One of the major complaints made by activists of all persuasions is that, in
general, the public does not seem to be concerned about the things that the
activists themselves are so obsessed about.
The 'sheeple' - as the activists often term the ordinary people - do not seem to care
about what is going on around them.
And, worse, they appear simply to do as they
The sheeple do not seem to object very strongly to high rates of taxes. It does not
seem to perturb them that their lives are increasingly ruled and mismanaged by others. They do
not seem to make too much fuss about the fact that their national borders are
not being strongly policed. And, as far as the men's movement is concerned, it
seems incredibly strange that most men seem unperturbed about the way in which
they have been gradually emasculated, demonised and discriminated against in so many areas of their lives.
The cries of activists designed to rouse millions of people into supporting 'their cause'
seem mostly to fall on deaf ears.
1. Well, the answer to this question might best be understood by viewing the
whole of society as just one biological organism.
And in much the same way that there are very few elements within
highly-complex biological organisms that govern the overall directions that they will take -
and these few elements are mostly found in their 'brains' - so
it is that societies themselves might be unable to be viable unless they are
guided by a similar principle.
Think about it.
If all the people in a society decided not to be
'sheeple' any longer, then
how could a society - a single organism - even exist!?
The individual people would tear it apart! - as they all fought each other to
do their own thing.
Indeed, an inherent property of large multi-cellular organisms and large
multi-peopled enterprises (such as societies) seems to be that very few elements
within them take the 'big' decisions.
Thus, there is no point in my missus complaining to
my pancreatic cells
about my failure to remember to buy the newspaper yesterday evening.
And cussing at my buttocks will not get the
lawn mowed any sooner.
By and large, the only way to influence what I
do is to influence the
cells of my brain.
And the same sort of thing is true for men's activists who want to influence
their societies. They would achieve far more by trying to influence the 'brain'
cells of those societies than the cells of their societies' buttocks! - i.e. the
Nevertheless, there are strong feedback mechanisms from the lower levels of
organisms to the higher levels. They are not completely disjoint.
And so, for example, if one was to place a lighted match under
the cells contained therein would pretty quickly send a very strong message to
my brain cells which would quickly tell me to move my backside. And they
would almost certainly get their way!
And in societies one can similarly spur the lower levels - the
into action by causing them alarm e.g. 9/11 and the loathsome tactics of the 'abuse
In summary, there appear to be two ways in which activists can exert
a. They can attempt to influence the 'brains' of their societies.
b. They can set out to alarm the sheeple in their societies.
But - and this is most important - it is very difficult indeed to persuade
the sheeple to take up any particular cause. Indeed, without 'alarming' them in some way,
the sheeple (like the cells in my buttocks) will remain uninterested.
This appears to be an inherent part of the nature of organisms and
In other words, this is not something that activists can change to their
benefit, and, as such, there is not much point in them forever complaining about it.
Indeed, if the sheeple ever stopped being
sheeple, then the activists would lose their influence!
Yes, of course, activists can certainly unite the people by causing
(perhaps against a common enemy) but without maintaining this state of alarm
most of the people would simply revert to being sheeple. And if the people did
not do this then their societies would break down as they all argued with each
other over just about everything.
a common enemy - a common point of view - which is the same as most people being sheeple - the
societies would, presumably, split
into separate organisms, i.e. they would break down.
Yes. Very good Angry Harry. But what is your point?
Well, the point is this.
If societies are seen as organisms, and if one
wants to influence them without creating undue alarm, then the question arises as to where are
their 'brains'? Where are the 'brain' cells that do most of the thinking and,
hence, most of the influencing?
Well, when it comes to western societies, the answer is to be found in the
media. It is the media that mostly influence people and, hence, their societies.
For example, even if President Bush was to talk all day long,
I would not
hear a single word that he said.
It is through the media alone that
I get all my news about President Bush. There is no other way for me to hear President
Bush. And it is the media that will or will not air his words.
It is the media that will choose which of President Bush's words
hear, and which pictures I will see. It is the media that will censor, filter,
emphasise, endorse and criticise his words. And it is the media that will colour
my perception of the man himself.
In very many ways, therefore, it is the media that are the brain cells of
And it is the media, therefore, that the men's movement needs to influence.
For example, Politician X, Judge Y and
Activist Z are of
virtually no significance to anybody - no matter how brilliant and wise they are
- unless they influence the
2. Thanks to the new technologies, the mainstream media are losing their
influence as an increasing number of informational outlets are forming and
competing against them. And these technologies are not only providing further
informational outlets to the public - the sheeple - they are also providing men's activists
with the means to influence those who are connected with the dissemination of
information through the mainstream media.
Indeed, activists of every persuasion
(including those connected with the major political parties) together with journalists who work in
the mainstream media are positively crawling all over the internet. And it is through the
internet, therefore, that men's activists can reach out to influence those in
the media who
have influence on the sheeple.
And it is quite clear that online men's activists are already influencing the
mainstream media - the 'brains' of their societies.
This is probably not
very obvious to many men's activists because they are often not fully aware of
just how enormous are the forces that are pitted against those who wish to
express the male point of view.
Journalists and organisations are very
strongly intimidated by histrionic and vindictive women whenever they put
forward even the mildest of views that do not conform with the feminist agenda.
And companies and advertisers are lobbied intensely until they pull the plug on
those who dare to step over the mark.
One can hardly exaggerate the extent of their
When wimmin's groups disapprove of something
they quickly launch into vicious attacks on those deemed responsible
by threatening to accuse them publicly of harming any 'vulnerable' women who might be 'out there'.
And they are accused of being 'supporters of abuse'.
Needless to say, most people and most
organisations are desperate to avoid such confrontations and, therefore,
they very quickly back away from doing anything that might provoke
As a consequence, feminists, women's victim
groups and their gullible followers continue to block successfully the
publication of articles and books. They continue to block TV adverts, programs,
films, academic research and government programs. And they continue successfully
intimidate most organisations from doing anything at all that might interfere
with their agenda.
Further, many of these groups are also
extremely well resourced - mostly with tax dollars. There are now, literally, millions
of people in the west whose jobs are directly related to promoting the feminist
agenda in one way or another (e.g. most academics) and/or whose jobs depend upon its
promotion (e.g. various anti-male government programs).
And when one adds to all this the
fact that the public has been brainwashed for three decades with the lies of the
feminist movement and that people can easily have their entire futures blighted
for even daring to speak out against the feminists, it is clear that the task
for the men's movement is positively huge, and that its enemies are extremely
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the
men's movement appears to be making such slow progress.
And, furthermore, the men's movement has also
had to compete recently for attention with 9/11 and two years of war!
But, despite all the odds, it really is making significant
And the main route to this progress has been
via the internet.
It is through the internet that those who have
influence are finally being influenced by those who are standing up for men's
And so when, for example, one hears men's activists
bemoaning the fact that the men's movement is mostly "internet-based",
it is clear that they have not quite got a grip on the situation.
It is the growing brain in cyberspace that is
the major source of the progress that is being made outside of cyberspace. Nothing else - and no other men's group -
comes even close to achieving what the collective activism of those in
cyberspace are achieving.
Even those heroes whose activism is largely
outside of cyberspace (and there are now quite a few of them) are supported very
strongly by the activists who operate mostly within cyberspace.
Indeed, the internet is providing men's
activists with one of the most powerful tools imaginable when it comes to
furthering their cause and seeking to empower themselves. There has been nothing
like it throughout history. And so to complain about the fact that the men's movement
is mostly making use of the internet is about as daft as complaining about the fact that soldiers
in the past mostly carried guns and were usually part of an army.
Furthermore, men's activists do not operate
exclusively inside cyberspace. They also have a real existence - and a real
influence - in the outside world. But, for the reasons mentioned above, it is
extremely difficult for them to make much public headway because the forces that
oppose them are truly gargantuan.
Nevertheless, those who function as cells in
the 'brains' of western society - e.g. their work appears in the media - and who,
therefore, carry a good deal of influence, are to be found roaming the internet
in very large numbers.
And this, even on its own, is a good enough reason
for men's activists to direct most of their activism through the internet.
3. Millions of years ago multi-cellular
organisms started to form. In the main, this did not happen through a process in
which a few
cells got together and successfully enslaved a whole host of other cells in
order to cater for their own needs.
What seems to have happened is that cells
communed with each other in various ways that somehow enhanced their own
survival. And, eventually, through a process of differentiation, groups of cells
began to take on different functions.
As such, the evolution of complex organisms was more of
a bottom-up process than a top-down process.
And the same is likely to be true for the
organism that is the men's movement.
It will emerge through the combined
interactions and information exchanges that take place between a growing number
This is not to say that no great leader(s) or
organisation(s) are going to appear that will finally dominate the movement, but
any processes that give rise to such things are likely to be fairly gradual, and
to emanate directly from the activities of thousands of lesser beings who are,
pretty much, simply attending to their own needs.
Putting this another way: The increasing
activities of an increasing number of men's activists are likely to generate a
structure that will, eventually, be quite recognisable as an organism that is
the 'men's movement'.
And this will happen quite unconsciously.
As such, perhaps the only really important
message for men's activists to take on board is simply this one.
4. The men's movement is growing all the time.
And much of this is due to the collective activism of men-who-sit-at-screens.
'Men-who-sit-at-screens' - writers, computer
folk, scientists, the intelligence and security services etc - are, in many
ways, a certain breed of men - with, loosely speaking, more brain, less muscle,
more introvert, less extravert etc.
And many of us grow to be this way as we get
And it is men-who-sit-at-screens who will knit
together the men's movement.
There will be men's activists who will dash
hither and thither around cyberspace harassing the enemy and gathering up
information to feed to webmasters and authors. There will be webmasters and authors sifting,
analysing and re-arranging information to create feeds and ideas to push into the more mainstream
media. There will be mainstream media activists who
repackage the information for a much wider audience. There will be computer folk who will help the
men's movement to grow inside cyberspace. And there will also be men-who-sit-at-screens in
many other walks of life who will do their bit to further the men's
movement and its aims.
For example, there are, apparently, some
50,000 police officers and security agents in the USA whose work mostly involves
trawling the internet.
Needless to say, they are mostly men.
Furthermore, if you take notice of the gender
of the columnists on most of the political websites on the
internet, you will see that they are overwhelmingly men.
Yes indeed. The men's movement is going to grow into
the most massive organism. And, eventually, not only will no other group be able
to compete with it, no other group will survive its wrath should it engender it.
5. Another huge problem that currently needs to be
overcome is the fact that men - and this, unfortunately, includes most male political activists and
journalists - do not seem to see 'men' as deserving of any consideration.
They do not even seem to identify themselves as 'men'.
There are loads of feminists, women writers,
women's groups, women's activists, Women's Studies lecturers etc, constantly
considering and talking about the world as it affects women. And there are,
literally, billions of dollars annually being poured into privileging their
some way. The concerns of women
positively infuse the whole ether that envelops us. And the politicians and the
media and the government continually take up their cause.
But what do the men do?
They talk about politics, government, war,
football, the economy, taxes and genetic engineering.
They never talk about themselves!
For example, you would have thought that the plight of
men who are having to engage in war would be of some considerable significance
to a society. But if, for example, you have a quick browse through the titles of
the articles of the influential anti-war.com,
you will discover that the horrendous damage being done to men because of war is
of no real significance at all.
Indeed, we know that thousands of
American men have been injured recently in Iraq - many of them very seriously
indeed. But they do not even get a mention in the
newspapers or on the TV news - e.g. see Wounded,
Weary And Disappeared by Bill Berkowitz.
On the other hand, Private
Jessica Lynch is all over the headlines!
And if men do want others to take their concerns
seriously over important matters to do with, say, child custody, divorce, false
accusations etc - especially in a public forum -
then they quickly find themselves insulted
and effectively silenced by malicious histrionic women and by women who have been brought
up to luxuriate in - and to take advantage of - the ease with which they can
convince others that they are permanent victims of some kind of abuse.
Men can unjustifiably be deprived of their homes and
their children, they can be falsely imprisoned for years on end, they can be
falsely accused and punished with impunity, they can lose their health, their
lives and their limbs on the battlefields and hardly anyone makes an issue out of
And yet women, apparently, are damaged for life should
someone fondle or even mention their sex-organs inappropriately, and there is not a day
that goes by wherein the western media are not heaping hatred upon men for such
relatively trivial events.
And a major reason for this wholesale neglect
of the men in our society is because the men themselves do not actually look
upon themselves as 'men'.
The economy needs this, and the economy needs that. Immigration is causing this, and immigration is causing
that. Genetic engineering will lead to this, and it will also
lead to that. Crime causes this, and crime causes that.
But when it comes to 'men', well, they don't exist!
Now. You might think that this neglect of 'men' has
something to do with the inherently generous nature of men. Perhaps men were
genetically designed not to consider their own welfare whereas women seem to
have been designed to think of little else but themselves. And while, indeed,
there is some considerable evidence for this, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that
there are also very strong political forces at work that are deliberately designed to prevent the
issues of concern to men from reaching the public consciousness whereas those of
concern to women are purposefully highlighted to extreme levels.
For example, the politically-corrected liberal media such as the BBC and the
Guardian newspaper go to extraordinary lengths to downplay the gender of men who
are suffering in some way. Men with prostate cancer become 'patients'. Dead men
on battlefields become 'soldiers'. Drowned men on ships become 'sailors'. Men in
prisons become 'prisoners'. The men held in Guantanamo become 'combatants'.
But where women are suffering in some way, the complete
opposite is true. Their gender is highlighted at every opportunity.
Indeed, in the following article from the Telegraph it
is astonishing to see how the author avoids highlighting the gender of the dead
victims - who were all men ...
Chinese navy was unaware that one of its submarines was in trouble until a
fisherman spotted the vessel's periscope sticking out of the water close to an
The word 'men' is not mentioned once
throughout the entire article.
Those who died are referred to as 'sailors',
'crew', 'observers', 'victims', 'the dead' and 'submariners'.
And so one of the main reasons that male journalists,
authors and activists of every persuasion seem to be interested in all topics under the Sun - except the topic of 'men' - is because there has been a
purposeful and deliberate policy among the most influential of media to suppress
the topic of 'men' and to keep it out of the public consciousness - except, of
course, where men are behaving badly in some way; in which case their gender is
mentioned over and over again.
And this is why, for example, men are getting such a
raw deal in so many areas of their lives.
They don't exist!
But the tide is going to turn!
And it is going to turn because male activists
- whatever their politics, colour or creed - have far more in common with each
other as 'men' than they have differences in connection with the things that
they are typically arguing with each other about.
For example, men might vote Left and they might vote Right,
and they might fight like tigers over this and over that,
but when it
comes to "men's issues" they are very likely to vote in roughly the same
But the problem has been that
there is no 'vote' on "men's
- because the very notion of
"men's issues" barely
exists out there in the political world and in the real world.
There is barely a consciousness of "men's
And this what men's activists have to fight
Issues of concern to men need to be
highlighted, discussed and promoted on every political website and
in every newspaper - whether the feminists like it or not.
all, they and their promotions of women's issues are absolutely everywhere.
And what men's activists need to do is to try to
encourage male activists and journalists in all areas to open their eyes to
For example, if they are writing articles to do
with war, then they should be hassled to focus not just on the guns, the terrain, the
numbers of casualties, the
political and economic outcomes etc, they should be urged to think about what it all means for the men
who are involved.
Indeed, they should take a lead from Hillary Clinton!
This is what she said to the First Ladies'
Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador in 1998.
"Women have always been the primary
victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are
often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's
warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of
raising the children."
Do you see?
"Women have always been the primary
victims of war."
The men are not only lost on the battlefield. Their
decaying bodies are
quickly pushed out of sight by the feminists.
The feminists and women themselves do this sort of
thing all the time. They look very closely at what things mean for 'women' in
just about every area under discussion.
And this is what men's activists need to persuade men
whose activism lies in other areas to do.
Male activists of all persuasions need to be made to see that 'men' have some
considerable relevance to whatever it is that they are mostly concerned about.
Of course, this is going to happen anyway, as male
activists float around the internet and come across websites such as this.
And it is going to happen quite quickly - well, quickly compared to how things used to be.
a. The internet is making it very easy for ideas to be
b. The feminist mullahs and their thought police will
never be able to control the internet in the same way that they have managed to
control the mainstream media.
c. Most political activists are men.
d. When it comes to most of the major
issues that are of concern to 'MEN', most men are
likely to be in much agreement over them and/or they are likely to be willing to
compromise over them.
For example, black men and white men might well come to
verbal blows when arguing about matters to do with 'race'. But they are far less likely
to do so when discussing issues that concern them as 'men'.
Indeed, it is partly because of the fact that the
issues of concern to 'men' have been swept under the carpet for so long - and,
hence, very many bonds that unite men have been broken - that
there is far greater disharmony, rudeness and aggression - particularly between
men - right throughout our
After all, if men never focus their attention on the things that
they have in common - as 'men' - then they are definitely missing out on
something extremely important! - important both to themselves and to
6. Men come in all sorts of guises. And they have many
different views. But, as mentioned in the previous section, if men were
to focus their attention more on issues to do with 'men', they would find that
they had a great deal in common. And this would be true even for those men who were
poles apart on many other issues.
Men argue about all sorts of things. They do not just argue
about politics. They have widely different views on matters to do with
economics, religion, philosophy, history, science, and on just about
everything else that you can imagine.
But if these men would just spend some of their time
reflecting on issues that relate to them as 'men', they would mostly discover
that they had far more in common than not.
And to a large extent this is what the men's movement
However, there is one additional factor that needs to
be understood with regard to the direction that the men's movement is going to
take. This factor materialises largely because of the internet and the new
And it is this.
The men's movement is going to be dominated by
(This will be true for so many reasons - some of which
are mentioned above - that it would take far too long to discuss them here.)
And men-who-sit-at-screens are not particularly
representative of men in general.
More importantly, they are not particularly
representative of those who have typically wielded the most power in the past.
For example, ambitious politicians,
soldiers bearing arms, feminists, racial leaders, wealthy corporate executives, union
leaders, film stars, media moguls, and other such entities have led the way in
The men-who-sit-at-screens have not had much of a say!
But the times they are a-changing.
And the shift of power toward men-who-sit-at-screens
will definitely bring about a change in the overall psychology of those who have
the most influence.
These will include male authors who write pieces on all
sorts of different topics, computer folk who write software, design websites
etc, security agents who scour the internet for information, activists of all
persuasions, and others too numerous to mention.
And then there are those men who just regularly log on
to read the material that is online.
These are not the same kind of people who have had power in
Their psychology is very different.
No. Not in every case.
But, statistically speaking, they are definitely very
And, through the internet, they are linking up to each
other through all manner of routes.
This, they have never been able to do before.
And what the men's movement needs to do is to alert these
men to those issues that should concern them as 'men'. By doing this they will encourage a dialogue that will
link together men from everywhere. And, remember: Not only will these men find a great
deal in common when it comes to the concerns of 'men', they will also have in
common the fact that they all sit-at-screens.
Their biology and their psychology are likely to be
And these men are going to make up the organism that is
the men's movement - well, at least the core of it.
If you are an FBI agent tracking this and that, or a
police officer figuring out whodunnit, or a propounder of economic theory, or a
software developer, or a political activist of some sort, or a poet, or whoever - if
a man who sits at a screen, then you have a great deal in common with all of the
other men-who-sit-at-screens, whosoever they might be.
And as a greater and deeper recognition of this takes place among
more and more of these individuals, so it is that the psychological profile of
men-who-sit-at-screens will exert its will.
And, in the not-too-distant future, no other organism
will be able to compete with it.
7. Broadly speaking, I reckon that a man who
sits at a screen will aim to achieve the following for himself.
Good physical and mental health. Food.
Shelter. Access to women. Peace. Security. Progress. Justice. Access to
information. A world fit for his children. A non-violent environment. Things to
interest him. Plenty of leisure time. Plenty of friends.
And while, at first glance, this list might seem to
cover just about everything that most normal people would aim for, in fact, this
is not the case.
The goals of many people (and many organisms) lie well
outside this list. For example, it is in the interest of governments for crime
and mayhem to exist. It is in the interest of the abuse industry to create more
abuse. It is in the interest of companies that their employees work flat out. It
is in the interest of music companies to have imposed upon people ridiculous
copyright laws which create copyrights that last for decades. It is in the
interest of criminals that they are not caught. It is in the interest of the
politically correct that views which oppose them are silenced. It is in the
interest of the mainstream media that the internet does not become a
There are many organisms that are the enemies of the
typical man who sits at a screen.
And, of course, women, in general, tend to have
priorities, desires and interests which differ quite markedly from those of men.
For example, women are more than happy for the justice
system to be biased in their favour. They are happy indeed that the educational
system has been tilted toward their needs.
And so on.
Well, this whole website is devoted to pointing out
how the interests of women reign supreme and mightily over the interests of men
and children. And so it is not worthwhile making a huge list here.
Such a list could go on forever!
The only point being made here is that the interests of
men-who-sit-at-screens - as listed above in italics - clearly do not
coincide with those of many powerful forces - organisms!
And, in much the same way that these powerful organisms
have achieved their aims at the expense of 'men' - and certainly without much
apparent concern for 'men' - so it is that the organism that consists of
men-who-sit-at-screens will aim to achieve its aims without much concern for
anything that stands in its way.
Indeed, because the concerns of men-who-sit-at-screens
are almost certainly going to average out statistically into being pretty much
as identified in the list above (in italics) then the organism that consists of
men-who-sit-at-screens should have no guilt at all about pursuing its aims
After all, the aims are pretty noble ones!
As such, identifying, targeting and disempowering those
people and those organisms that interfere with the desires of
men-who-sit-at-screens is something that is going to happen.
For example, politicians take away the power of
men-who-sit-at-screens to govern their own lives. As such, politicians will find
themselves being undermined by men-who-sit-at-screens - with some being
undermined more than others.
Perhaps the tax regime in a certain state is
unfavourable toward men-who-sit-at-screens. And so it will come under increasing
And feminism, well, let's just say that it has not much
longer to live!
Conversely, things that are of benefit to
men-who-sit-at-screens will be promoted.
For example, it is in the interests of
men-who-sit-at-screens to promote the development of computer technology, to
have access to information, to advance the status of their computer departments
in the workplace, to encourage more men (and people) to roam the internet, and so on.
And in the near future, and partly thanks to the men's movement,
men-who-sit-at-screens will begin to understand that, together, they represent a
truly mighty force.
A huge force!
It does not matter whether they are on the left or on
the right, and if they are fighting like dogs. The truth of the matter is this - whether they like it or
not. If they are 'men', and they also sit at screens and they also keep
reading about the same kind of stuff, then they really, and truly, and very
deeply have a great deal in common - far more so than they
And the reason that they usually do not recognise this
commonality is largely due to the fact that they do not see themselves as 'men'!
But, one day, they will!
And, at some point in the future, the psychological
force that they create will dwarf all others.
And so, all in all, the future seems quite rosy for
Regretfully, however, there is a teensy problem that
needs to be addressed.
And it is this.
Time is running out!
7. There are three hugely important factors that are
going to end up changing the course of the world significantly in the very near
a. The traditional sources of authority are losing
their powers at a very rapid rate. Not only are the new communication
technologies like the internet increasingly empowering individuals and activist
groups to an enormous extent, they are, at the very same time, draining power
away from those entities that have historically wielded the most power. One only
has to look at how President Bush and Tony Blair are currently under siege over
the Iraq situation - and how constrained they both now are - to see how the
'spread of information' is, effectively, restricting even the most powerful of
institutions from pursuing their aims.
b. Within the next five or ten years - if not sooner -
biological WMDs will probably be able to be manufactured by graduate students.
And people with money will certainly be able to get their hands on
such things. They could be terrorists, drug dealers, organised crime syndicates
or, indeed, simply people with wealth who would like to get their hands on something
that will provide them with enormous power and, hence, enormous protection.
c. As a consequence of a. and b. above, western
governments and their officials are going to come increasingly under attack.
Whether it is the men's movement demanding more rights for men, pot-smokers
demanding the legalisation of cannabis, or Al-Quaeda demanding more rights for
Arabs, the 'little guy' is increasingly going to get his way. And western
governments - on their own - have no hope of overcoming such forces.
The upshot is that western societies are very likely to
become ungovernable and chaotic
But there is one organism that might just
save the day.
And it is the only organism that could
And it is the one made up of men-who-sit-at-screens.
There really is no other group
of individuals that will be able to stop the catastrophes that are highly
likely to take place in the future.
I am not exaggerating, or being over-dramatic, or
trying to scare people.
We really and truly are heading toward a diabolical mess.
Furthermore, not only can we not rely on our
governments to save us, they are, to a large extent, one of the major causes of
many of the problems that we face.
For example, the war on drugs enriches and empowers the
most serious criminals of all. The feminist agenda that western governments have
pursued has alienated millions of men and broken apart millions of families. The
attempts by politicians to suck up power to the federal levels in America and to
Brussels in Europe are stirring up more and more civilian anger. The situation in
the Middle East is not going very well at all.
And 9/11 was a pretty grim affair!
The list of government failures is almost endless. And
as governments lose more of their control so it is that matters can only get worse.
So. What can we do?
8. Well, of course, you, yourself, do not actually
have to do anything, because the organism that is the men's movement, and the
core of it that is made up of men-who-sit-at-screens, is going to grow quite
happily without you.
Furthermore, it will begin to unite men from left to
right, from black to white, throughout the western world - and beyond.
No other organism has the ability to take over the
hugely widespread area of psychological and informational space that is needed
to deal successfully with the future.
No other organism can achieve this breadth and
But, unfortunately, time really is running out. And the
more quickly that the men's movement grows, the better.
Here is Sir
Martin Rees - who is a leading scientist and the current Astronomer Royal, and who
reckons that we only have a 50% chance of making it to the end of this century
without destroying ourselves. ...
... "Because of the greater
risks [e.g. from bio-technology] it is all the more important to minimise the
number of people who have grounds for being disaffected or aggrieved."
And I concur completely with his view.
As such, my advice to all men's activists - indeed,
to all political activists who are men - is to oppose and to undermine as best
and as quickly as possible all those people and organisations that undermine
them as 'men' (feminists and Women's Studies courses would be a good start!) and
to support anything that promotes their own interests, as 'men' - and
particularly as 'men-who-sit-at-screens'.
This is not to suggest that there should be any attempts
to undermine the democratic process or to engage in any forms of criminality but
simply to urge men to use their skills to assist in the urgent enterprise of furthering the men's
In summary ...
1. The media are the 'brains' of our societies.
Journalists and media folk therefore need to be encouraged to further the cause
of 'men'. And those that do the opposite need to be opposed and undermined.
2. The men's movement is growing, and it is
men-who-sit-at-screens, particularly on the internet, who are going to exert an
extremely powerful force.
3. This organism will grow from the 'bottom up' quite
happily on its own, but it will be spurred onward much more quickly through the
activities of men's activists.
are men's activists operating in all areas, and, on the internet, they are doing
all sorts of things. And most political activists are men. Men's activists
need to get these men to involve themselves in men's issues, and they should not
worry too much about the 'sheeple'. In other words, men's activists on the
internet - whether they write articles, run websites or belong to particular
activist groups - need to attract the attention of those men who are already
clearly involved in political activism rather than waste their time in trying to
rouse the 'sheeple'.
5. One of the major impediments to the growth of the
men's movement is the
fact that even though most political activists are men, they do not actually see
themselves as 'men'. The very topic barely exists. This is an area that men's
activists need to address by trying to get men's issues into the forefront of
the minds of men whose activism lies in other areas.
6. Men-who-sit-at-screens have an enormous amount in
common, particularly if they share the same interests. And this is true even if
they have opposing views with regard to them.
7. Time is running out. And the overwhelming evidence
shows that governments are completely incapable of dealing with the serious
problems that we are beginning to face. Indeed, they are the very cause of many
8. The only organism that has any real hope of averting
disaster by steering people, organisations and governments into more fruitful
directions is the men's movement. No other organism has the ability to take over
the hugely widespread area of psychological and informational space that is
needed to deal successfully with the future. As such, men-who-sit-at-screens should seek to
undermine all those forces that oppose 'men', or that oppose them as 'men-who-sit-at-screens', and they should
also promote those forces that support them.
And they should do so very vigorously,
before it is too late!
(And if you still remain unconvinced about the dangers shortly
ahead, then please take a look at both sections of AH's piece entitled
AH is Going to Build Himself a
Virus and the piece entitled Eight Horrible Facts.)