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
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
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.
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.
a number of men's rights activists seem to spend a good
deal of their time playing right into the hands of their enemies
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.
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
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
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
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
organisms flourish and grow by feeding on the
environment that is external to 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'.
The men's movement is growing right across the globe.
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
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
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.
even presidents - are not that important.
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.
Remember: The people can always be replaced.
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
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
If you lose the support of even a humble toe, you can be debilitated quite
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
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.
Of course, he will pretend to be very concerned about the victim and
the perpetrator, but his real concern will be about the university.
(And if this was not the case, then he would not remain the boss for
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.
None of us has much control over what we end up believing.
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.
it does not matter how far society moves to accommodate
the feminists or the NSPCC
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
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
In other words, the leaders of enterprises tend to be those who serve
best their 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.
there is virtually no large enterprise that is not
involved in some major deceit.
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
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.
it makes no difference to them if crime is
rampant or if national borders are broken down.
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
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.
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.