significant 'ifs' and 'buts' associated with them in real life.
For example, "Thou shalt not kill," seemed like a very good rule
for people to follow - especially if there was going to be any
hope at all that humans would ever live at peace with each other - but I could
certainly imagine situations wherein killing people might, in
fact, be more moral than not doing so; especially in war situations where people
were defending themselves.
And as for the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," one only
has to think about the taxes that we are forced to pay to governments to see
that the meaning of the word 'steal' can be avoided far too easily. After all, if
governments force you to hand over money to them in the form of 'taxes' then the word 'stealing' seems to
describe quite appropriately what they are doing.
Another problem for me with these commandments was that, individually taken,
they did not seem to have much relevance when it came to most forms of human
behaviour; hence there was surely a need for many other commandments.
other words, in the real world, there seemed to arise many situations wherein
disobeying one commandment or another seemed the most moral thing to do, and it
was also the case that the commandments did not - and could not - address the
numerous complexities of real life.
what was the point of all these 'commandments'?
So what was the point of all these 'commandments'?
There were too many loopholes!
Furthermore, whenever I did, perchance, come across various people
proselytising and arguing their case for their own religion - or aspects of it -
I was never very much impressed.
Basically, they did not seem to address important moral questions any more
satisfactorily than did many other people for whom religion was of no
In other words, in my view, one did not need to postulate the existence of
any god in order to come up with decent moral values.
But perhaps the most important failing when it came both to religious and to
secular views about 'morality' was that, in practice, the issues
in real life were always too complicated.
In other words, real life was just too complex, and there were no simple
rules that would truly and appropriately address human
behaviours in an effective manner.
Nevertheless, one moral imperative did, indeed, seem persistently to stand
above all the others; in the sense that if people abided by it as much as
possible, and wherever possible, the lives of most humans would be massively
improved in very many respects.
This imperative is commonly referred to as the Golden Rule.
And, in essence, the rule is this.
"Do not do unto others that which you would not like them to do unto
And it seemed to me that if people always attempted to behave in this manner
then a positively enormous amount of good towards most humans would be the
result, whereas if people did not do this then, eventually, the outcome would be positively
Furthermore, this very simple 'general' rule could be applied quite
appropriately to an enormous range of human behaviour.
this Golden Rule crops up in the texts of many
Indeed, this Golden Rule crops up in the texts of many different religions
(e.g. see here) and
this suggests to me that many other people - right around the world - in hugely
different places, times and circumstances - have also understood just how important is
this rule when it comes to creating the type of world in which most of us would want to
All in all, therefore, my belief is that this Golden Rule is very, very important indeed.
And now, here comes the important bit!
By and large, the aims of those in the men's movement (MM) are
consistent with the Golden Rule. But the aims of those in the feminist movement
are, mostly, contrary to it.
As such, the more that the MM gains in influence, the better will
be the world in which we live, whereas the more that the feminists gain in
influence, the worse will it be.
In order to demonstrate this, I am going to pick just one issue to show how it is that the
aims of the MM are mostly consistent with the Golden Rule whereas those of the
feminists are very often contrary to it.
MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be raped, and they
also believe that women do not like to be raped.
And so, unsurprisingly, MRAs do not argue that men should rape women.
In other words, MRAs do not argue that men should do things to women that
they would not like to be done to themselves.
This is the Golden Rule in action.
Furthermore, MRAs do not actually engage in rape in order to further their
Thus, MRAs do not break the Golden Rule in order to further their
But now, let us look at the feminists' take on this issue.
Feminists do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be persecuted
or prosecuted for something that they have not done, and they also believe that
men would not like to be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have
And, yet, feminists do argue that men should be persecuted or
prosecuted for something that they have not done when it comes to rape.
As a result, thousands of men every year are persecuted or prosecuted for
rapes that they have not committed.
This is the Golden Rule being wilfully broken.
Furthermore, feminists do actually engage in the persecution or
prosecution of men for something that they have not done in order to further
feminists do break the Golden Rule in order to
further their agenda.
Thus, feminists do break the Golden Rule in order to
further their agenda.
And because feminists have had such powerful influences on western societies
the Golden Rule has been downgraded significantly in western societies - and the result
has, indeed, been fairly catastrophic - with much worse to come,
would be my guess.
In order to bring home the points above concerning the power of the Golden
Rule, let me just elaborate further, but in a more tangible context.
You often find feminist men (particularly in government) arguing that the persecution
and prosecution of innocent men in connection with rape is just one of those
things that simply has to be done in order to protect women from rape.
But there are only three points that need to be made in order
to damn this position quite seriously.
1. Would a man with this view be happy if he (or a loved one) was being persecuted or
prosecuted for something that he had not done?
No, of course, he would not be happy. And he would most likely protest very strongly if he found himself in such a situation.
But this means that the policy that he supports (e.g. the
persecuting or prosecuting of a man for a rape that he has not done) he only
supports because he, himself, is not affected by it. If he or a loved one were
affected by such a policy then he would be outraged.
he is a hypocrite of the highest order
In other words, he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and he is quite
prepared to support policies that "do unto others" that which he would
positively hate to be done unto himself - or to his loved ones.
He wilfully breaks the Golden Rule simply to suit his own aims - something
that is, in fact, a defining characteristic of a psychopath.
Needless to say, such a man should never have significant power
2. If it is acceptable for him to support policies that
do unto others that which he would not like to be done unto himself (or unto his loved
ones), then it must
also be just as acceptable for MRAs to support policies that treat him (or his
loved ones) in the same
In other words, if MRAs take on board his sense of what is right
and proper, then he can have no legitimate complaint if MRAs decide to "do
unto him" or unto his loved ones that which he would positively hate to be done unto
him or his loved ones.
Thus, it is quite legitimate for MRAs to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of
But would this man really think that it is a good idea for the world to work like this?
Surely not - unless, of course, he is a psychopath.
And now, it gets even worse for this man - because, in fact, he is not
3. He supports policies that hurt innocent others - provided, of course, that
he and his loved ones are not hurt themselves.
MRAs must also be entitled to hurt him and his loved ones in
pursuit of their own aims.
Now, as we have seen, this moral stance means that MRAs must also be entitled to hurt him
and his loved
ones in pursuit of their own aims.
But, of course, he is not 'innocent' at all. After all, he is quite happy to hurt innocent others.
And he is quite prepared to break the extremely important
Golden Rule in order to do so.
As such, therefore, MRAs are even more entitled to hurt him in pursuit of
It is surely clear that those who encourage people to break the Golden Rule -
or who break it themselves - poison very seriously our prospects for creating or
maintaining a decent society. And this is particularly true when it is those in
powerful positions - such as those in government - who are doing such things.
And yet, for three decades now, feminists and left-wing western governments
have broken this Golden Rule with relative impunity - mostly in order to pursue
their self-serving aims.
Millions of men in the west have been treated appallingly as a result of this
- child custody, child contact, divorce, alimony, etc etc - and all
men have been demonised horribly in one way or another even though the vast
majority of them have done nothing to deserve such demonisation.
And the result is what we have today - a great deal of disharmony,
unhappiness, crime, poverty, dishonesty, greed and corruption - corruption at
the highest levels.
Indeed, it must surely be evident to most people that if their societies
accept the view that it is perfectly acceptable for people to break the Golden
Rule whenever they feel like doing so then there is absolutely no hope for a decent
we are far more entitled to hurt them than they are
entitled to hurt innocent others
In summary: Those who break the Golden Rule in order to pursue their own self-serving aims are,
clearly, a real danger to us
all. Furthermore, they are hypocrites, and they have no moral leg to stand upon
should we decide to hurt them. Indeed, we are far more entitled
to hurt them than they are entitled to hurt innocent others; because, in fact, they
are not innocent.
It is usually argued by feminists that it is perfectly legitimate to break
the Golden Rule in order to reduce the likelihood that others will break it. And
so, for example, they argue that the thoroughly unjust manner in which innocent men are treated
following a mere accusation of rape will reduce the likelihood that men will
rape - rapists being people who break the Golden Rule.
The problem with this argument, however, is that it entitles us all
to break the Golden Rule for similar reasons.
And so, for example, it could be argued that all women who
accuse men of rape (even if these men are guilty) should be treated horribly simply in order to discourage
from making false accusations; i.e. to discourage them from breaking the Golden
To do this would be completely consistent with feminist policies - the
only difference being that innocent women would be treated badly rather
than innocent men.
END NOTE 2:
Of course, the importance of the Golden Rule lies not in its 'perfection' - because it
is not perfect by any means. Its importance lies in the following ...
1. It is relatively simple to articulate and to understand.
2. It addresses an enormous range of human behaviours.
3. It is a very good rule that will lead to huge benefits for everybody if
people can be encouraged successfully to follow it.
This is not to say that the Golden Rule should never be broken.
For example, we lock up murderers even though they - like the rest of us - would
prefer not to be locked up. But we lock them up precisely because they have
broken the Golden Rule in a very serious manner.
What we should not be doing, however, is treating people as if they have
broken the Golden Rule when we have no valid evidence to suggest that they have
done so - because to do so is to break the Golden Rule.
Unfortunately, however, when it comes to matters of 'abuse', this is exactly what
is happening to millions of men (and, increasingly, to women) around the western
world thanks to the various machinations of the feminists and those working in
the abuse industry.
And, in my view, as mentioned above, it is much more legitimate, morally
speaking, to hurt these people than it is legitimate for them to hurt those whom
they are hurting; because these people are no longer 'innocent'. They have wilfully
and flagrantly broken the Golden Rule on a massive scale.
Finally, let me just clarify the important difference between MRAs and
feminists when it comes to the Golden Rule.
MRAs do not advocate that men should be entitled to hurt innocent women.
MRAs do not advocate that men should be entitled to hurt innocent women.
Feminists and their associated victim groups, however, do advocate that women
(and the authorities) should be entitled to hurt innocent men, and they also
both support and promote governmental policies that do exactly this.
given that the Golden Rule seems to be a very important rule when it comes to
maintaining a decent society - something which seems to have been recognised by
many different peoples for over 2000 years - it seems to me that MRAs have much
reason and every right to attack very viciously indeed those who persistently break the
Golden Rule; particularly those who do so on a massive scale. And, in connection
with this, certain politicians, feminists and various women's victim groups come
continually to mind.