14/4/02 

The Boys in the Back Room

Divvying Up the Masculist Kingdom

Ray Remark

It’s easy to tell when the wings of a nascent social movement catch first air: the wannabes, agenda-hawkers, and assorted political lightweights huddle with their sycophants, plotting out the Revolution – where it’s going, who gets to be rule, and how their own power can be consolidated and maximized.

Oh! Brotherhood! false and fallen as ever, dead to thy own heartbeat: mired in contrivance self-made.

Ten thousand kings sally forth and alas! – only one Kingdom.

The men’s movement, emaciated infant that it is, currently is experiencing its initial trickle of “voice” into the American Machine.

That is, male viewpoint has graduated from total censorship under matriarchy to merely overwhelming censorship.

Wendy McElroy, who describes herself as an “independent feminist,” is now empowered by our feminist “patriarchy” to address the masses on behalf of males.

Close on her (high) heels is Mr. Glenn Sacks, whose writings on men have also found favor before the System.

Activists who have worked for decades in the catacombs of the gyneocracy were amused last week at the Men’s Activism News Network’s lead article, “Confronting Women-Bashing in the Men’s Movement,” authored by Mr. Sacks -- that ubiquitous and prolific spokesman for American masculinity.

The article, posted by the equally omnipresent James Hanback, Jr. (“Nightmist”), attacked the National Coalition of Free Men, and pummeled the “radicals” in the movement for their alleged misogyny. In great detail, Mr. Sacks’ savaged these evil “woman bashers,” drawing up a “profile” containing ten “characteristics” known to be possessed by the women-haters. (In later correspondence, Mr. Sacks admitted that his original “profiling list” was significantly longer – containing even more misogynistic sins and sinners – but he reluctantly whittled it down for economy’s sake. And they say god is dead.)

No doubt the National Organization for Women, the academy, the media, and the “justice system” were greatly cheered by and indebted to Sacks, Hanback, and MANN, for their assistance in broadening and legitimizing the criminalization of maleness in America.

The marginalizing and silencing of dissident males is now the “mainstream” of the men’s movement.

We’ve come a long way, baby!

The evening that Mr. Sacks’ hit-piece was published, I saw Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem capering down Fifth Avenue, wearing top-hats. They tapdanced all night on ground zero, in the cold ashes of what we once were.

In my posting on MANN I called Mr. Sacks’ article “political maneuvering.” Mr. Sacks had been feuding with the N.C.F.M. Further, MANN’s political ally, Wendy McElroy, only days before was criticized on soc.men when she turned up promoting her web site. Sacks’ piece was thus a counterstrike, carefully planned for release by an “independent spokesman” of the men’s movement. In reality, the article was a covert defense of both McElroy and her political alliance with MANN – with the usual “women-bashing” scapegoats tossed in for diversion.

Ah, yes, it’s The Boys in the Back Room. And The Girls, too. Scrambling in the dogbowl of politics for those last chunks of kibble.

See, I’m an old dude. Real old. A snarly motherf**k, too. But my memory is peachy. Not only do I remember COINTELPRO, I lived through it. I’ve seen all the tricks and every costume. I know the smell of counterinsurgency like bacon frying on Sunday morning.

In the old days, see, I used to play at politics a tad. Nothing so Byzantine and important as masculist politics, mind you – just dancing with the sharks in the California legislature and judiciary.

They were also pretenders to power, but at least they weren’t newbies.

Back then, in rooms that the public never sees, the gambit by Mr. Sacks and accomplices was called “closing ranks.” Stalin called them “purges.”

The method never changes. The weak members of an insurgency attempt to “tighten the center” of their powerbase by marginalizing, silencing, and de-legitimizing the strong members. After three decades of the annihilation of masculinity, in a State of complete misandry and matriarchy, Mr. Sacks and his “leaders of men” discover their chief adversary to be “woman-bashers” in the men’s movement.

And they are spot-on. Some of those “extremists” that Mr. Sacks, Mr. Hanback and MANN have “profiled” -- that they might languish in cultural prison -- have no intention of seeing the men’s movement co-opted. Those “extremists” have watched both the Left and the Right of our culture fall corrupt before the gods of political expediency, money, and privilege. Our faces still drip with the loogies from that grade of “leadership.”

I pointed out on MANN that the ability of western men to angrily confront both women and the matriarchy was necessary and long overdue, and for Sacks and other male “leadership” to legitimize censorship and the intimidation of other male activists was regressive in the extreme: “. . . for not only do i believe that it is appropriate for men, with just cause, to direct anger at women, i believe that it is currently imperative that strong, outraged men do just that."

At which consigliare for the Boys in the Back Room – lawyer Marc Angelucci – emerged on the board.

Gee, what a coincidence. He just happened to be at the defense table!

Mr. Angelucci immediately exchanged my permission for males to exhibit anger towards females for my global loathing of anything female: “There's where we disagree. To me, directing anger at an entire birth group is a form of bigotry.”

Of course, we did not “disagree.” I had made no reference whatsoever to “directing anger at an entire birth group.”

I then stated, “i've seen my brothers caged, sodomized, stomped and left for dead in the mud, and i have seen the same treatment bestowed on the sons of the nation."

Mr. Angelucci replied: “And it's the fault of all women . . . I'll direct my anger at the system and the misandrists and bigots, male or female, who support it. If you direct your anger at women as a whole, then that's your choice. I call it bigotry. You don't. I guess that settles it.”

Again, I never imputed “fault” to “all women,” nor did I endorse directing “anger at women as a whole.” Indeed, I pointed out carefully that I was as critical of false masculinity in the West as I am of the sick feminine. But it served Mr. Angelucci’s purposes to extend my criticism of Mr. Sacks, Ms. McElroy, and MANN into the character assasination of “bigotry” and misogyny.

Amazing, troops – it’s the EXACT same tactic I’ve encountered in the American classroom, workplace, and home for nigh on four decades. Now our self-appointed “masculist leaders” are using “misogyny” against their own paratroops.

When I had the bigoted ignorance to continue disagreeing with Mr. Angelucci, the following exchange ensued:

Ray: "i have not advocated any injury to women, nor to any woman in particular"

Marc Angelucci: “Nor do certain factions of the Klan advocate injury to blacks. It's irrelevant.”

Ray: “no, it's exactly relevant, otherwise you would not have chosen those words

”thank you, mr angelucci, for comparing me -- in a deniable, backhanded, non-actionable way, to be sure -- to the ku klux klan

”it is very revealing of your methods

“it is likewise revealing that you find need to expand my permission for men to express anger at women, into a generalized hatred of women, thence into the klan

”this despite my statement to the exact contrary

”nowhere in my statement did i say anything about “all women” or “an entire birth group”

”those are YOUR assumptions, because they are indispensable to your argument and purpose, and because without which your position – and the position of certain others here – is indefensible

”please insert neither words nor sentiments into my statements, mr angelucci, which i have not made

”that is a despicable and foul tactic”

In the midst of the domination of the masculine by the matriarchy and its drones, Mr. Sacks and Mr. Angelucci – and the rest of the Boys – are going to snuggle up to old Machiavelli and attempt to broaden their political appeal by demonizing the very fire that keeps their ovens lit, and their lights on.

Well guess what, Boys? Without those “radicals,” you and your grand political aspirations are going to sh*tland. As in Nowhere with a reek. Without delay.

You think you’re gonna nibble away at the Machine?

Forty years ago I was a naïve bambino, too. “Work within the System” the zombies all assured me. So I did, and it cut my balls off, then laughed at me.

Then it did the same to a hundred million other males.

I thought the Left would regain sanity, I thought the Right would regain sanity, I thought religion and logic and rule of law would come to its senses, stop the madness, and begin the healing.

But they didn’t. And they still don’t. Even worse, they can’t. Instead, the Beast only grows in strength.

Your strategy of grovelling hat-in-hand before our rulers will free the male Scapegoat?

Boys, instead of embracing the Scapegoat, you keep kicking him off the cliff.

The Machine will ingest and eliminate you. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are gonna eat you for breakfast.

Lawyers, web emperors, political hacks, and third-rate “writers” cannot overturn the Hell in which Western masculinity is now imprisoned.

We don’t need any more political brokering, Boys. Thanks alot anyway. We’re already full to the f**king brim with careerists.

Masculinity is broken, and so is the moral and spiritual legitimacy of the West.

We need nothing less than a resurrected manhood, a New Adam, and he will come from our gutters and prisons, from the despised and outcast amongst us. Our cure, and our redemption, waits hidden in the most marginal, unexplored, criminalized, misunderstood elements of masculinity. The broken, the psychotic, the betrayed, the autistic, the demonized, the voiceless – these are the shards from which a new masculinity will be formed. They are brilliant spirits, but they burn very hot.

Instead of accusing, marginalizing, and silencing them, you Boys should shut up and learn. You do not lead the outcasts you have made. They lead you. They have what you lack, and hating them for it does not liberate masculinity. Men and the West are in the mess they are precisely because politics and “religion” are devoid of spirit.

Those misogynists you so lovingly “profile”? Guess what? They’re all you’ve really got.

You don’t like that. So you huddle together in consolidation of power that was never yours to begin.

Come on out of the Back Room, Boys. sh*tcan the political alliances, the smear campaigns, the blacklisting, the scapegoating. There’s no Masculist Empire to divvy up. All Empire is on its last legs. This time, it ain’t about Getting Ahead. It ain’t about another Tyrannos, male or female. This time it’s about revelation, brutal truth, astonishment and sacrifice.

Yah, imagine that. Not glory. Not power. Sacrifice.

If you weren’t such children, you’d understand that the very “radicals” you seek to silence are the only thing standing between you and the demons unleashed.

Those “radicals” are the ones keeping your precious Towers upright.

But you Boys just keep at your whuppin’. If you dis and betray them enough, they’ll look the other way again.

And again.

Until you’ve got nothing left but broken bricks.

Of course, y’all are too busy defending the helpless little ladies, writing and promoting articles stomping “woman-bashers,” and affiliating other activists with the ku klux klan.

Busy, busy bees!

Hey, slow train’s a’comin’, Boys! Time to pick a direction.

Don’t ever again let me catch you whipping free on what has already been beaten.

Next time I might let them up off the ground. Then you’d have a fair fight, and a Real Problem.

Yo, princelings: get used to dealing with what you hate.

The harder you play at Alpha, the further you fall in the pack.

Them’s the new rules, Boys, made by men on fire, sweating in the halls of inclusion and justice. Keep shoving them back into hell and you will get burned.