Angry Harry
Blog
Page3
Your Emails

Western men die some five years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health. Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys. Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media. Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety. 

They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place.

How is it possible, therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?

In what areas?

Where?

What a Piece of Sh*t is Man

The Trojan Horses Of Feminism

Fools And Feminists

Women - Weak and Pathetic?

Were Women Oppressed in the West?

Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture

Some BBC Propaganda Tricks

GAEA I From the age of 13 to 28, for one reason or another, I found myself permanently enmeshed in the study of Biology. It was always somehow relevant to my prospective career or to my education. And one of my first outbreaks of real genius that surely put me on a par with Darwin was when it dawned on me after only 15 years of study that just about all living things were made up of cells. Yes. It's true! Cells, cells, cells. Whether you are a poisonous snake, a slimy fungus, a miserable worm, or an emotionally-deficient feminist, you will be made up of cells. Life, it seems, no matter how ugly, consists of cells! In the very beginning, life consisted of organisms that were made up of single cells. And some of these little single-celled beings like the amoeba and the paramecium lived most happily in the waters, wandering about, hither and thither, eating, excreting, sensing and reproducing. And then, thanks to natural selection - or to God, some say - some cells started co-operating with each other by sticking together. By doing this, they lost some of their individuality, but the price was worth it, because they lived longer! - more or less. And as time passed, and the various organisms competed with each other, and struggled to survive in the face of various environmental adversities, the organisms grew more and more complex, and they ended up being composed of millions upon millions of cells, all stuck together in various ways, so that, eventually, these multi-cellular organisms grew into extremely complex structures. Well, this is exactly how businesses, and corporations, and governments grow. And their 'cells' are the individual people who work for them. And, just like individual cells, these individual people have stuck together, and have given up their individuality, in order for their collective enterprises (be it a business, a corporation or a government) to live longer! - more or less. And as time passed, and the various enterprises competed with each other, and struggled to survive in the face of various environmental adversities, the enterprises grew more and more complex, and they ended up being composed of thousands upon thousands of people, all stuck together in various ways, so that, eventually, these multi-peopled enterprises grew into extremely complex structures - corporations, industries, businesses, and governments. And it is this parallel between multi-cellular biological organisms and multi-peopled enterprises that I wish to address. In the same way that cells give up their individuality - and their individual freedoms - for the sake of the grand multi-cellular organism of which they are a part, so it is that people give up their individuality - and their individual freedoms - for the sake of the grand multi-peopled enterprises of which they are a part. And in much the same way that in complex biological organisms cells differentiate themselves in order to generate various tissues and organs, so it is that within complex enterprises individual groups of people differentiate themselves in order to generate various departments and sections. Well, I am not going to bore my readers by going into great details concerning how it is that complex enterprises mirror so deeply the biology of complex organisms, but it really is quite amazing how similar the two appear to be! Nevertheless, there are some points concerning their similarities which are definitely worth examining when it comes to thinking about political issues. 1. The individual cells that make up my own succulent body have no idea what I, myself, am up to.  Not. A. Clue. If you asked one of my liver cells what I had for dinner a few minutes ago, it would have absolutely no idea at all! Indeed, even if you questioned one of my brain cells about my current thoughts, it would not have a clue. The individual cells that make up me have no idea at all about what I am doing, about what I am thinking, about what I am wanting to do, about where I am going, or even about what I am. They are completely clueless! In fact, they are so clueless, that they are a zillion miles away from understanding anything about me at all. They simply do not have the capacity. And the thing is this. The same pretty much applies to the individual people who, together, make up a large enterprise. They have no real idea what that enterprise is doing. They might think that they have a good idea, but they don't! Well. OK. OK. Most large enterprises are not made up of billions of people, whereas I, of course, am made up of billions of cells. But, you get the picture. The larger the enterprise, and the more complex it becomes, the less do the individual people within it know anything about it. And yet it has a 'life', and it struggles to compete with other enterprises, and to survive - which often entails a propensity to grow! 2. Just about all of my cells are being replaced as they wear out, age and die.  No problem.  My body has a system whereby it can replace these cells with pretty good alternatives.  New cells! And some cells are really quite dispensable. For example, if I am non-fatally wounded, the chances are that other cells will do the right thing to create replacement new cells. And if for certain purposes I happily secrete and lose cells through my various orifices, my body will simply create more of them to replenish the stock. You see. Provided that I do not lose too many cells, and so I retain my strength, I can always replace them. The individual cells themselves are, more or less, expendable. Well, the same is true of enterprises. The people who comprise them will eventually wear out, age and die, but they have systems whereby they can replace these people with pretty good alternatives.  New people! Further, these enterprises - these 'organisms' - are somewhat more adept at replacing cells and structures that are lost to them than is my body. For example, if I lose even a toe, it is gone forever. But for an enterprise, the equivalent of replacing a humble toe is a piece of cake. An enterprise is far more robust, in many ways, than I am. 3. By and large, on the whole, and in the main, my body tends to operate on matters external to me on the basis of activity within my brain. It is the cells of my brain that govern how my body deals with the environment outside of it.  Furthermore, these brain cells are not particularly concerned about those situations that occur within my body - my internal environment. Such situations are mostly dealt with by systems and procedures that function fairly automatically and independently of my brain cells - more or less. The only time that my brain cells really have much concern for the other cells of my body is when I have to operate on the external environment in a manner which ensures that they benefit in some way. For example, my brain cells might order me to exercise in the gym to develop further the beauty of my body over the long term, they might order me to eat or drink, and they might order me to raise my arm to defend myself from blows. But, in summary, my brain cells simply govern the way in which the totality of my body will engage with the environment that is external to it, and they will do so in order to advance my current and future state of well-being. In enterprises, it is, perhaps, the board of directors, the cabinet ministers, the generals or the congressmen who are, effectively, the cells of the brains that control the overall direction of their own 'organisms', whatever they might happen to be - e.g. the business, the army, the government. And, rather like brain cells, these higher-ranking people go about their businesses and - both wittingly and otherwise - they conspire collectively to serve the organisms of which they are a part - e.g. the business, the army, the government. In summary, a complex biological organism is made up of millions or of billions of cells. These cells stick together in such a manner that they sacrifice their individuality to create an organism that 'has a life of its own'. This super being struts around interacting with the environment in order to feather its own nest, to compete successfully with others, and to survive. Furthermore, this super being is completely unintelligible to the cells of which it is comprised. These cells are not conscious of the super being's directions, its motivations, its inclinations, or even of its existence. They are completely blind to it. And enterprises are a bit like this. And, the bigger that they get, the more like this they become. They take on a 'life of their own' that is increasingly unintelligible to the people who stick together to make them up. The cashier who works in the Texaco petrol station down the road has no idea at all who are the shareholders of the oil company that he serves, no idea who the bosses are, no idea where the company is heading, no clue as to where it is currently drilling, and so on, and so on. Furthermore, the shareholders, the bosses and the oil-drillers etc have no real idea about him! Complex biological organisms and complex enterprises are both made up of relatively simple components that come together to create something that is vastly different from themselves, that is very superior when compared to themselves, that is extremely alienated from themselves and that is, in fact, very much independent of themselves. And, further, the simple components (cells or people) do not even realise that the organisms of which they are apart actually exist! In other words, you (as a person) cannot actually appreciate the huge organisms that float around the place even though you might well be a part of them. Yes. Yes. Very good Angry Harry. Yawn. Can I go to bed now? You are boring me. What is the point of all this? Well, the point is this. If you view a corporation, a government, and even an ideology, as an 'organism' - an organism that really and truly 'has a life of its own', and that wants to survive and to grow in the face of competition - then you are better equipped to understand the nature of the political beast - feminism, perhaps - that you might be trying to slay! And if I find myself in the appropriate mood over the next few days, I might, in my next blog, deign to explain how this is so. On the other hand, of course, I might not!

GAEA II In my last blog I pointed out that multi-cellular biological organisms (such as people) and multi-peopled enterprises (such as governments) have many things in common. Relatively simple components (cells or people) come together to create living structures that are vastly different from themselves, that are very superior when compared to themselves, that are extremely alienated from themselves and that are, in fact, very much independent of themselves. And so, for example, in the same way that individual human cells do not have the capacity to develop any real understanding of the human beings of which they are a part, people who are the components of large organisms such as governments also have no real understanding of the bureaucratic beasts that, collectively, they have created. Indeed, for the most part - and just like human cells - people are not even aware that these bureaucratic beasts exist as creatures  - with lives of their own. But they do have lives of their own. Corporations, governments, and even ideologies, have lives that completely transcend the insignificant human beings that make them up. And, just like biological lives, they struggle to survive, they compete with each other, and they attempt to grow. And there is much to be gained by viewing these 'enterprises' as living organisms. 1. Perhaps the most obvious insight comes from recognising that if the people who labour on behalf of a government, a corporation or an ideology - an 'enterprise' - are actually unaware of what it is doing, and are also ignorant of how it is having an effect on the rest of the world, then they can hardly be blamed (or praised) for the consequences of that enterprise's activities. For example, it is no use blaming my individual liver cells for the fact that I surreptitiously purloined the last cream doughnut in the fridge before my missus got to it! Similarly, for example, you cannot really blame the individuals -  'the Jews' or 'the blacks' or even 'the feminists' - for whatever it is that has irritated you about them and that, presumably, has stemmed from the combined activities of their respective groups - their 'enterprises'. For example, when black activists such as Jesse Jackson or feminists such as Betty Friedan promote falsehoods demonising white males that are well-publicised in the media, millions of individual blacks and feminists will believe them! And so it is hardly surprising that the individuals in these groups feel antagonistic toward white males. But, as individuals, can they really be blamed for feeling this way? No - because they have been conned into believing the falsehoods. And, to a large extent, the same is true regarding those individuals who are the 'leaders' of their 'enterprises'. They respond to feedback from those lower down the food chain - as well as to those at a similar level - and they are significantly affected by it. In large enterprises, there are, in effect, many leaders. These are akin to the brain cells of the organism.  These leaders do indeed exert more influence than those lower down the hierarchy, but in large enterprises no single leader has sole control. These 'leaders' are simply part of a group within the enterprise that tends to exert more influence over the enterprise than do other groups within it. The leaders are, if you like, the cells of the brain, rather than the brain itself. And the importance of the feedback mechanisms that pass information to them cannot be underestimated. For example, The Beatles pop group took the world by storm in the early 1960s. They produced a kind of music that many people wanted to hear. And their 'enterprise' - their music - would have had no influence at all if people had not responded so positively toward it. The Beatles - the 'leaders' - did not 'inflict' their music upon a reluctant world and force their musical enterprise into becoming the global phenomenon that it turned out to be. Their enterprise mushroomed because a positive feedback loop was generated.  This involved ordinary people responding to their music in such a way (buying their records, attending their concerts etc) that the Beatles themselves were further empowered with the wherewithal to create even more music, and to spread it around even further. The point is that their music - their enterprise - did not invade the western world so pervasively simply because of the activities of the Beatles themselves. The activities of millions of others gave rise to the prominence of their music. And, clearly, the same can be said with regard to big ideologies and big movements. For example, there is no way that somebody like Hitler - on his own - could have forced millions of Germans to do what they did in the 1930s. The huge influence that he and his cronies exerted stemmed not only from their own actions but from the feedback mechanisms in which millions of others took part. For example, German women positively adored Hitler. They can be seen in the mass rallies behaving in exactly the same manner toward him as did young western girls who attended Beatles' concerts. They screamed. They cried. They called out his name. They begged to touch him. And so when Hitler and his cronies - and, indeed, everybody else - saw this unbridled adulation being inspired by him, both he and his ideology spread like wildfire. And, unsurprisingly, millions of German men wanted to be like him. Indeed, if women had not found Hitler to be so deliciously attractive then his influence upon men would have been curtailed quite considerably - if not completely. But can we really blame Hitler for what he did? Imagine for a moment that you are standing in an auditorium giving a speech about something or other, or playing some strange kind of music on your guitar, and the audience explodes in rapture at your every gesture and showers you with accolades for your insight and your performance. Are you to 'blame' for believing that you are giving people something that they want? Are you to 'blame' for wanting to give them more? Are you to 'blame' for thinking, "Aha! What I am doing must be good, wholesome and proper. After all, everybody - and especially the women - approves of what I am doing!" Well, you get the picture. Enterprises (e.g. ideologies) do not grow into significantly large affairs without some form of positive feedback mechanism between the 'leaders' and their 'followers'. And it can be very misleading to believe that the leaders are somehow removed from - and unaffected by - these positive feedback mechanisms. Furthermore, free will can only act within the context of the psychological environment in which it operates. Thus, for example, Anthony Sawoniuk, was sent to prison for life in 1999 for killing about 20 Jewish women and children in WWII. He was an 18 year-old illiterate peasant when he committed the act. Yes, he had free will. But in what context? A recent book, now very famous, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, by Daniel Goldhagen, shows clearly that the German people themselves were strongly anti-Semitic and probably had been for decades, if not for centuries. The psychology of the German people, in the decades prior to the Holocaust and leading up to it, was deeply anti-Semitic and incredibly hostile to the Jewish people. Jews were seen as non-humans - conspirators plotting to destroy the German race - cheats, without morals, scum, evil. They were the pits. That was the psychology of the German people for a very long time. They grew up with it, they breathed it, they were taught it. The teachers, the priests and the parents indoctrinated their children with anti-Semitic sentiments and emotions. It filled the entire air. And when the panic and hysteria of war broke out, together with hefty doses of propaganda, the evilness of the Jews became a reality.  "The reason we have no jobs is because the Jews are destroying them, and they are also taking all the good ones. They plot to keep us down. This is why Germany is so weak. This is why my poor son has no work. This is why my wages are low. This is why the bombs of the British fall out of the sky and kill our children. And the Jews killed our Jesus. ... " It isn’t really hard to imagine why years of indoctrination led ordinary Germans to be so hateful toward the Jews. And it is easy to see how an 18 year-old illiterate peasant fell for it hook, line and sinker. He thought that he was doing his country and his loved ones a favour by killing Jews!  And who can really blame him?  And remember that some of our own WWII bomber pilots killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians because of their own belief systems and the indoctrination which they, themselves, underwent. So, should they go to prison too? Will the American soldiers who recently killed innocent civilians in Iraq be going to prison? Well, No - because they believed that they were doing their best at the time to protect themselves, their comrades and their country. But, similarly, Sawoniuk's 'free will' in his decision to kill women and children has to be understood with reference to some kind of context. And this is true for all of us - both leaders and followers. This is not to say that no-one is responsible for their actions, but if one is to grasp the true nature underlying the way that people think and behave, only a fool would ignore the huge influence of the context in which this occurs. Putting this another way: If one is to grasp the true nature underlying the way that people think and behave, it is important to try to see the huge organisms that are floating around in their midst, enveloping their minds, and of which they are an exceedingly minor part. In summary, large enterprises (Beatles music, Nazism etc) are not really governed and controlled solely by one or two people sitting at the top of some hierarchy who dictate to everyone beneath them. They are very much like complex biological organisms wherein even the most influential cells (that reside in their brains) respond to each other and also to enormous feedback from below. As such, it is far too simplistic to blame one cell, or one person, for what a large organism or enterprise might do 2. The brain cells of animals tend to have their greatest influences by determining the way in which the animals respond to the environment that is external to them. It is the brain cells that figure out where an animal is to take shelter, where it is to find food, and what it is to do in order to cater for its own well being. And in multi-peopled enterprises - such as corporations and ideologies - it is those people near the top of the ladder who tend to steer the overall courses that their enterprises will take. Furthermore, if individuals within an enterprise do not perform in a manner likely to enhance its well-being then they are not likely to remain within the enterprise for very long. And those who are particularly good at performing in a way that enhances the well-being of the enterprise tend to be given more influence within it e.g. they tend to get promoted to some form of higher office. And, of course, evolutionarily speaking, this is the sort of thing that happened to biological cells. Over millions of years, those cells that were capable of aiding the organism most appropriately in its response to the external environment migrated upwards in the scheme of things and took over much of the control. These, of course, were the 'neuronal' cells that now power our muscles and that also make up our brains. And in multi-peopled enterprises the same sort of thing happens. It is those people whose activities enhance the well-being of their enterprises the most who tend to rise to the highest offices and exert the most control. But the point to be grasped here is that these high-fliers will be flying high precisely because they are serving well their own enterprises. They will not be flying high because they are serving well all the people within them. And they most certainly will not be flying high because they are serving the people who are external to them. And this is why, for example, those individuals who reach high political or governmental office do so not because they are serving well 'the people' - who are external to the enterprises of which they are a part - but because they are serving well the enterprises - the political and governmental organisations - themselves.  Furthermore, in the case of enterprises that are supposed to be concerned mostly with serving the people, flying high within them necessarily involves the ability to deceive the people into believing that this is what they are actually doing. To rise high in political office, and to remain there, one must not only serve the enterprise handsomely, one must also bamboozle the people external to it into believing that they are the ones whose interests are mostly being served. Similarly, those who end up being the 'leaders' of feminists' and women's groups, of children's charities, of various government and judicial departments, of major media outlets, of religions and ideologies, and so on, while making some pretence at being mostly concerned with the welfare of the people whom they are supposed to be serving, are, in fact, working mostly to benefit themselves and the enterprises of which they are a part. And if they are not doing this, then they will not rise very high in comparison to those who are! Indeed, it seems that there is no large, influential and pervasive enterprise that can remain large, influential and pervasive unless the people within it act mostly in a way which enhances the enterprise itself. And it is extremely useful to keep this notion at the forefront of one's mind when trying to understand the significant forces that operate in the world. This view might seem to be unduly cynical, but it really does lead to a far more accurate perception of what is going on in the real world than do most other views. And so, for example, the fact that the sexual harassment 'enterprise' has grown to such enormous proportions has far less to do with the heinousness of sexual harassment and far more to do with the fact that the notion provides rich pickings for millions - literally - of people (e.g. just think of the legal and media interest) and that, together, these people create - mostly unwittingly - an organism that, to a very large extent, has a life, and a purposefulness, of its own. And the leaders in the sexual harassment enterprise are the ones that promote it the best whilst, at the same time, giving the most convincing impression that their main aim is to serve others. As another example, the abuse industry is persistently (and with much success) pushing forward the boundaries of what is considered to be 'abuse'. Merely smacking a child's bottom is now often considered to be an act of abuse by many children's charities and social service departments, and merely making a derogatory sexist comment is considered to be an act of abuse by many women's groups. Why is this 'mission creep' happening? And why has it occurred to such a ludicrous and damaging extent? Well, the answer is to be found by looking at the way in which the 'enterprises' themselves - in this case the children's charities, the social services and the women's groups - are benefitted by this mission creep. Quite simply, these enterprises benefit hugely by bringing more and more normal human activity into their sphere of operation. The more behaviour that can be categorised as 'abuse', the more empowered do they become, and the bigger do they grow. And, in order to grow, an enterprise - just like an organism - has got to eat, and to keep eating! Indeed, Tony Benn, a very well-known and very left-wing British politician who has served as a Member of Parliament for over 50 years has recently been quite vociferous in his promotion of the view that, these days, it is wisest not to take at face value anything that is said by politicians, corporations, the media etc but always to ask yourself WHY they are saying whatever it is that they are saying. And whatever they are saying, you can bet your last dollar that they are saying it because they, themselves, expect to benefit in some way. In summary, there is no large, influential and pervasive enterprise that is not, first and foremost, concerned with its own well being and its own enhancement. And it is of tremendous value to keep this in the forefront of your mind whenever you are trying to figure out what is going on, and why. Indeed, it should be the very first thing that comes to your mind when trying to determine what is really going on around you. For example, when a newspaper prints a story, do not just ask yourself questions concerning the benefits to those enterprises that seem in some way linked to the story, but also ask yourself why the newspaper (another enterprise) actually printed it! 3. Large, influential and pervasive enterprises are, by definition, large, influential and pervasive! And it is quite frightening to realise that these very powerful enterprises are in the business of serving themselves rather than in serving us - 'the people'. It is surely not surprising that our nations, our societies and, indeed, our people, are actually breaking down in the face of these huge self-serving monsters. Indeed, what hope is there for us when it comes to defending ourselves from these voracious uncaring colossal beasts? Well, we have to fight them! And, most fortuitously, we now have the means to do so. And in my next blog, should I feel so inclined, I will endeavour to explain how these gigantic creatures can be tamed.

GAEA III In this part, I am going to explain how it is that viewing the opponents of the men's movement as large organisms can help activists to shape up their perspectives of the battles ahead and help them on the road to earlier victories by gaining a better understanding of the nature of 'the enemy'. In general, the idea behind this series is to help activists stand back so that they are better able to look at the overall picture rather than be swamped by the details contained in it. This is particularly important because people tend to focus far too narrowly upon details of situations that directly affect them, and they forget that these often arise because there are numerous other considerations which influence them that reside outside their own field of view. Here are two simple examples of this. A. The teacher tells you that your child is doing absolutely fine at school and that you have nothing to worry about. You are delighted and feel no need to pursue the matter further. Three years later your child comes out from school with grades that seem to you to be remarkably unsatisfactory. In fact, your child's performance is in the bottom 35% of achievement. What the hell is going on? You were told that everything was going fine! Were you being lied to? Well, the answer is, No. And if you look at matters from the teacher's point of view, you can see why. As far as a teacher is concerned, some 35% of the children are actually performing worse than your own child. In fact, your child is entirely within the 'normal range' of achievement. And so there is definitely nothing to worry about. After all, no matter what the standards are, there will always be a wide range that is deemed to be acceptable. Indeed, 50% of children will always perform below average. And so, despite your child being well below average, as far as the teacher is concerned, your child is doing fine. Your own goals and your own responsibilities are very different from those of the teacher. Your job is to look after the interests of your child - and your child alone. But a teacher's job is to look after the interests of all the children in her class. And the teacher will only be unhappy if her group of children is, overall, doing badly. And so it is that while you might be extremely unhappy about your child's performance, the teacher is entirely unconcerned with it. Your perspective on the matter is completely different from hers. And if you had fully understood this in the first place, you might well have enquired a little more closely into the true levels of performance of your own child, and you would have been able to intervene earlier to help your child do better in the later exams. The point being made here, however, is that the teacher did not lie to you about your child 'doing fine', she simply gave you the truth from her own perspective - and you failed to understand her perspective. You should have stepped back to try to see the picture from her point of view. By doing this you would have seen that she has a more global attitude toward the children than you do. Indeed, she serves a different 'organism' to the one that you imagined. B. This second example is more relevant to the men's movement and it concerns the narrow focus of many men's activists. There are numerous situations wherein men are clearly being mistreated very severely by western governments and their justice systems. And activists seem constantly amazed at how this can be happening. Men can be thrown out of their homes, falsely accused, denied access to their children and so on and so on - without any redress! And throughout the western world many men are now lobbying their politicians and protesting at the way that they have been mistreated. But unless they understand why it is that they are deemed to be so worthless, they will never convince the authorities, nor, indeed, the public, to change their attitudes toward them. For example, if men, in general, are regarded as 'parasites' - as per the hateful propaganda espoused by the influential Professor Steve Jones - then this will colour the overall perspective that people have about men. And if people view men as parasites, then this is exactly how they will end up being treated - regardless of how many activists protest against such treatment. Unless these more global perspectives are tackled successfully, there is not much hope of changing the narrower perspectives that operate at the more mundane levels of society. Indeed, a number of men's rights activists seem to spend a good deal of their time playing right into the hands of their enemies - who, of course, just love to see men being portrayed in a negative light. For example, they want to see the death penalty enforced more often, they want long term prison sentences for trivial drug offences, they want paedophiles castrated and, basically, they want to see a lot more punishment - mostly of men. But such activists do not seem to have taken on board the fact that if, for example, men are to be locked away long term for trivial drug offences, then why should the same not be true for trivial acts of 'domestic violence'? And if paedophiles are to be castrated, then why not alleged rapists or sexual harassers? And what about the plight of those men who have been falsely accused of such things? And this sort of thing happens because many activists are not looking much further than the ends of their own noses. They are not stepping back to get a more global picture and, hence, not understanding how, in fact, they are contributing to their very own woes. Anyway. It was for reasons such as this that viewing 'the enemy' as a much wider-ranging 'organism' can be of considerable value. --------------------------- The numbered points below refer to some of the more salient points that were made in the first two parts of this series. And the comments that follow them are just a sample of the ideas and notions that seem connected with them in some way. 1. Multi-cellular biological organisms and multi-peopled enterprises are remarkably similar. a. The growing organism that is the men's movement is going to be no different from any other large enterprise. It will consist of individuals and groups of people working in many different areas and pursuing their own limited goals. Together, however, they will constitute an organism - the "Men's Movement" - that will seek to survive and to grow. b. Many of the principles and processes that operate on organisms in the biological world also apply to large enterprises - which, for the purposes of this section, are simply regarded as organisms that live in some kind of 'informational space'. And so, for example, in much the same way that large multi-cellular organisms can be attacked most effectively by very small organisms that can spread within them - such as viruses - the same is true for large enterprises. They can often be debilitated by very small pieces of information that can be spread throughout them. As another example, organisms flourish and grow by feeding on the environment that is external to them. They incorporate into themselves parts of the outside world by transforming them into components that they can use to enhance themselves. In the informational world, one can see this happening all over the place. For example, a piece of news promulgated by a newspaper can be incorporated into a men's website in order to further the men's cause. Redefining domestic violence to include shouting can bring in a lot of extra business for parts of the abuse industry. 2. The individual people who make up large multi-peopled enterprises do not have a clue about the 'organisms' that they have created. For the most part, they are barely aware even of the existence of these 'organisms'. a. The men's movement is growing right across the globe. The activity within in it ranges from the lone individuals fighting the justice systems in their own localities over their own particular grievances, to individual authors writing articles about men's issues, to groups of campaigners lobbying their own politicians, to international websites such as this one which are disseminating useful ideas and information to all those who are concerned about men's issues. Indeed, the men's movement is already far too large for any individual to understand the nature of the beast that is being created, or even to see it clearly. b. Most of the people who are advocates for men's rights - in some way or another - or who are actively involved in getting across 'the male point of view' are probably not even aware that a men's movement exists. A recent example of this was the debacle over the acceptance of women members at the Augusta National Golf Club. In the mainstream media coverage of this issue there were plenty of references to the 'feminists', but none to the growing men's movement. And Hootie Johnson, the man who was defending the golf club's position, was arguing the case for men without recognising that he is but a tiny part of a much greater movement. 3. The individuals in large multi-peopled enterprises are dispensable. They can easily be replaced. a. There is no single individual or group that constitutes the men's movement. It already has a life of its own. The individuals and groups that form the men's movement are mostly pretty insignificant. And the same is true even with regard to those individuals whom most people would consider to be unusually powerful. For example, even if the members of the Bush administration completely disappeared tomorrow, the office of the presidency and 'the US government' would still continue to function pretty much as before. In other words, individual men's activists and groups - and even presidents - are not that important.  b. As far as 'the enemy' is concerned, yes, it is true to say that scuppering the leaders is of much greater value than is scuppering the members of the general rank and file. But given that the individuals themselves are largely dispensable, it is more valuable to scupper directly those ideas and notions that support such people rather than it is to scupper the people themselves. 4. The 'leaders' of large enterprises are best regarded as having 'most influence' rather than as having 'direct control'. And they are considerably under the influence of feedback mechanisms that connect them to those lower down the hierarchy. a. It is therefore not essential for men's activists to focus solely on targeting the leaders of those enterprises that oppose them (e.g. feminism, government) in order to further their aims. There is also much to be gained by aiming their attacks at the lower levels. A punch to the head is usually more effective than one to the body, but punches to the body still have a considerable effect. b. Those at the tops of their ladders are very much supported by those who are lower down them. And they are often at the mercy of such people in very many ways. If you lose the support of even a humble toe, you can be debilitated quite significantly! And, as far as men's activists are concerned, by communicating with those who are lower down in the scheme of things there is often much mileage to be gained. Indeed, getting them to whistleblow or to leak information anonymously can lead to devastating effects. 5. The 'leaders' of large enterprises tend to be more concerned with matters that exist outside of their own enterprises and tend to be less concerned about matters that exist within them. a. For example, the editor of a newspaper is going to spend far more time being concerned about how the newspaper is viewed by outsiders than are the individual journalists who write for it. As such, activists should always try to ensure that complaints about authors, journalists, or their articles, which reflect poorly on the publication, actually reach the attention of the editors. On the other hand, of course, when an editor appears to be doing a disservice to his own authors and journalists, then this should be exposed to his authors and journalists! b. As another example, the boss at the university where a student is, allegedly, sexually assaulted, is going to be far more concerned about how this affects the reputation of the university in the eyes of the public than he is about the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. As such, the university boss is going to be far more attentive (and vulnerable) to arguments that consider the reputation of the university than he is to arguments that, for example, focus on individual suffering and the need for proper due process in such situations etc. 6. The individuals that make up enterprises have very little control over them. And they are mostly unaware that their enterprises have lives of their own. Furthermore, they are as easily misled by them as is everyone else. And so it is that the individuals themselves cannot really be held fully accountable for what their large enterprises do. a. None of us has much control over what we end up believing. Indeed, we do not choose our genes or the environment in which we develop. And, as already stated, it is virtually impossible for individuals to see the larger picture - especially if it is a complex one. Activists should always bear this in mind when targeting individuals and should therefore refrain from attempting to cause them too much 'harm' in the process of persuading them to change their points of view or their attitudes. b. Nevertheless, some people are downright dishonest, and many seem quite happy to harm others in order to feather their own nests. They might well not be aware of what their enterprises are doing 'as a whole', but this does not absolve them from harmful or dishonourable actions that they take when they are aware of how these might affect other people negatively. The drugs war is a good example of this. Individual police officers can hardly be blamed for pursuing the war on drugs. They are mostly not aware of the tremendous harm that the 'organism of the drugs war' is doing to their own people. However, when, for example, police officers arrest and prosecute people who are very ill, and who are taking drugs in order to alleviate their pain, then they are clearly very likely to be aware of how morally unjustifiable are their actions. And, as such, they should be personally held responsible for them. "I was only following my orders," is just not good enough. 7. Large enterprises tend to survive and grow because the interactions that they have with the world outside of them nourish them in some way. a. Prime examples of this are to be found in the way that governments and the abuse industry are forever re-defining what are deemed to be 'crimes' in order to extend their fields of influence and control. At the same time, they persistently encourage more people to view themselves as 'victims' who need their services. By doing such things, they grow more extensive and more powerful. Indeed, the abuse industry is now a positively huge enterprise. And its various components are very adept at exploring new terrain for their own purposes. For example, thirty years ago, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (a highly influential 'charity' here in the UK) was mostly concerned about the plight of children who were beaten badly or killed by their own parents in their own homes. But it has come a long way since then. The NSPCC helped very much to sustain the hysteria over the recent decade-long nonsense concerning Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memories. It now views sixteen year old boys who have sexual relations with girls of fourteen as sex abusers. It has suggested that five year old boys who touch five year old girls should be regarded as paedophiles. It wants the smacking of children to be criminalised and it persistently hits the headlines over this issue. It promotes the view that looking at pictures of children may be deserving of long prison sentences, with parents now likely to be in deep trouble for daring even to look at their own children. And it is now arguing that shouting at children is an act of child abuse. A few years ago the NSPCC also suggested that men should never be allowed to work with young children, because it was too risky. And, at the very least, it argued, that men who worked with young children needed particularly close monitoring. At the moment, chat rooms on the internet where young teenagers often dwell is considered by the NSPCC to be a danger zone that needs constant careful scrutiny. And adults in the UK might soon be prosecuted for being kind to children simply by talking to them - "grooming". And even if they are not prosecuted for such an offence, they will certainly be 'under suspicion' and closely monitored for showing any interest in teenagers. Yes indeed. The NSPCC has come a very long way in the past three decades. And it has done so largely by continually extending the notion of what is deemed to be 'abuse' and by constantly fuelling suspicion, hatred and hysteria in connection with it. And, as we all know, the feminists have used exactly the same kind of tactics. Finally, not only has the 'organism' of the abuse industry managed to thrive by expanding successfully the range of its 'diet', its actions have actually led to more relationship disharmony - hence more 'abuse' - and to more relationship breakdowns - hence more vulnerability to 'abuse'. And both of these things have provided the abuse industry with an almost endless source of fodder. It has created a wonderful positive feedback loop that perpetually increases its food supply. b. It is always worth remembering that most enterprises have no real interest in solving the problems that they claim to be so concerned about.  For example, it does not matter how far society moves to accommodate the feminists or the NSPCC. They both have to continue to generate 'victims of abuse' in order to have a reason to exist, and in order to exist. These organisms would die without their food! 8. Those who achieve high office within large enterprises - and so become their 'leaders' - tend to be those people who best serve successfully their enterprises. They are not those people who best serve anything, or anyone, else. a. It is very important to understand this point because these 'leaders' are often the major spokesmen for their enterprises. They are the front men. The most visible. But they are also the best salesmen. And they are highly partisan. Men's activists can legitimately discard just about everything that they say. They will have one motive, and one motive alone - to further their own enterprises. b. Even organisations that seem to be the most 'honourable' are often prone to obfuscating and misdirecting the public.  For example, UK hospitals have also been caught performing all sorts of tricks in order to satisfy the government's targets. And these have included giving priority to surgical operations that can be done quickly rather than to those that are clinically vastly more urgent, simply in order to bolster their throughput figures - and, hence, their funding. In other words, these particular medical organisms have clearly been putting themselves above the needs of their patients. But this is exactly what these large organisms do! They put themselves first, and they put people last. Even medical organisms do this! 9. Large enterprises have very little respect for the truth, fair play, justice etc. They are organisms that serve only themselves. They do not really have 'morals'. While they can be persuaded to accommodate to the truth, fair play, justice etc, they will usually only do so because it gives them some advantage - usually, some kind of 'defence' against some kind of public attack. Without scrutiny from the outside, the most successful enterprises would be the most corrupt and the most self-serving of them all. ('Honest' enterprises would have no hope of competing successfully with them.) a. This is probably the saddest and most depressing truth of all.  Whether it is the tobacco industry trying to shield the truth about the harm that cigarettes cause, the government pursuing the war on drugs purely to benefit itself, Tony Blair and President Bush exaggerating the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMDs, or feminists with their never-ending lies, there is virtually no large enterprise that is not involved in some major deceit. b. For the past 100 years western governments have grown at a very rapid pace. These organisms have managed to accrue enormous powers, and they have become virtually unopposable. The political parties and the politicians that run them are positively seething with self-serving ambition and they have easily arranged matters to suit themselves at the expense of the people. They have access to huge amounts of money which they take, BY FORCE, from us. They have enormous powers, almost infinite resources, and the authority to do more or less whatever they like. In more recent years a new organism consisting of the 'governing elite' has also been growing very rapidly. This organism seeks to place itself at the head of a New World Order and it seeks to govern the entire planet. It basically consists of politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats from different countries who are joining forces to empower themselves. Members of this privileged layer of society - this privileged organism - shake each other's hands in secret, nod and wink over a deal or too, and agree 'to work together'. And so the people end up, effectively, with a one-party system of government from which there is increasingly no escape. The members of this governing elite do not live in the same world as the rest of us. They lead luxury lifestyles - mostly funded by the taxpayer or by big business - and they are so far removed from the ordinary people that they cannot possibly be attuned to their needs. For example, it makes no difference to them if crime is rampant or if national borders are broken down. They are personally unaffected by such things. Indeed, they positively thrive on the chaos that such things create because the ordinary people - through fear - are bamboozled into giving them more and more resources to counter the ever-growing problems that they are having to face. In this respect they are playing many of the same games as the abuse industry. But the most important point to understand here is that these hugely powerful organisms of government are highly self-serving and corrupt. And honest alternatives have no hope of competing against them. I will repeat that last sentence. And honest alternatives have no hope of competing against them. --------------------------- END NOTE By viewing large enterprises (ideologies, governments etc) as organisms that are serving themselves, and that are attempting to survive and to grow, men's activists can far better understand the forces that they are having to deal with. And the good news is that, thanks to the internet and to the other new communications technologies, there are two factors now coming into play that are highly likely to change the current 'power landscape' in the near future. The first is the spread of information, and this will help to bring about the downfall of the 'more powerful'. And the second is the growth of the men's movement, which looks set to grow into an organism of truly massive dimensions.

Gaea IV 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 are told. 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. Why? 1. Well, the answer to this question might best be understood by viewing the whole of society as just one biological organism. Yes indeed. 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 - 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. 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 'sheeple'. 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 my backside, 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 'sheeple' - into action by causing them alarm e.g. 9/11 and the loathsome tactics of the 'abuse industry'. In summary, there appear to be two ways in which activists can exert influence. 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 societies. 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! Catch 22! Yes, of course, activists can certainly unite the people by causing them alarm (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.  Without 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 I will 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 western societies. 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 media. 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 collective malevolence. 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 such attacks. 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 to 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 strong. 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 progress! 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 rights. 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 of activists. 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. Stay active! 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 older! 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 views in 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 such things. 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 ... China The 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 offshore island. The word 'men' is not mentioned once throughout the entire article.  Not. Once! 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 way. But the problem has been that there is no 'vote' on "men's issues"! - 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 issues". And this what men's activists have to fight against. 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. After 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 "men's issues". 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. Why?  Well ... a. The internet is making it very easy for ideas to be spread. 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 societies. 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 their societies. 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 over 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 is about. 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 computer technologies. And it is this. The men's movement is going to be dominated by men-who-sit-at-screens. (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 past.  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 the past. Their psychology is very different. No. Not in every case. But, statistically speaking, they are definitely very different. 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 very similar. 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 you are 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 competitive force. 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 ruthlessly. 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 attack. 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 usually recognise. 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 men-who-sit-at-screens. 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 future. 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 do so. 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 magnitude. 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 movement. Anyway. 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. 4. There 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 of them. 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.)

 

When women were 'oppressed' ...









click a picture

Are you an intelligent person who believes that feminism is about 'equality'? If so, then please just take five minutes of your time to read the piece Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable and you will see that feminism is nothing of the sort. Far from it. It is one of the most malicious and destructive ideologies imaginable. Apply your intelligence for just five minutes, and you will surely see the truth about feminism for yourself.