Men’s Rights in a larger political framework

In 2007 – after George Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, replaced nearly a dozen district attorneys mid term, a highly irregular, and apparently politically motivated intervention in the judicial branch of government, he was required in 2007 to testify before the senate judiciary committee, then chaired by Senator Arlin Spectre.

I spent several months watching him on C-Span – reciting variations of “I don’t remember.” I remember feeling a chill. The attorney general being the head of the judicial branch of government stonewalling the judiciary committee’s investigation of his politicization of the justice branch. The A.G. appointed by the definitively corrupt Bush Administration. Many characterize Bush the younger as incompetent, yet he achieved what generations of presidents before him failed to do, namely, to dispense with the bulk of the Bill of Rights as a thwart to the supreme power of government. This is not a small accomplishment, George-bush-the-clown was a masterful bit of misdirection.

When I realized that the justice branch of government was corrupt from the head down, I wondered at length how any citizen could find redress of grievance through legitimate channel – when the legitimate channels of redress are so openly corrupt.

In such a perverted system, it seemed that the only redress of grievance against public officials run amok, such as Mr Cheney, Mr Rove, Mr Rumsfeld, and Mr Bush was through legally illegitimate methods, outside the accepted mechanism of political participation. A sudden uncivil correction to a corrupt system appeared to be the only remaining recourse in a society whose legitimate checks and balances are broken, but I regard such violent correction as unpalatable, and unlikely.

In 2007, the continued and accelerated erosion of human rights appeared to have no viable brake.

The endless, ineffectual talking in senate chambers, political pulpits, court rooms, press galleries and news studios was all I expected then, and nearly all I have seen since.

I realized that in a climate of near universal corruption at the highest ranks of public life, the public would not stir themselves to act except through the ritual puppet show of “polite” political engagement through the wholly fictional, but legitimate channels of voting, petitioning, editorializing, and placard waving. Fortunately at the personal scale, but unfortunately at the societal scale – the public weren’t and aren’t going to shed any blood of patriot or tyrant. It’s not that they are asleep, as some with a libertarian bent protest, simply that they are beaten. They are, and depending on the audience of this article, by “they” I mean you … they, are scared, exhausted, and hoping if they just keep their heads down, somebody else will be selected to be thrown into the volcano rather than themselves.

That’s the balance – between the public’s outrage over a ruling elite at the heads of corporate, political and financial North America, and the emotional exhaustion of human beings terrified that they might say the wrong thing and loose their homes, jobs, children or future. The unfortunate consequence of this calculated cowardice is that sacrifice of freedom in favor of safety will result in the retention of neither. So, sadly, the public did not seem in late 2007 likely to reject consensus authority of the corrupt elite. I predicted a long dark future history.

This was all before I had any awareness that such a thing as the Men’s Right’s Movement.

Option 1

Apathy : the ritual but ineffective participation in public life through voting and other “acceptable” channels.

This is where we are now, and its useless.

Option 2

Violent disruption and dispossession of corrupt governments and courts. This is no good either, not least because it’s brutal, but also because it’s likely to replace the old criminals with new criminals.

Fortunately, there’s a third option, and the Men’s Rights Movement is it.

Feminism’s Role in social engineering:

The effects of the corrupt and violent social institution operating under the name “feminism” are arguably what brought many Men’s Rights Activists to the movement, but feminism as a political ideology has no end point, because it’s actually only a tool.

The goal of feminism has nothing whatsoever to do with equality, and for earnest feminists waking up to a wider political reality this is a bitter pill to swallow. Feminism, is, and always has been an astroturf movement, conceived and funded by the elite – and sold to the public as an egalitarian movement by appealing to the vanity of politically unsophisticated women. Weak men have also been coerced into compliance because agreeing with the self righteous rage of female is easier, and has the illusory benefit of female approval.

Unfortunately as most within the MRM know, feminism’s stated goal of social and legal equality between the sexes is completely false, rather it is a corrosive, violent ideology engineered to create social discord, to infantalize women and criminalize men. Dividing men and women against each other, and eroding the social power of families within civil society is one of feminism’s major successes. A civil population of individuals severed from the traditional support structure of strong families is much easier to control. For active MRAs, understanding that feminism as a tool in a longer goal of social control is important.

While feminism’s influence is pervasive, violent and corrupt, getting wrapped up too closely in feminist arguments can become a distraction from the larger context. That context being that feminism is a tool to weaken public resistance to the transition of open societies to closed, police states.