Election

Your left, right, left

As the men’s movement grows we will see the realization of many hopes and dreams for men, long denied an audience for their struggles. The first inklings of change have begun to sprout, and grow defiantly into the misandric landscape.

We see it in a news commentator who steps up and questions why men don’t have reproductive rights. He even does so with a bit of an MRM chip on his shoulder. We also see it from the likes of Dr. Keith Ablow, who stands against the current tide that justifies the rape and abuse of schoolboys. His article on Adam Sandler’s latest film was so good that by the time I was done I was nodding my head and doing a short fist pump here in front of my computer.

Damned right, fuck Adam Sandler and his fucked up disgrace of a movie. He will  never see another nickle of my money.

As the movement proliferates we are going to see a lot more of these things, from a lot more people. Unfortunately, as we grow and become powerful, there will also be attempts to co-opt our message. And I don’t mean with lame and transparent attempts by places like the Good Men Project. I mean serious, professional attempts to take ownership of the work we have done and to push it forward on an agenda that we have nothing to do with.

It will be a battle that drags in the left and right, my friends, and I write to you today because it is coming. Make no mistake about it.

I have attempted, with a good deal of success, I think, to avoid, circumvent, dissuade from and eschew involvement in the modern left-right paradigm. I intend to continue on that path as much as possible, but we are at the point in time when it is important to include this in our regular discussions, and to open the floor to our ranks of writers and commenters to add to the discourse.

That being said, allow me to make some clarification on my personal take on politics and the MRM. Hopefully, you will add to this dialogue with your own thoughts. As I said, we are approaching a crossroads where we will be challenged to keep this movement in our own hands.

To begin the discussion I will invoke our brother Bernard Chapin who regularly puts forth the idea that we make a mistake by not seeing men’s rights as a left-right issue.  And I am here to state my fundamental agreement with that position, albeit with what I think are significant caveats and qualifiers.

The primary of the caveats is that we must remember that left and right has very little to do with Democrat and Republican, something I am quite sure Bernard has stated, and I support. It has more to do with conservative vs. liberal, but even that must be qualified.

In my opinion, there is no Democrat and Republican any more. All one has to do for verification is look at the glove-like fit of the anti-freedom, pro-imperialist policies of thievery from the American people on behalf of Wall Street conducted by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Bush shredded our constitution and doused it with gasoline. Obama stepped in and tossed a lit match on the pile.

Change? My ass.

All of this was done to benefit multinational corporations and a very corrupt group of the powerful elites. We should never be deluded into thinking anything else, particularly where it concerns men’s issues. This is important because we must always make ourselves remember that feminist governance, which is what both Republicans and Democrats have created, depends on the grunt labor of uneducated, disenfranchised men. They need us economically, and they need us to maintain the infrastructure because women can’t or won’t.

It is tempting to believe another picture. Recently 31 Republicans voted in a failed effort, to reject the reauthorization of VAWA. The Republican Governor of Wisconsin repealed that states “Equal” Pay Law. Republican Ted Poe opined that VAWA should be written in sex neutral language.  There are other things happening, many of which have been reported on by AVfM News Director Bob O’Hara and his partner at AVfM News and Activism, James Huff.  It is all encouraging and refreshing.

But a closer examination of what is happening clarifies the picture. Some of the opposition to reauthorizing VAWA was not for the right reasons. In fact, it was for the most directly of wrong reasons. Objecting to VAWA because the new version includes provisions for our gay brothers does not cut it. I mean, I will tacitly accept any opposition to VAWA that I can get, but it is imperative that we remember that this “opposition” is misandric. It is an artifact of closed minded and hateful traditionalism. And of course it did little or nothing to slow down the VAWA march, largely because the Republicans have still failed to attack all the things that are wrong with that horrific piece of elitist, statist legislation that robs people of both money and freedom.

They still voted the son-of-a-bitch in.

And that pretty much sums up the “Right” in this country, in their current incarnation. They are not conservatives. For the most part what they are is a Mafioso of fundamentalists and pro corporate, consumerist ideologues. These are people that pay lip service to small government while doing everything thing they can to further government intrusion into marriage, personal sexual lifestyle and anywhere else their religious and political beliefs lead them.

If anyone thinks they are friendly to men and boys, they better think again.

And of course on the left, things only get worse.

I know, there are many great men who feel aligned with the political left that frequent this website. But my message to them is the same message as it is to the men who identify with the so called right. Prove that you support men and boys rather than your political chosen ones.

Men on the right should, in my opinion, be calling out the whores that have taken over the Republican Party and destroyed conservative values while they did it. Yes, that is right, the whores that have destroyed conservative values. Whores like George Bush, Bush Senior, Ronald Regan (who ushered in no-fault divorce); whores like Sara Palin, Mitt Romney and every other misandric lout that has supported feminist governance, sacrificing any notion of small government and personal freedom.

These people don’t offer hope for men’s rights. These people are the very ones in the way.

The other problem, of course, is the so called left; big government fear-mongers whose stock-in-trade is division politics, particularly where it divides women against men, and where it involves forcing the population to cough up the cash for their Utopian bullshit schemes.  They are the proverbial big tit that gender feminists suckle on, which of course makes you the actual boob, as long as you are paying for it. The money sure as hell isn’t coming from the likes of Barbara Boxer.

It may seem a bit contradictory. I am at once equally chastising and dismissing the political left and right, and also agreeing with Bernard Chapin that the answers to this are to be found with conservatism, in a left-right paradigm.

The problem is in finding real conservatives, and I don’t see any Republicans that fit the bill. Well, there is Barry Goldwater, but in his current condition he won’t do the party much good.

By the way, I should take somewhat of a side road to address some of the people I am pissing off here. If you are a left leaning individual, and you support men’s rights but are tiring of people taking shots at the left and blaming them for feminism, then I can only suggest that you take that to the feminist source in your own camp. The people you have voted for are the problem. You may like the idea of National Healthcare. Do you like it so much that you will vote for misandrists like Obama and Biden again, knowing full well that all the “care” will be delivered to women at the expense of sick men and boys?

If so, I respectfully suggest calling yourself something other than an MRA (brainwashed asshole comes to mind), but it is just an opinion. Maybe you could put down the Foucault long enough figure out that bringing men’s rights to the modern political left is like bringing multiculturalism to the Aryan Nation. And if you don’t want to hear that, please take a couple more red pills.

The same goes for the right. Even with all the “encouraging” developments of late, the modern political right is about as helpful to men and boys as Andrea Dworkin.

Find me a piece of misandrist legislation that was voted down by the right.

Just one will do.

(insert sound of crickets chirping here)

(insert more crickets here)

The fact is, from no-fault divorce, to VAWA, to primary aggressor laws, to mandatory arrest policies, to rape shield laws, the so called conservative right has been either a happily willing partner with the left, or a gutless, spineless conglomeration of quislings, rubber stamping every bucket of anti-male bilge that the left has served up for the past 50 years.

Recent events do not change that. No, not one little bit.

Here’s why. I am sure many of you have noticed, as I alluded to in the start of this article, that the so-called right has recently included some very MRMish language to its dialogue. More and more anti-feminist voices have made themselves heard. But again, two points. One, what have they voted for? Sorry, but what they voted for was more VAWA; more of the same. And a close examination of the 31 who voted against VAWA won’t net you a single red pill politician.

Where were these people when the “Dear Colleague” letter was released? I tell you where they were; the fucking cowards were hiding in dark rooms while a lone Wall Street Journal writer spoke the truth. Fuck them, and the elephant they rode in on. If you want to vote for one of these gutless wonders, feel free to use the alternative to MRA I have suggested for the left.

Those voices who did manage to emerge in opposition were those generally pushing for a traditionalist paradigm. You know that one, don’t you? That’s the good folks who want you and your sons in Afghanistan, on a leash in family courts, and keeping your mouth shut while universities strip the skin off innocent young men and call it social progress.

As this movement grows, which is unstoppable at this point, the cowards and whores from both sides of the fence will start to clamor for our approval.

Don’t give it to them.

Bernard Chapin is right. Conservative values are the answer to our problems. The problem is that there are no real conservatives to help our cause in the mainstream. There are not even very many people that understand what conservatism really is.

Conservatism is not pro heterosexuality, pro marriage, pro Christian, pro war or pro Wall Street. It is purely and simply pro individual freedom. Being pro freedom it is by necessity against big, intrusive government, a real world evil that now has the support of the so called right as much as it does the left.

I think it is critical for MRA’s to understand this and act accordingly. Any allegiance we hold to partisan politics muddies our understanding of the real issues. In fact, it makes us part of the problem, and it has us in the role of useful idiots for whatever side of the partisan fence we choose to call home.

As a conservative, a real one, like I think Bernard Chapin to be, I believe that real conservative values are the answer to feminism. Small, weak government, minimal intrusion into our private lives; no funding of identity politics; no allowance of ideological agendas; no preemptive wars, no imperialism, period.

Feminism cannot survive without government guns and money. If you pulled the voraciously sucking lips of feminists off the government tit right now, they would all emaciate and die in short order.

I know, that tips my hand as a Libertarian plainly enough, but I am not wed to them as a party. I would vote for a pig with polka dots if it would shut down a federal department or two. Right now, they are the only ones even talking about it.

Part of taking the red pill, in my opinion, is that a sufficient dose will pull off the blinders completely. The result is that we see the truth about men and women, but also about government, academe, the social strata and the plethora of other lies that now make the meat of potatoes of the western diet.

What we once thought of as left and right actually did constitute two groups of philosophically opposed populations; one thinking that the government was the answer to all problems, one thinking that government was the source of all problems.

If you think things are that way now, please set your watch ahead 50 years to 2012. All we have now is two crime families competing with each other to extract blood and money from men and boys, pass it along to women and girls, while skimming their cut off the top.

When they come courting you in the future, and they will, I say give them nothing. Don’t let them use you to further their agenda while diluting ours.

Or you can put them to a litmus test. Look at their voting record. All of it. And remember, if it looks and smells like a pig, it probably is.

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and weekly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

    Wow. Just wow. Was that a shiver running down my spine? Linking, on FB and my blog. You are a brave brave man, I salute you.

    Wow.

  • StarsDie

    Ron Paul.

    Not perfect, but the only one worth a damn it seems.

  • Zorro

    And that pretty much sums up the “Right” in this country, in their current incarnation. They are not conservatives. For the most part what they are is a Mafioso of fundamentalists and pro corporate, consumerist ideologues. These are people that pay lip service to small government while doing everything thing they can to further government intrusion into marriage, personal sexual lifestyle and anywhere else their religious and political beliefs lead them.

    If anyone thinks they are friendly to men and boys, they better think again.

    Amen.

    As a lifelong Republican (or right wingnut or whatever…I loathe the left), I agree that the GOP are nothing less than Useful Idiots to Fembot legislation. For whatever aspect of the political right that I embrace, it sure as hell isn’t their regard for the rights of the human male. On that score, they are uniformly pussified.

    • maxsnafu

      Though I’m no Democrat, the GOP has been so cowardly in this and most other fights (except for foreign wars) that if the all-night firing squads ever come to this country I hope they take the Republicans first.

  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com Jared White

    I don’t like any forms of government where a person or a group of people are appointed to be in charge of issues, laws, policies, and establishments that have a major effect on the lives of people.

    I don’t like any political parties.

    I don’t like labels.

    All of the things that I don’t like are the reasons why people can be legally discriminated against. Just look at the state we are in now. Sure the idea that all that needs to be done to end legal discrimination against men is get enough people to gain the attention of politicians who will change the laws.

    But the only thing that needed to be done to start the legal discrimination against men in the first place is get enough people to gain the attention of politicians.

    The people didn’t reauthorize VAWA. Politicians did.

    Hell, the people didn’t enact VAWA. Politicians did.

    Things like that should be decided by all of the people, not the few people appointed to an office. It makes it too easy for things the majority of the people are against to become law. And then its another media parade where these few appointed people make promises and slander one another. Then when they get in office they might actually follow through on those promises, and then the next politician comes in and turns it around and then the next comes in and turns it back the other way.

    I wouldn’t feel comfortable supporting any politicians, even if one said they were for men’s rights and was actually voting against the discrimination men face.

    I would support them though, only because it’s the only fucking choice and way anyone has to make any kind of change. But I would still dislike all of the current forms of government. It’s all one big circle of stupidity in my opinion.

    • keyster

      The people didn’t reauthorize VAWA. Politicians did.
      Hell, the people didn’t enact VAWA. Politicians did.

      Women’s activist groups MADE this happen. NOW alone is one the most active lobbyist groups in Wash DC. The list of Feminist activist groups involved in getting this done is IMMENSE.

      How do they do it?

      The PROMISE their support for the female vote, and if you DON’T vote for it they’ll skewer you in the national media. It all takes place behind the scenes.

      If you think Clinton, Biden and Bob Dole were jus’ talkin’ one day and decided VAWA would be a really cool thing to enact, you don’t understand the machinations of the lobbyist industry and how deep it runs.

      • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com Jared White

        I understand that man.

        It’s why I said that the reason why it was so easy for the legal discrimination against men to become law in the first place is because a group of assholes (feminists) got together and got the attention of politicians.

        They got enough people in the general public behind them with their lies and falsified statistics about men and women.

        In reality most of the general public doesn’t know or care about feminist theories, laws, policies, or politics. They are just fed the “equality” tag line from the media.

        If politicians don’t pass feminist laws, they are slandered as starting a “War on women”

        So the majority of people get screwed over because a few people (politicians) given power can be swayed by threats, lies, and blackmail from feminists.

        It shouldn’t be that easy to ruin the lives of millions. Which is why I said it’s a big circle of stupidity.

        I admit I don’t follow politics that much. But that’s just the way I see things.

        If things as important as the vote to reauthorize VAWA or child custody laws were put to all of the people instead of just the few people elected to an office, then it would be a thousand times more difficult for feminists to get discrimination like this made law.

        Not impossible, because the media is a powerful weapon that they control, but male victims of DV or divorced men trying to spend time with their kids wouldn’t need to pray for some golden group of politicians to come floating down from the clouds and stop pandering to feminists.

        The system we have set up sounds good, but I don’t like relying on a small group of people to keep the promises they made when campaigning to be put in a position of authority over issues that directly affect the quality of my life.

        Humans are greedy, spiteful, ignorant, imperfect beings. I don’t want a small group of greedy, spiteful, ignorant, imperfect beings having the final decision on issues this important.

        Just my two cents…

  • Tawil

    What a breath of fresh air, an alternative option to the gridiron spectator sport of “which side are you rooting for”. Now we have an articulate statement of a third (transcendent) position that allows us to be on the side of the problem (of feminist governance) rather than rooting for either team of a pro-feminist dichotomy.

    I watched a similar scenario unfold in Australia’s last federal election, where MRAs were asking each other “which side are you on” as if there were one side of politics that was pro-male and the other anti-male. Both sides however were equally anti-male in their policy and mission statements, but Aussie MRAs just felt like one party had to be right and the other wrong. I was in disbelief at the lack of understanding that both sides of politics were equally based in misandric practice. The only ones who can keep these bastards honest, it seems, are independent politicians with pro-male policies who stand a chance of holding the balance of power.

    One necessity driving contemporary political machinations is the question of who holds the purchasing power that keeps big business and it’s shareholders thriving- and that is overwhelmingly women. Women’s purchasing power is gasoline to capitalism’s fire. Therefore the cycle of political obeisance goes like this-

    Democrats+Republicans –> women/chivalry –> big business –> Democrats+Republicans

    The capitalist system is currently based on chivalrous deferrence of spending to women… if that link becomes weakened by men’s refusal to fill her purse, then politicians of both stripes would develop a sudden interest in men’s purchasing power.

    Its time for more financial abuse to be metered out by MGTOW.

  • http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/ Christianj

    It was the case in the past that we would vote for the lesser of two weevils, but that is now long gone. Rather than being fodder for the grist mill, we need some new faces out front promoting precisely what has been sadly lacking for generations.

    The article above demonstrates that very nicely. Excellent position Paul and one that should be heeded, regardless of one’s political stance..

  • Kai

    The reason why I don’t consider myself an MRA, yet have taken the red pill so-to-speak, is because the MRA is fundamentally conservative-Libertarian.

    With regards to how conservatism was defined in this article, I’m not disagreeing that pro-freedom and smaller government is necessary. Because it is and it will happen whether under the guise of Leftism or conservative-Libertarianism. The short term vehicle for such change in immaterial. But an “MRA revolution”, for lack of a better term, is fundamentally a Leftist cause. I understand how conservative-Libertarians think they are the torch bearers of the tradition of the Founding Fathers and thusly the Enlightenment. But any honest inquiry in to that historical period sees that line of thought for the joke it is. All social progress is inherently Leftist when viewed on the political spectrum, as defined by Left-Right political history/philosophy.

    Conservatism, as explored by Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind, has many values that are to be admired by the Left. It is in fact the failure of Leftism to incorporate a more human soul – as opposed to purely secular, logical facts and figures way of seeing the world and ignoring the individual for the sake of helping “the greater good” – that is responsible for its decline today.

    If Leftism were to make those changes it would have what it needs to become the next cultural zeitgeist. But conservatism is only effective in the short term because it fails to incorporate the other side of the spectrum of human needs that Leftist political philosophy, in its purest form, does. Ultimately, it’s doomed to fizzle out just like the modern liberal movement. And as a political ideology conservatism is very resistant to change, where as Leftism is constitutionally more adept at being open minded and flexible. In other words, I see more hope in Leftism bridging the divide than conservatism.

    I have thought a lot about writing an article on this subject for AVfM but I don’t know if 1) It will even be taken seriously enough for publication here and properly understood or 2) if it will expand too far off topic to be relevant for this website. In any case, the bottom line is a new yet more holistic human rights movement which will supplant the MRM is necessary. What we have in the MRM at present is too narrow and too focused on a libertarian mind set to be a long term, serious political philosophy.

    • Bombay

      Consider the classic liberal. These people were the progressives before the left co-opted the terms liberal and progressive.

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        That’s what I started to look at recently. At least some communist literature I’ve read recently has been anti-statist, so that at least is worth an examination.

        • Bombay

          I think you misunderstand me.

          “Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. ”

          http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

          F. A. Hayek author of “The Road to Serfdom” would also be considered a classic liberal….

          “F. A. Hayek, one of the greatest liberals of the 20th century,…”
          http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/road-serfdom-after-60-years

          He actually discusses in this book, the American left taking over this term.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            In those cases they were anti-statist as well.

      • Kai

        Yup, classical liberalism and I maintain it is Leftist. The evolution of Leftist thought can be traced from the Age of Enlightenment to classical liberalism to modernism/marxism and then to postmodernism and the 20th century. The only difficulty is Leftist philosophy has made some errors in generalizing society and too muddled in academic bureaucracy and ideology to do anything about it. But beneath that veneer is still a liberal and progressive train of thought.

      • http://commonmanmedia.blogspot.com TCM

        That’s what I would call myself: a classical liberal – socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Many modern liberals, however, do call that conservatism, since it is, well, classical (traditional).

        • Kai

          Many people who call themselves classical liberals today are opposed to many of its liberal positions. Such as taxing the wealthy to help the less fortunate and other measures to ensure fairness and equality in a capitalist economy. Read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, it’s all in there.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I’m opposed to all taxation period.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Thank you Paul, this is very interesting. It explains much.

    It also has me wondering. Are our human brains evolved for an enormous government? Are we specifically designed to be grouped this way?

    I don’t have the answer, but I sure do have some questions.

    like Paul says, the two parties seem to be confusing I mean fusing as one. Vote for one is a vote for the other, shake hands with the left, shake hands with the right, it won’t matter it’s all the same.

    Vote for yourself and your brother and sister nearby. Forget about the bastard in the Hummer or the electric car in California because they sure have forgotten about you a long time ago.

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

      ” Are our human brains evolved for an enormous government? Are we specifically designed to be grouped this way?”
      Probably not. Some variation of feudalism seems to best promote species success – highly structured isolated groups large enough to support a small non-productive population (exercising compassion and promoting knowledge, art and entertainment) but small enough to restrict parasitism from too many non-producers. Those who aren’t suited to the structured environment can “live outside the city walls” and survive by their wits without the protection of the group – traders, robbers, adventurers, etc.
      At least in Europe, this system kept the population stable and growing, but not exploding. Huge numbers of human parasites developed only when these tiny “fiefdoms” were united and controlled centrally. I think feudalism is the logical end result of libertarianism and a TRUE free market.

  • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    It seems to me that we need a new political party named, “The Mans’ Party”, gee I wonder who owns that dot com? :D

    So allow me to announce my run for presidency. I have a very simple and singular issue platform:

    Aoirthoir for President!

    If you can spell his name, you can vote for him!

    Which means that my platform is far less evil than all other platforms.

    In any case Kai give me a call 440.941.3396, this idea of a different left is something I’d like to explore. Others will work on a different right and I’d like to see a merging and a thefting of the left and right from the powers that be to us.

    • Kai

      For real? Sure, I’m willing to share my ideas but I don’t know how much you’ll like them. ;) I’m better at writing on the computer than talking on the phone. ;)

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        Masculinists are of every philosophy, religion, political creed and in fact we exist in every sphere of life. I’ve yet to be offended by one of my brothers politics. If we can theft the left and the right and take it for ourselves, then I’m all for learning everything I can.

        • Kai

          I’m not a masculinist nor an MRA.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I’m not an MRA. Now that we have the labels out of the way are we amenable to liking each other as human beings anyhow and you teaching me your perspective? I am. :D

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        Then we can chat, perhaps on facebook or another form of text chat.

        • Kai

          I’ll probably give you a call instead of chatting. I’m curious. :) But I like how you turned labels around on me when I was the one who was eschewing the use of labels to begin with. ;) Give me some time to get my thoughts together – you’ll get a ring when you least expect it! *hazaa!* :P

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            When the BBC interviewed me they asked me about feminists. Not to NAFALT but when someone tells me they are a feminist, that gives me very little information about them. It was feminists that introduced me to the idea that the prison industrial complex should be destroyed and prisons are bad for men. I am still debating how you handle the most violent that will not change, but now I am aware that prison is itself a training ground for violence. So, I never care anymore what label (noun) someone uses. I’m interested in only specific policies, issues and more.

            So I’ve been anti-socialist my entire life. But socialism by consent would never have bothered me. Now that I know that pure forms of communism are entirely anti-statist, that interests me. Does that make me a communist? Nope. But I am willing to suggest that someone can be a Masculinist or MRA or supporter of rights for men and believe that this form of communism might be the way to it.

            In my case, with our domestic violence shelters for Men inside of A Village for Men, we’ve already decided, no money, no taxation, no penalties, no charges, no trade, no barter. Just ask as you would any friend. We are putting it into effect now and we’ll see how it works.

            But I agree with those (like RockinMrE) that say on a massive scale socialism doesn’t work well. I’m dubious. On the other hand I am always willing to be educated and if there is a form of project based economy or resource based economy that is socialist, I’m not opposed to learning about it.

      • FreeMan

        Not to proselytize, but you guys should look up Agorism for a look at a different kind of left.

        • Kai

          LOL! Voluntaryism, good one. ;) Yeah, I don’t think a society composed of a bunch of immature adult children who don’t want to contribute to any sort of “collectivist” activities, like, I dunno, paying taxes to pay for infrastructure, is an effective society. Humans are naturally a cooperating species. A political system which oppresses that natural strength for a weak childish selfishness of “I don’t wanna!” is a weak society that is doomed to a spectacular failure.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    Damn Paul. This might just be the best thing you’ve ever written. I’ve been trying to say something like this for quite some time.

    Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, left, right… all of it is shit. I agree with your sentiment, but not your characterization of liberal vs. conservative. You may well have to return to the days of the founding fathers to find a conservative who meets your definnition. We haven’t had one in my lifetime, not even Barry. What we have is two sides that believe in big government, one believes socialism is the solution (liberal), the other believes imperialism (conservative) is the solution. Libertarianism (which can be considered somewhat conservative) is a third prong believing that the people are the solution and that government is only necessary to ensure freedom and liberty.

    I personally consider myself somewhat of a left-leaning, neo-libertarian with an oddly traditional value system who believes in a strong, but very limited government whose purpose is to define boundaries for individual rights and to protect the individual from the corporate and/or government entity. People have inalienable rights, organizations enjoy privileges that can be granted, changed, and/or revoked. When the government no longer serves the people, but requires the people to serve the government, it becomes time to rid the people of the government.

    Excellent article Paul.

  • Skeptic

    Thank you Paul.

    Reading this splendid article I started to imagine something.
    We can all go to ATMs, press a few buttons and take cash out/transfer cash/make payments right?
    There are literally hundreds of thousands of places we can do this right?
    That’s a huge amount of infrastructure isn’t it?

    So why on earth do we let politicians make laws for us when we are adults who can make our own decisions much more democratically, much more efficiently, and with MUCH less expense than under the current system?

    Seriously.

    Here’s what I’d like to see instead.
    Every adult is issued with some kind of personal electronic voting card.
    Politicians are then REDUCED from being ENACTORS of law to being debaters of policy issues instead.
    The political debates then regularly take place on TV, Radio, Internet and print media so WE the public can view and listen to them (not much change there to what we already have in place).
    Then at regular intervals (Let’s say once a month) WE go with our cards to electronic voting booths and WE DECIDE which policies to vote for.
    That’s right WE DECIDE.
    Policies which get a clear majority of say 65% or more are enacted.
    Policies which attract between 50 % ~ 64% are ‘held over’ for further debate and a revote the next month.

    Oh yeah, and in the process we get rid of massive amounts of greedy profit driven Corporate business pushing their nose into policy with their massive multi-million dollar financial campaign bribes for politicians.

    I like to this of this as a long overdue form of Government of the people, for the people, BY THE PEOPLE.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      What happens when someone votes that I cannot have my religion, since I am pagan? Democracy is a dangerous thing and always has been.

      Freedom on the other hand…

      • Skeptic

        If I understand the word pagan as you use the word then I don’t share your fear of having your religion made illegal any time soon. For folks who identify themselves already as pagan these days in USA (estimates of up to 1 million) peacefully go about their business and I see no signs of any significant political movement against them.

        I agree democracy can be a dangerous thing whereby masses of folks can vote based on emotion rather than reason. However the 2 polar opposite alternatives to democracy seem to be either dictatorship or anarchy – neither appeal.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Democracy almost always leads to mob rule. I prefer to have no one decide how I must live.

          There are many other options besides democracy, dictatorship and anarchy such as volunteerocracy for instance. I however am an anarchist. A correct understanding of anarchy generally leads people to realize it is not the murderous chaos so often presented.

          As to a movement against Paganism, there most certainly is and has been for quite a long time. We are denied jobs, schooling and face arrest. In one instance youths were convicted and the “expert” witness on “witchcraft” had said “well none of these ten issues have anything to do with the crime when taken singularly, but when combined it proves they did it…” What issues? Wearing black, praying to goddesses, that sort of thing “proved” the youths had committed the crime.

          My point is that a vote should never be allowed to outlaw anything lawful under natural law.

    • keyster

      That’s called Direct Democracy as opposed to Representative Democracy. It might work for your local HOA, but becomes impossibly unwieldy and unfair in a large, diverse country.

      I agree though that technology needs to be better employed in the government process. But by it’s very nature its slow and plodding and doesn’t understand the concepts. The free market is way ahead, as usual.

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        Direct Democracy is incredibly dangerous and wasteful. California is practically a direct democracy and look at the mess they’re in.

        • Skeptic

          ……….and yet look also at stability and wealth of Switzerland where in recent times ALL Swiss folks took part in referendums each year on many different political issues. Direct democracy appears to be working there despite the fact they don’t even have one common language. That seems a fairly diverse society to me.
          One of my greatest fear for the USA is it’s insistence on a system whereby the ultra wealthy can and from what I can tell do, without transparency, pour vast sums of money into the campaigns of politicians seeking to hold office, in return for getting they policies they want.
          That’s on top of the vastly expensive huge amount of lobbying of politicians they seek to sway on a day to day basis.
          Then there is the mainstream media which has by and large been captured by feminist ideologues who not only feed off the public purse in the most immoral way but aim to perpetuate such ‘need’ to continue doing so with their false victimhood propaganda. Unfortunately they in turn create alongside the ideologues and politicians a mindset taken up by what the Men’s Rights Movement now faces in USA – the tyranny of the masses.
          In that sense I now see men in USA (as well as some other countries, but for the purpose of this dialogue I’ll stick just with USA for now) being in a similar situation to the Blacks in USA prior to the 1960 civil rights movement.
          I wonder therefore what lessons can be gleaned from the Black civil rights movement that would help men in USA advance, hopefully without the terrible riots that were part of that history.
          I shall be reading up on that some more soon and invite others more versed than I in that history to comment in answer to that line of inquiry.

  • nomaam

    Paul, I’m just struggling to wonder what this means for me.

    I’m a pretty recent visitor to this website and I like it here and I agree with almost everything I’ve read. But this article… I don’t know.

    I’m a Democrat and I agree with pretty much every one of their platforms except the strong Feminist influence among others.

    I will call them out every chance I get but are you saying that’s not enough and to be a true MRA I have to just give up on the party? Throw out the baby with the bathwater?

    I get that you’re saying you don’t want just raw numbers but a certain purity of message but if someone like me doesn’t make the cut I think you’re casting a fatally small net.

    • Paul Elam

      Our net is indeed small, but it is starting to widen. That was the real point of the article. I was not saying you don’t make the cut, or anything like that. I was just offering the opinion that being out there defending your favorite Democrat, (or Republican) if they are an active part of an anti-male agenda, pretty much speaks for itself.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      The key point of this article is that whatever points the Democrats or Republicans make, their actual voting records belie their claims. They are in bed with each other plain and simple. They have both sold us men out at every turn, every chance they get. They create laws that hurt men. The ideals they claim to stand for are a smokescreen and a smokescreen only.

      I went to an interview Eddie Izzard had with Kucinich here in Cleveland. Kucinich talked about how the Democrats had run on pulling us out of Iraq a few years ago. They won the house and Senate and what did they do in their first meeting? Discuss ways to continue funding the war. He brought up how they had promised to end the war and it fell on deaf ears.

      I trust neither party, despite their rhetoric. This year I am voting the Masculinists Party, and Aoirthoir for President.

    • AntZ

      This is how I put it:

      Until there is a decent candidate, vote, but not enthusiastically. At best, you are picking the lesser of two evils.

      I voted Democrat in the past (largely because Democats support unemployment compensation, which remains the only pro-male policy of any branch of the United States government).

      This year, I will vote Republican, because de-fanging Obamacare is the single most important pro-male policy at this time.

      I am sure that voting Republican in ’12 will feel the same way as voting Democrat in ’08 did … I will feel like losing my lunch.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    I think AVFM should start a “Real Men Don’t Vote!” campaign for the coming U.S. presidential election.

    The point would be, first of all, to bring attention to this website. Which such a campaign would.

    The second point would be to show that men know their votes don’t count because all parties always kowtow to females.

    By openly declaring we won’t vote we hand all consequences to females (and their sycophants), announcing the obvious: the empress wears no egalitarian clothes.

    We know it…and now so does she.

    We will show that more and more males “get” that THE SYSTEM is anti-male. Guys will protest by refusing to engage in a rigged political game. They’re tired of their bodies being used as cannon-fodder.. and infrastructure casualties… and “vote ghosts” (ie, entities whose cast ballots have no impact).

    AVFM can say men MAY vote again in the future, but not in this next election. That will FTSU even more.

    Our renunciation of suffrage will be comparable to Lysistrada.

    Political parties may scramble to see what the fuss is about— start asking what “men” want— but it will be too late…for THIS election.

    And our point will have been made.

    IF (a big “if,” I know) we can stir millions of males to NOT vote (refusing to play games or be gamed), it could raise some serious questions. Like if men no longer care to vote, what else might they no longer be counted on to do?

    The beauty– and horror– of the campaign is that either way men will hold no sway. All parties WILL pander to females whether men vote or not. But a message will have been sent: the jig is up.

    It will be like soldiers handing rifles to women, saying: “Okay cupcakes, you win. We’re done. You took us for granted, not caring if we lived or died. So guess what? YOU take over now!”

    It’s perfect! You can’t be arrested for not voting and you’re a fool to vote when it doesn’t matter. In this case, NOT doing matters most.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Or we could just all vote Aoirthoir:D

      Not voting is a great idea, as is voting for something made up like Men’s Rights or Masculinism..or something that sends a message to the vote takers, we are here…

    • Stu

      They don’t give a fuck if you don’t vote. All the easier it will be to bring into existence the 1984 style police state that they want, by appealing to women’s fears, and they will be the only ones that count, since men are not voting.

      Also, no man would be able to complain would they, whatever they done, because you could vote, but didn’t.

      • FreeMan

        Making a choice between Establishment Politician A and Establishment Politician B (which is always the choice presented – sure, maybe there are a few third party candidates thrown in the mix, but nobody pays them any attention and they’re usually no different in any substantial way anyways) does nothing to stop the 1984-style police state from coming.

        If you vote Team Red (GOP), you’re voting for the socially conservative police state.
        If you vote Team Blue (Democratic Party), you’re voting for the Keynesian totalitarian police state.
        If you vote for the Greens, you’re voting for the eco-police state.
        If you vote for the Libertarian Party, you’re voting for the Kochtopus police state.

        So, you say you aren’t voting for a party, but for a particular candidate – for the sake of argument, let’s say Ron Paul (who is about as anti-police state as politicians come). At the very best, all you can hope to achieve is to show that when that rarest of unicorns, an Honest Politician, is elected, then liberty has a chance… until the next guy gets into office, and it’s back to business as usual.

        So voting isn’t exactly a practical way of fighting the police state. At least non-voters can have a clear conscience by way of knowing that they didn’t help put the current ruling thug into power.

        I’m with Auntie on this. Sure it smells like Atlas Shrugged. But why should men be obligated to vote into office the officials who will only turn around and assault, imprison, and enslave them?

        • Stu

          Because if you don’t vote for the politician that will assault, imprison and enslave you less, you will get the politician that will assault, imprison and enslave you more

          If I hold you captive, and I give you a vote, you can vote for which one of my thugs will beat you up. Thug x will castrate you, chop your cock off and feed it too you (the left) Thug Y will punch you in face a few times (all non left alternatives)

          If you don’t vote however, you get thug x.

          • FreeMan

            Using your analogy, the left voter is the guy sharpening up and handing knives to Thug X, while the non-left voter is the guy slipping Thug Y a pair of brass knuckles.

            I’d rather be the guy eating my own dick than the guy helping with his torture, no question.

            Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. And voting for evil is in itself evil.

  • Codebuster

    We need to properly understand conservatism.

    Australia is often incorrectly assumed to be conservative. But the politics are thuggish, and the dynamics of control, legislation and regulation bear considerable resemblance to the dynamics of a penal colony.

    People often confuse redneck with conservative. This is incorrect. Australia is redneck, not conservative. Both the Australian left and the Australian right are redneck, characterized by competing privileges, whether it be union versus business, men versus women, government versus the people.

    The politics of the US are beginning to resemble the politics of Australia. You guys are imitating us. It started with stupid seatbelt laws, an Australian initiative that was first foisted upon the world in the state of Victoria in the early 1970s. And bit by bit, the disease continued to spread. In his article, Where it All Began, Eric Peters identifies the point in US history, in 1991, when the US Constitution “was explicitly disavowed by the robed shysters charged (by themselves) with ‘interpreting’ it.” This was the year that the legality of random roadside sobriety checkpoints was established in the US, on the basis of “compelling state interest”. And Australia was well ahead of you, penalizing not only drunk driving, but anything else that might threaten to unsettle the established order. Anti-association laws (permitting who, how and where people are permitted to associate with one another) are fairly well established in Australia, and morph into different forms depending on which interest groups find them offensive at the time. These days bikers are especially targetted by them.

    The thing that characterizes Australian politics is the absence of principles, and the dominance of mob politics. The US Constitution, by contrast, was one founded on principles. But that’s been trashed under George Bush, as Paul correctly notes. Funny coincidence… Bush was buddies with John Howard, Australia’s then prime minister. I wonder what “influence” Howard had over Bush. I suggest that the Iraq war would never have occurred had Howard not come onto the scene to become Bush’s buddy. Greg Sheridan’s book, The Partnership hints at how this might work (though his interpretation is naively optimistic). From his book:

    “The idea, common enough, that in the Australian-US alliance the Americans say what they want and the Australians follow suit is absurdly mistaken. It is the thesis of this book that in the Australian-US alliance, as in many vastly unequal relationships, the power may lie with the bigger party, but the initiative most often lies with the smaller party. […] This book asserts four main propositions: that most of the initiative in the relationship has come from the Australian side during this time, that Howard has had more of the running of the relationship than Bush; that Howard and Bush have transformed the alliance from a predominantly regional affair to a truly global partnership; that Howard has got most of what he wanted from the alliance at, for him, very little cost either politically, militarily or economically; and finally that the US alliance greatly enhances Australian national power.” (pages 12 and 13)

    The US Patriot Act, every contemporary US innovation with the stench of tyranny behind it, has John Howard’s smelly breath all over it. Everything that’s been happening in the US seems to resonate with much that’s going on in Oz. Everything that I’ve seen being recently incorporated into the American system I am familiar with as an established norm in Australia. You’ve caught our disease. Learn from us. Not how to be, but how not to be.

    • Steve_85

      I thought I was the only one who noticed. I’m not sure what order they came in, but both AUS and USA have the same bullshit, and it happened recently.

      • Codebuster

        It came first to Australia. I have no doubt about it. Do a google search on the book titled “Silencing Dissent” by Clive Hamilton. John Howard was PM of Australia from 11 March 1996 to 3 December 2007. Bush became president on 20 January 2001. Bush had the opportunity to observe proceedings for the best part of 5 years to see what would work, before he took office. It is my belief that Australia planted the seed for the amazing possibilities to which we bear witness today. If you get to read Silencing Dissent, you might recognize the seeds of the Patriot Act being planted before Bush even took office.

        I was watching tv some time around 2005 when Richard Armitage was being interviewed. He blurted out a comment that was more disturbing, more revealling, more powerful than any Straussian neocon political theory could be. He was making a comment about how Australian politicians were running things. He said something along the lines “Your guys are making us (the Bush administration) go weak at the knees.” What the ef did he mean by that? That was the first time that it occurred to me that maybe the Americans, under Bush, were taking notes on what the Aussies were doing. Since then, after all that has transpired, I am convinced of it. Isn’t that a hoot, eh? What if there was no sophisticated Straussian political neocon theory involved at all but simply dudes in high places taking their cues from Crocodile Dundee and the Great South Land Downunder?

        And these days we have Rupert Murdoch hitting the news stands again. It’s all about the Australian way of doing business and politics, infecting the globe with a uniquely Australian meme – a meme that has its origins in a penal colony.

        What is it with Australians? We seem so reluctant to confront nasty truths. Have a look at the recent discussions on The Spearhead on the topic of Europe. Notice all those comments coming down on the US? So much hate being expressed on the part of Americans. Now I’m not saying that’s necessarily a good thing, but it does suggest something about Americans’ latent motivation to confront truth. I was going to make a contribution about Australia, but thought I’d hold back to see what happens. Know what? Not a peep from any Australian. Nothing. That says a lot. Especially when you know what I know.

        The Australian solution to the current crisis being discussed here would most likely be to enact new laws favoring men to even out the balance, and to build domestic violence shelters for men, so that they can have access to the same privileges that women have. Australians live within a world of competing privileges that need to be balanced (and by implication, demanding gubmint intervention). The Americans, by contrast, seemingly still hearing the muted voices of the Founding Fathers whispering in their ears, are increasingly suggesting fewer laws, less government intervention. Only in Australia. Only in America.

        The ugliness of America is its beauty. The beauty of Australia is its ugliness. It is the American instinct for truth that is laying bare ugly realities. It is the Australia obsession with deception and denial that conceals the ugliest realities from view. Easy-going and relaxed my arse.

  • jms5762

    If I remember correctly Goldwater was pro choice and had a personal connection to Planned Parenthood. Lawyers and politicians will come clamoring for votes but be mindful of the lip service being paid. Any legislation proposed and passed on behalf of MRA’s needs to be very very carefully scrutinized. It may be toothless and only be pandering for votes. It be also be extremely detrimental. Publicity affilliated with the movement can be discrediting and even jeopadize the safety of MRA’s. Expect success failure and substanial personal sacrifice.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      The only legislation we need passed, is legislation revoking legislation. That, and that alone, is the only thing they can pass on our behalf.

      • BeijaFlor

        Exactly right. We don’t need no more steenkin’ laws, no more steenkin’ legislation, no more steenkin’ regulation.

        You can’t legislate individual responsibility into being. You can only raise up more and higher fences of rules and laws to imprison the human soul, and to make individuals fear ever more the possibility (nay, the probability) of being impaled on these fences. And so you foster (and get) less and less initiative, less and less willing effort, less and less true responsibility. And you get more and more “responsibility as blame,” “responsibility as guilt,” more and more punishment for “crimes” that shouldn’t be.

        Every law, at every level, gives its enactors and its enforcers another measure of power over others’ lives. Every law requires its interpreters, its clerks, its enforcers; the fatter the rule-book, the more interpreters, clerks and enforcers are “needed” to keep track of it all, the bigger the bureaucracy will get in response to this “need”. Those bureaucrats need to be fed, and they have (after all) the power to force “the economy” (that’s you and me, the earners, the taxpayers, gentlemen) to feed them.

        I don’t recall the exact quote, from Atlas Shrugged, but the flavor of it was – Big Government wants you to be unable to avoid breaking the law, so that you will be made vulnerable by your recognition of your guilt.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          There is a reason I am an anarchist.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    I have come prudently and independently to the same conclusion as Paul. Courageous piece, Paul. I urge MRA’s to consider the difficulty of the line Paul is carving out, and its commensurate value.

    Anti, you are dead on.

    Any guidance on the quandary when the right candidate is in the wrong party? Ron Paul.

    Politics crystallized:

    The physical world is governed by fundamental principles. Gravity works, you can’t fuck with it, it just works. There is no ‘progressing’ the fact that gravity works, you simply respect it as an immutable principle, as the rotation of the planets and the tides. Social dynamics are not exceptional in this regard. They are also governed by physical, immutable principles. “Progressing” away from them is an illusion of short term gratification and ultimately destructive because it is analogous to “unlearning” that gravity works, and thus falling off a cliff. Two fundamental principles should define politics: 1) personal liberty is THE fundamental value 2) government is inherently oppressive

    All of history exemplifies these basic truths from which all politics must derive.

  • Free Human Being

    For me there are three types of people,

    The ones who love a burger so much they think everyone should be forced to eat the burger,

    The ones who hate a burger so much they think no body should be allowed to eat that burger and…

    The ones who don’t give a shit what burger you eat, as long as you get to choose the burger you want.

    Just substitute burgers for morals/ethics/rights

    Each one of those philosophies denotes the tenet principles of the three centers of politics.

    The right think they know burgers best and must force you to choose the right ones.

    The left want to ban the ones they don’t like.

    The libertarians don’t care what you do just don’t tell us to eat your burger or that we can’t eat the one’s we want.

    I like a system where whatever freak is in control and whatever the majority of loons think, they are fundamentally prevented from using my money to fund it.

    This would kill feminism dead, because what good would they be without taxpayers money, as the left are the last people to actually employ the work hard, earn the money, then use it to support your choice philosophy.

  • Howard

    Great article Paul. I took notice of the VAWA vote and noticed there wasn’t one Senator that voted it down that proclaimed it harmed men in some way. As you mentioned, I would take any reason to kill this beast, I was disillusioned as to the number that caved in to the “war on women” mantra that would follow them if they voted no. I would have donated what few dollars I have to any Senator that would have stood up and spoke out on our behalf. But only saw meek, feminist pandering worms cave in or vote no for some minor added-on issue. But you are right, we need our voices heard. All of us need to make calls when asked to, write letters and send emails and faxes and sign petitions and spread our cause. Attend meetings and demonstrations when possible. Those that only complain on social media and take no action, are only heard by those already enlightened. There are some good signs of progress but few and far between. Let’s hope everyone kicks it up a notch. I see Romney as nothing more than Obama Jr. When Obama said he was dedicating his campaign to women workers, Romney just said “me too”.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/RockingMrE?feature=mhee Rocking Mr. E

    Thank you for writing this Paul – it clears up a lot of issues right now in the MRM. It’s about damn time that people understood that the values of small government via conservatism, and particularly libertarianism, is the true path for the MRM.

    There are those that will try to co-opt this movement via socialism and statism, and frankly, that is the opposite of what a sustainable, post-feminist world should be.

    At least now, by makng your highly respected voice loud and clear on this matter, others will think twice about saying that the MRM is “apolitical”.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Masculinism is Apolitical. It is our duty as Masculinists to not allow mens rights to be co-opted but instead to co-opt everything else. We intend to and are co-opting religion, politics, corporations and pretty much everything. There’s more of us than there are of them. Keep that in mind Brother.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/RockingMrE?feature=mhee Rocking Mr. E

        You can’t be everything though my friend. Apolitics is amoral, and amorality leads to immorality.

        If one desires philosophical strength then they need strength of conviction, character, and judgement, and I’m afraid that not every ideology has this at its core. In fact, many ideologies are downright destructive and hateful.

        The philosophy of non-aggression and individual liberty are the true paths to freedom. Equality is a fool’s errand that will collpase everything around it, leading to tyranny of the false idol of the state and deification.

        I care nothing for equality, but I will die for equity.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          I doubt I have to state that our feeling is that apolitical does not lead to amoral and even should it, amoral does not lead to immoral. In fact most decisions in life are amoral, neither moral, nor immoral.

          I’m not being everything when I recognize that one Masculinist is socialist and another capitalist. Do you know what they both have in common? Repudiation of state and forced politics. So the Socialist Masculinist believes in socialism as a choice only with the right to opt out inherent in his beliefs. The same goes for the Capitalist Masculinist.

          The ideas of collectivist politics are in themselves not the problem. Rather, it is the desire of so many to force this on others. A consensual Kibbutz for instance would be perfectly acceptable in Libertarian thought. A Village for Men will be run as a Meritocratic Volunteerocracy. If you want something done, post a request. If you get enough volunteers then you can do your project. We call this a project based economy. No money will exchange hands, no goods will be traded. What makes it different from the socialist systems we have now? Consent. ACTUAL consent.

          So when considering things like socialism, capitalism, conservativism, liberalism, democracy and other forms of governance, we must be careful to analyse what is good with them and what is not. Let us not think that any particular system is wholly right or wholly wrong. Let us really analyse them.

          The largest impediment to freedom and life is always the state. The state kills more than all murderers combined. The state kidnaps more than all kidnappers combined. The state through taxation steals more than all thieves combined. So when I recently started to dig into communism and realized that a pure communist system would eliminate the state and be run entirely by consent, well that I don’t object to at all. But a communist state, like a republican state, which always leads to tyranny, I object to strongly.

          In short, the state is the problem. Small state or none at all, is to be preferred in all cases to a large, centralized state remote from those it rules. Jefferson said let the government fear the people. I say, let there be government too small to even be able to fear anyone.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/RockingMrE?feature=mhee Rocking Mr. E

            Just to clarify Arthoir, I’m not talking about amoral activities that we carry out from day to day, like brushing our teeth, or other neutral activities. I’m talking about first principles, like non-aggression.

            Yes, the only way I see socialism (and communism) working is if is done via a free market in small collectives, where people have a choice to be a part of it, as opposed to the abolition or restriction of property rights via state coercion.

            That is why the free market is the moral option for a free society.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Anything involving currency always leads to banks and usury. Thus currency and free markets are immoral if one really digs into them. Its time we explored new options.

            In any case the context I understood of your statement was that I could not be apolitical because that was amoral. And I suggest fairly strongly that I can indeed be apolitical. I can have very specific policies such as non-aggression and consent. These policies can be apolitical, they can be tenets of every system from socialist to capitalist.

            The point is that there can be moral socialism. There can be moral capitalism. It is really a matter of dissecting what tenets we stand for individually, clearing out those that we known to be immoral like violence, currency, usury and banking. Then leaving what is left.

          • FreeMan

            “Anything involving currency always leads to banks and usury.”

            Absent a coercive/violent state, currency is nothing more than the most liquid commodity in the marketplace. Unless you plan on forbidding all voluntary exchange (which would itself require the use of violence and coercion), you can’t get rid of currency.

            If the Revolution happened tomorrow, and by next month every form of currency in the world had disappeared or been destroyed, you’d have new forms of currency within days, unless you killed people to prevent it.

            I have to admit that I’m curious as to what you find to be inherently immoral about banking, and specifically whether those objection would equally apply to full-reserve banking.

        • Kai

          I’m apolitical because I’m a moral person.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            That sounds about like me.

  • lensman

    I know I haven’t been active in the site lately, but I have a policy of only sitting down to write something and comment when I have something useful to add to a discussion. This is going to be a long post, so if you don’t want to read what happened in Greece, you can just skip to the paragraphs after the “=====” which is more relevant to Paul’s topic (CTRL+F is your friend).

    ========
    In any case, I am here, writing from Greece on the aftermath of the elections to report that the two-party system just got a serious blow to the head.

    Basically, the two previously leading parties barely got 33% of the vote combined. Here is how the results turned out:

    New Democracy (basically the Greek version of Republicans): 19.2%

    SY.RI.ZA (Basically the Leftist-Libertarian Party): 16.3%

    PASOK (Socialist Party, but I like to view it as the Greek Version of the Democrats): 13.6%

    Independent Party (Comprised of previous members of both PASOk and New Democracy who were opposed to the austerity measures): 10.5%

    Communist Party (No Comment): 8,5%

    Golden Dawn (Greek Nationalists): 7%

    Democratic Left (No comment): 6%

    An important thing to note is that the two-party system was a staple of the Greek political landscape for over 30 years. Anyone who wanted to do politics in Greece had to join them or muddle in powerlessness and obscurity. They literally controlled everything, from economics to the narrative. So how did everything crumble so completely and utterly?

    I believe this happened for the following reasons:

    1) The estabishment of the internet and the growing popularity of YouTube and Facebook. Suddenly people had a means of recording and exchanging information and sharing it with each other without it being filtered through the mainstream media. Which leads to the other two major points.

    2) Major (and I do mean MAJOR) de-valuation of all the mainstream media from Newspapers to TV-Channels. Once the Greek people started sharing information with each other, they realised that what the TV channels told them was lies and that they couldn’t trust news journalists that were being paid for and sustained by the rich elites controlling the country. When major scandals broke out it was the bloggers, not the media that said the truth. As a result, newspaper sales went down dramatically, with a few major ones shutting completely down, and the TV channels stopped being “Opinion Makers”.

    3) A complete de-valuation of the political system. Once the Greek people started sharing information and realized what their politicians had actually signed (i.e. a complete sell-out of public and private property and major economic resources such as oil, natural resourses and minerals) their attitudes against politicians started to change. As the austerity measures were getting even more brutal they could actually see and share information about their elected representatives living the high life and moving their money abroad. Those politicians that appeared regularly on TV and had their faces known were suddenly too scared to walk the streets without a bunch of bodyguards surrounding them. The former Prime Minister was booed as a traitor. And the parties that signed the austerity measures took a large nose-dive in popularity. A lot of politicians realised this and they jumped ship by creating their own parties.

    In other words, the two-party system broke down mainly because the people started controlling their own narrative. They started talking to each other and communicating with each other instead of just trusting what they were seeing on TV and reading in newspapers.

    The results shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who follows the Greek political landscape. The Greek people essentially had a choice of either burning their own house down or keep living with the plague. They chose to burn it down…

    …The problem is that once the house burns down we have nowhere to go. Thanks to the “wise” choices of BOTH the Greek Politicians and the Greek People we are now a country that imports everything and produces nothing.

    It’s now hard to believe but there was a time when Greece actually was an economic tour-de-force. There was a sizable industry, agriculture and production. So what happened in the course of 30 years that led us to this stated of affairs?

    The short answer is that my people took the money. When the EU offered us easy money in exchange of stopping various major exports in European countries in order to join the EU, we accepted. When the EU offered us easy money to essentially throw out our agricultural products, we accepted. When the economic bubble was growing, we threw our easy money in the stock market, hoping for an even easier profit. We never stopped to think that there was a bigger agenda. We took the money, and we are now paying the price.

    I seriously don’t know how things are going to turn out. My hope is that we will finally default and take down the whole corrupt EU establishment with us (and it says a lot about the conditions here when I consider bankruptcy to be the optimistic outcome) but I really don’t think that this will happen. The media are already spreading the fear of “non-governance” among the populace and pushing for repeat elections in the 20th of June while the major news sources outside of Greece are calling the results “ludicrous” already painting them with a negative light. Major blog-sites are being blocked from Greek ISPs, and youtube videos are being taken down in an attempt for the major media to recontrol the narrative.

    ========

    Is there a lesson in all of this? Can what happened in Greece actually happen in the USA as well? Can the two-party system crumble as easily as it has crubled in Greece? My opinion is unfortunately “not yet”, for the following reasons:

    -The major news media in the USA also control the online narrative. Unlike in Greece, where the most popular blog-sites are being written by normal citizens, in the USA most popular blogs (such as the Huffington Post) are being written by journalists who, for the most part, follow the narrative that is being spoon-fed to them by their bosses.

    -The copyright laws and defamation are NOT stricter (in fact the defamation laws are much stricter and brutal in Greece), but they are more effectively enforced allowing for a more effective muzzling of independent voices.

    -It’s much more difficult for a Senator who is already in power to “defect” and join a different party other than the two big ones, or make a new one of his own. One of the main reasons that the two-party system crumbled here was that politicians that were previously part of the two leading Greek parties realised where things are going and they decided to form their own parties. The two-major parties stopped encompassing a wide variety of ideologies and became much more restricted and less effective in gathering votes. For some reason, I can’t see US senators doing the same thing, though I believe that this IS possible in Australian and the UK.

    -Things are still not bad enough for the majority of the electorate, at least not to the point where elected Senators are being harassed for being “traitors” wherever they go and having produce pelted at them.

    Do we have a chance of changing all this? Sure, but it’s not going to be easy. From my point of view, this is what should be done in order make this happen.

    1) Document everything. Keep a cell phone with a camera on you at all times and record all your interactions with the police, the media, and your elected officials. When you see someone being abused in law or in public, make sure it’s immortalized. Save everything on Cloud, and give it to someone who you can trust when the police tries to knock down your door.

    2) Share that information. Post YouTube videos. Make commentary. Though it might seem that you are preaching to the choir, though your rating might look like Vader’s saber from all the “Dislikes”, there will be a time when people will be open to your message.

    3) Find your fellow man and help him out. It might come as a surprise to some, but people are less inclined to take you for a loon once you’ve pulled them out of a gutter. As Paul once said in the radio show, it’s important to create a subculture, a place where we can support and help each other out. Maybe we will never be in power or control the narrative, but we will not be helpless and we will have some place to turn to when things get bad.

    4) Support and push for a third party, one that is preferable closer to your ideals than the leading ones. If the third parties are weak, no senator will be willing to take the plunge and stand up for what’s right. If he or she feels that they have no choice but to follow their party’s line, they’ll keep doing what they are being told.

    • http://none j24601

      Lensman, I’d like to recommend the following blog to you and others who are following events in Greece:

      http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/

      I’m sure the host there would support much of what you say above, and would welcome your contribution to the debate in this hugely important threat to our liberty. I’d also like to try to engage him, as a fellow writer, on all matters MRM; I think he’d make a powerful ally.

      • lensman

        Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

    • keyster

      That’s very interesting to hear from someone in Greece.
      Thank you!

      We have something similar here happening in that the internet and a 24/7 news cycle on cable TV is fomenting the debate.

      The liberal narrative here has run basically unopposed except for the AM radio freq band, which conservatives OWN. Fox News and the internet (Drudge Report) came along and changed everything.

      I think it’s important to have a check and balance system. As long as conservatism is the balance and liberalism is the check. It hasn’t been that way since Reagan.

    • Raven01

      “1) Document everything. Keep a cell phone with a camera on you at all times and record all your interactions with the police, the media, and your elected officials. When you see someone being abused in law or in public, make sure it’s immortalized. Save everything on Cloud, and give it to someone who you can trust when the police tries to knock down your door.”

      http://www.pixiq.com/article/apple-to-give-third-parties-power-to-disable-your-iphone-camera

      If you plan on recording corruption like Big Daddy Justice, or protecting yourself, start turfing that crApple stuff right now.
      Better yet, if you have been buying Apple products write them with a complaint about assured abuse of this technology by corrupt public officials as the reason you will be switching to a competitors product that does not use this technology.

  • Steve_85

    Someone may have pointed this out above, but here in Australia you are required by law to either vote, or pay a fine.

    You can get around this by doing what is known as a ‘donkey vote,’ where you fill in your form in a nonsense, or incomplete manner and it then can’t be used. It is placed with other ‘Informal Votes’ and doesn’t count.

    • Stu

      You don’t have to vote, you just have to get your name ticked off at the polling station. They had you the ballet papers, and you just leave the drop them in the rubbish bin on the way out.

  • napocapo69

    @Paul
    Hi Paul, hi everyone. First of all I apologise for my poor English. I do my best.
    I’m Italian not a US citizen. I follow and support you as well as other anti-misandry sites. I would like contribute more effectively to them, in the international/english blog-sphere, but I’ve to deal also with my Italian activitsm side…

    I’m Italian, and also a white etherosexual male. Worst of it, I’m also a libertarian and leftist. And to make things worst I’m a member of Italian Democratic Party, still…

    That said I agree with most of what you stated and I follow with interest Bernard Chapin thoughts and overall I appreciate all of his takes on feminism, while not buying everything on the more pro capitalism stances….but this is a long story.

    I agree 100% on Paul position that neither Repubblican and Democratic parties are going to address misandry; simply because feminism is a well sold product, by left and right, it is just that leftists sell it much better, they are more credible and consistent about welfare, and feminism is basically welfare that has become warfare.

    While following your thoughts and appreciating your article, I have to say that you come to arguable conclusions. Conservatism is a political stance that while having some overlapping with anti-feminism, it does not suites MRA mission overall. First of all I believe that we have to stick to a design of a fair society where everyone is accountable of his/her actions, and treated as individual not a member of a gender. Further consider that conservatism tends to scare women that in large porpotion fear that “it wants to take them back to middle-age”. Also, conservatism is a well establish concept in USA, but not that much worldwide, so by backing it, you will end in having a poor international cultural support since outside USA boundaries you have a shortcut Conservatism = Republicans, even if it is wrong.

    Feminism is not the enemy, is one of the enemies. The more ugly one is the “magnina’s” party (I prefer the term “bargaign predator” instead of “mangina”, but I stick to Bernard defintion) that is widespread.

    You have correctly pointed out the political issue. I feel that we need a pragmatic approach. When it comes to the elections, we have to support the less misandric stances, hence the less misandric party, case by case.That will make us stronger, broader, and keep us independent.

    I supported, few years ago Obama election, and i’ve also donated for his political campaign. Now I’m one of his most fierce opposition.

    Take care.

  • JGteMolder

    I neither believe that government is the source of all our problems, nor do I believe that government is the solution to all our problems.

    Like with just about anything, nothing is that black and white.

    Without a strong enough government, companies will get to suck you dry and you will have no recourse, because you’ll be sucked dry even more in the attempt to fight them. A government to ensure individual freedom, needs to be the shield between individuals and corporations.

    At the same time, there are massive amounts of problems, if they even are that, where government mucking will only make things worse. Just look around you.

    Present day (feminist, or should I say corporate bought) governments are exactly the opposite as what they should be. They are intrusive where they should be gone, while they are gone where they should be intrusive. They intrude in the lives of individuals to fuck them over, and they stay out of the rich and companies way, or even help them, to fuck over individuals.

    I’m neither left, nor am I right, I’m neither conservative, nor am I liberal, I am communist, yet I am violently opposed to it, I am libertarian, yet many libertarian claims I roll my eyes at the sheer stupidity.

    It’s because I’m a bloody pragmatist, couple with some basic respect for human dignity and freedom. If a left-leaning solution is the best solution to a problem, I’m all for it. If a right-leaning solution is the best solution to a problem I’m for it.

    For example: Universal (and thus free, barring the taxes needed for it) Healthcare; dump all the insurance companies, shove the feminists out; everyone, male, female, old and young get the best healthcare possible.

    It costs the UK 8% GNP, while the US wastes 16% GNP on the abortion of a “healthcare” system they have now.

  • alkarnur

    Dear Paul, I believe you’re mistaking conservatism and libertarianism for the same thing. Conservatism really is conserving traditional values and social institutions, it really is pro-marriage, pro-Christianity, etc. It’s the political dimension of traditionalism. It really wants those “values enshrined” in government and the state. Whereas Libertarianism want the minimum size of government, the minimum amount of intrusion into personal lives by the government which has neither Christian and/or traditionalist values enshrined in it, nor Liberal / Cultural Marxist values enshrined in it.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Not so. Conservativism is about being conservative with resources. It has nothing to do with religion, marriage, traditionalism and so on. These are elements of the neocons. Paul is dead on with his assessment.

      But it demonstrates why the labels create problems. Conservative today is not the conservative of yesteryear. It behooves us to make explicit statements about what we do and do not support.

      Would Paul be opposed to a consensual Kibbutz? I doubt it. Is he anti-statist? Sure sounds like it. So let’s break it down to what policies we do and do not support.

      I actually strongly suggest a brand new political party for Men. One that can incorporate elements from other parties that COULD be pro-male. The most pro-male platform of this party should be that government must run entirely on voluntary donations, no taxation whatsoever and the complete elimination of currency and the total destruction of the banking system should also be paramount. Economies must be resource based or project based.

  • Rad

    “All of this was done to benefit multinational corporations and a very corrupt group of the powerful elites.”.

    I strongly disagree with this libertarian premise.

    My explanation is a lot simpler: ideas matter, particularly moral ideas.

    Bush did what he thought was moral, being his brother’s keeper. Afghan people stuck in the middle of tribal warfare? Sacrifice (mostly male) citizens to free them.

    It’s the moral thing to do.

    Morality has power, and belief in the wrong morality will cripple. This is why men don’t hit back. This is why they accept the attack on them in the first place, literally and figuratively. It isn’t that they are “conditioned by thousands of years of role behavior” it is that they believe at a fundamental level that their sacrifice is virtuous. It is the power of ideas.

    That so-called “elites” know this ethic and exploit it does not mean that they were the intended benefactors of those who acted upon it. What you cite as the cause, Paul, is simply a consequence.

    I truly hope we can attack the moral idea that gives rise to these consequences, striking the root, and not the branches…or weeds.

  • .ProleScum.

    This may be the best piece I’ve ever read on AVfM.

    And holy shit, that’s saying something.

  • Free Human Being

    The thing is most countries have so much wealth in government owned assets that they could protect freedoms and save a system of helping the most needy without ever having to tax you.

    Income tax is burnt up in a flame of inefficient administration and unaccountable idiocy.

    But a small governance would be exponentially cheaper, and the possible generation of money from the vast assets of current government would definitely look after the elderly, less abled and needful.

    All without inpinging upon individual freedoms.

    Democracy should decide by vote what we do with state generated profits, but none of those should come by force from income tax.

    If feminists want to create organizations, they can damn well fund them off their own dime, lest they slip into oblivion, or worse yet – get real jobs.

    I am convinced that we can maintain the social responsibility our left leaning MRA’s want, all without sacrificing the economic conservatism the right leaning MRA’s pine for and we can can in turn keep more wealth, generate more production and thusly more fiscally opportune times and deal a massive blow to sycophantic feminism all in one glorious, foul swoop of contingent, collective libertarianism.

  • TigerMan

    That needed saying and probably a few times more into the future. This article stated it all so well that maybe just a link will suffice from now on.

  • Augen

    Haven’t commented for a long time. This one concerns fundamental lines of demarcation and how strategy is organized on the front end in ways that cannot be easily reversed if found to be misguided later, so I’ll add my $0.02.

    I am in agreement that the tacit association by many MRA/MRM with right-leaning politics (whether called Rep, conservative or libertarian) is a whole reason I both sympathize with MRM, consider it enlightend and most importantly: keep it at arms length.

    I don’t think MRM is a left/right issue.
    Not left/right. Not Repubican/Democrat. Not Libertarian/Progressive.

    MRM is a human rights issue. End of story. Politicize it through some misguided compulsion to affiliate it with standard polarizations and its death for the movement, you gain the politics, lose the human rights, and you lose.

    To be successful, the more ideologically right-leaning an MRA is, the more he must subscribe to this and sublimate his other political passions.

    I find that many folks on the right (on the left too but they aren’t in this discussion so not relevant) are just not prepared to accept that there is a valid range of democratic, republican (small d and r both) and capitalist discourse that extends outside their own convictions about what is right.

    If we limit ourselves to only those who fit inside the scope of what such people think is right, we lose supporters and likelihood of success for no other reason than myopia.

    Valid citizen, patriot, capitalists believe in a social contract, and value the social contract above individual achievement (without taking it all the way to socialism).

    Valid citizen, patriot, capitalists believe in limits on the right to property, in precisely the same way almost all of us believe in limits on the rights to speech (i.e.: can’t yell “fire” in crowded movie theater) and religion (i.e.: religion is no protection for violence or murder).

    Such people, often self-identifying as Democrats (big D), still see a role for individual achievement, and still see the centrality of property and protections for property in our socio-economic system.

    You don’t have to agree with them. You may deny the existence of a social contract and you many think that the potential of unlimited wealth accumulation is a god-given right … that is valid.

    That doesn’t make you right, it just makes you valid. Not right, not wrong … valid in a democratic, capitalist society where other people don’t see eye to eye with you, but sure as hell will share a trench with you.

    You are valid to deny the social contract, valid to believe in unlimited property, and others are valid to affirm the social contract and insist in limits on property.

    And nothing about such valid, center-left beliefs should preclude a person from sympathy or support of MRA/MRM, when MRM is a human rights movement, unless we allow conservative or libertarian ideologues to define MRM arbitrarily around their ideological shiboleths.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    All of the political ideologies described, including feminism are poorly defined and are dependent on specific issues being discussed. Political ideologies, including feminism are very fluid and variable with time and culture. The assumption that feminism is primarily leftist / liberal / socialist or the like is a big mistake for any pro-male advocate.

    I think we need a new perspective that isn’t based on following existing political ideologies but rather infiltrating and changing all political ideologies to reduce misandry and support specific pro-male policies. With this perspective, we will never run the risk of being co-opted. We will co-opt them.

    Reducing state power and feminist funding doesn’t actually help men. Anti-feminism, anti-statism, etc. are not inherently pro-male. A pure liberation philosophy will support the continued disposability of working class men for the benefit of capitalists and further erode the middle class, thereby hurting men and families.

    As bad as Obama is, the other option is near guaranteed to have American men fighting and dying in the next middle east war.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      “The assumption that feminism is primarily leftist / liberal / socialist or the like is a big mistake for any pro-male advocate.”

      One merely has to read the Vedas, the Tain, Homer and other ancient literature to understand that feminism is as old as society. To think that female entitlements arose with the left and will end with the left is indeed a large mistake. The second large mistake is to think that feminism is a modern development.

      “I think we need a new perspective that isn’t based on following existing political ideologies but rather infiltrating and changing all political ideologies to reduce misandry and support specific pro-male policies. With this perspective, we will never run the risk of being co-opted. We will co-opt them.”

      Such is exactly almost verbatin what Masculinists have been saying and doing for the last ten years. Just when they think we are conservative we flip and suddenly are socialist. Then we become libertarian and then we are capitalist. The enemy is unable to understand us because we are the enemy, shapeshifting has incredible potential. For instance, I am entirely undismayed, as are so many mras, by politically correct language. PC language could be one of the amazing tools of the MRM if they understood it right. A short google of me and you will find I regularly use it when in discussions with feminists. They accuse, I accuse before they accuse. They fabricate, I fabricate before they do. They demand adherence to politically correct speech, I demand it before they do and with more vehemence.

      Infiltrating every area of life is the duty of the Masculinist. My job is not to convince the socialist to become a capitalist, if there were pro male. My job is instead to infilitrate socialism and make it more pro-male.

      “anti-statism, etc. are not inherently pro-male.”

      Anti-statism combined with the destruction of the banking system and currency would go a long way to making economies resource and project based. That would definitely leave out the entitlements of the “equal” gender. It would force women to actually be equal.

    • keyster

      Denis – If feminists took that approach, (and MANY wanted to back in the 70’s), it would have never gotten off the ground.

      There was a big deabate among the sisterhood about Democrats being too male dominated and whether a “Woman’s Party” should be formed. That would have been a big mistake.

      ALL social movements become political.
      It’s the only viable path.

      • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

        Feminism did take that route and has very effectively infiltrated all political parties. If it wasn’t so, then Republicans wouldn’t have been down on their knees expressing their firm support for VAWA. They still deserve credit for trying to impose accountability, but they never made an effort to improve the legislation to become pro-male or pro-family.

        The trick is to get both sides fighting over men’s vote as much as they do women’s vote.

        It’s unlikely that Republicans will ever explicitely support men’s rights, simply because social movements are a leftist philosophy. IMO, it makes far more sense to transform the left and have the right follow when they see what they are missing.

        • keyster

          Republicans do not see Women’s Activist groups, and women’s groups don’t bother asking for invitations.

          You’ll never get the Left to acknowledge “men’s rights”, because “the privilaged white male class” are those who oppress the Left’s constituencies of “victim class” groups.

          If you think appealing to the Left’s sense of “fairness”, Social justice and humanitarianism will get them to include men and boys as yet another victim group, well good luck with that.

          If you make men and boys a victim group, how do you maintain the victim class narrative of your major constituencies, especially women and girls? You can’t. They won’t allow it.

          A Pro-male narrative is a fantasy in a political sphere. Pro-Individual responsibility and self-reliance is the only way.

          • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

            I think there is a better chance with the left and Warren Farrel’s proposal for a White House Council on Boys and Men is an excellent example.

            The growing strength of men’s rights has forced feminism to change their victim narrative from patriarchy to kyriarchy. These narratives are not static, there is progress being made.

          • keyster

            Warren Farrell’s galant attempt fell like the Hindenburg.
            At least he tried.
            I can’t see Valerie Jarrett bending over to piss off the feminists at NOW.

            I agree some progress has been made to shift the narrative, which is important. It’s what happens when victim classes collide within the left; start battling for resources and attention. It’s why N.O.W. makes such a big fuss about “diversity” and lesbian rights.

            When the erstwhile MRA (or conservative for that matter) has to contend with a Feminist Education system and a Feminist mass media – – all firmly biased towards the female – – he has quite a challenge to get his message out.

            Politics is nasty business.
            You do what needs to be done to get what you want.
            You exploit the system.
            It’s not hard to do in the US.
            The Tea Party came from nowhere; organized mostly online.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            These attempts are not going to fail in the future though. I think you both have excellent points. The reality is that we need to infiltrate everything. There’s only one faction in the mens rights movement that does not have these arguments among its patronage. Masculinists regularly infiltrate everything. We’re socialists. We’re capitalists. We’re democratic. We’re republican. We’re anarchists.

            Unlike other factions in the MRM, we’re not waiting for permission, we’re not waiting for any of these groups to agree with us, we’re not letting them control the discourse, we’re not thinking that maybe, just maybe hopefully we might see a change before we die. We’ve decided one simple truth, we WILL END THIS SHIT IN OUR LIFETIMES. Period.

            So ultimately we give fuck all about what liberals right now THINK or BELIEVE or how they ACT. Or conservatives. Or middle thinkers. We’ve decided that we are going to control the conversation, and we will. We have decided that the left will be what WE decide it to be. The right will be what WE decide it to be.

            Now, when the rest of the movement makes the same decision, we’re invite them along for the ride.

            The wisdom of what Denis is saying should not be overlooked by any MRM member.

  • keyster

    Find me a piece of misandrist legislation that was voted down by the right.
    Just one will do.
    (insert sound of crickets chirping here)
    (insert more crickets here)

    One cricket chirps VERY LOUDLY…over here!

    The Senate failed to bring Harry Reid’s Paycheck Fairness Act to vote in Dec 2010, because Republican Senators blocked it straight across party lines via cloture vote.

    This is because Republicans gained one more Senator in Nov 2010 and were able to block it, (Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat).

    If anyone would like the details on the political machinations of this and implications, please let me know.

    Liberals control Academe and the Mass Media, so they control the narrative and the culture. This makes opposition to the very appealing Populist Speak and Identity Politics particularily challenging for conservatives.

    A conservative can’t openly be for Men’s Rights, when he eschews identity politics, so don’t EVER expect it. He can however be against legislation and funding for women and girls vis a vis men, because it’s Unconstitional and we’re kinda broke right now.

    Obama is easy pickins. The REAL work begins with holding Romney accountable. We let the “compasionate conservative” Bush go on too long. We were still in shock over 9/11.

    We culled the herd of Santorum and Newt. Is Romney ideal? Of course not. But if you want 4 more years of the Whitehouse Council on Women and Girls, with nada for Men and Boys, you won’t support Obama.

    FYI – When I contacted Sen John Cornyn’s office in 2010 regarding the Paycheck Fairness Act his response was it was “bad for business for government to regulate what certian employees are paid”.

    See how it works guys?

    Republicans feigned concern over VAWA going to gays but the larger debate was over accountability – – there is none. $700 million a year goes into a big black hole. So you honestly believe Republicans were going to fight this over “equality” for men? And right in the midst of the “War on Women” narrative gaining traction in the polls? This is politics. This is a Democracy. It’s ugly and imperfect.

    Feminists co-opted the Democrat Party because they “represented the women of America”. MRA’s need to co-opt ANY party that’s for smaller government and laissez faire capitalism, because it’s the only hope of emancipation for men and boys.

    There will never be an identifiable Men’s Movement because it’s simply antithetical to our biology, modern civilization, and above all else the political zeitgeist.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      “So you honestly believe Republicans were going to fight this over “equality” for men?”

      No, I don’t, but I am still perplexed why Republicans have neglected the anti-family nature of VAWA and have yet to take a pro-family stand. Pro-family politics are supposedly what they stand for, but I haven’t seen much effort other than more pandering to women.

      • keyster

        What makes you think VAWA is Anti-Family?

        If a man is hurting his wife, the mother of his children, it’s actually “pro-family”.

        You can’t keep looking at everything through an MRA lens, and assume everyone else does too. You have to frame your objections within the zeitgeist.

        You don’t say “This isn’t fair to men!”.
        You say, “this is $700 million dollars that we don’t know where it goes and what it accomplishes”.

        To say you’re against VAWA is akin to saying, “Puppies and kittens should be euthanized to save money!” You must be FOR violence against women if your against VAWA. See how it works? See how the game is played?

        Republicans have to walk the line VERY CAREFULLY, or else democrats drag out the “war on women” card, and that card plays VERY WELL in the female biased media.

        It’s a fools dream to think politicians (or society) will care about men and boys to the same extent they do women and girls. When the Democrats stop referring to themselves as “The Party of Women” and referring to Republicans as “the party that hates women”, you’ll have made some progress convincing the Left that men and boys have rights too.

        • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

          I suppose that is the prevailing opinion, but the reality of VAWA is that the state doesn’t help families deal with domestic violence as a social issue, but rather just destroys families in an effort to save women from men. It’s not just anti-male but also anti-family. “anti-male” is the MRA perspective, “anti-family” is the social conservative perspective and there have been a few social conservative pundits portraying it as such.

          If Republicans really cared about families then they would be attempting to change the policies to deal with the majority of low level and reciprocal DV without jumping in and destroying families. It doesn’t surprise me that nobody cares about men and boys, but the champions of family values have been asleep at the wheel.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Yes. I do really expect them to say they are doing this because the law is unequal. It is about damned time politicians started standing up for Men and saying that men are being treated unequally.

          • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

            Keyster is a good friend of men by explaining the hurdles that we face. When speaking with right leaning men it’s best to talk about money and family and when speaking with left leaning men, it is better to talk about equality and underprivileged men.

            Equality and social policy are not a strong part of the right. I suspect this is why things have become so lopsided by leftist social policy. It also leads me to believe that the left may be easier to transform from within.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I agree.

    • Paul Elam

      LOL, Keyster, I am surprised that someone was able to dig that up. Not surprised that it was you. :)

      Not enough to make the pubs smell good, though.

      I am betting that time will prove you wrong. All we need is a bit more traction and the MRM will be like its own party.

  • Lordmep

    It seems to me that Republicans, even the false conservative ones, tend to be the lesser of two evils when comparing the parties. That still leaves them pretty bad, but there may yet be hope for them. Just has how many MRAs project that we won’t be seeing any real change in our favor for decades to come, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that when that change does come it will more likely than not be at the recommendation of the Conservative party, whatever that happens to be in 50 or 100 years.

  • AndrewV

    Paul said:

    “If you are a left leaning individual, and you support men’s rights but are tiring of people taking shots at the left and blaming them for feminism, then I can only suggest that you take that to the feminist source in your own camp”.

    Hi Paul, I am a leftist (not a very good one though) but let me try and explain why this may be problematic, and why in many cases, you may as well ask a Christian to listen to the words of Satan.

    I hope you will understand, after I have finished, that what you are asking for is in many cases, very difficult if not impossible, for many people in orbit of the Left to contemplate, much less act on.

    Very briefly and somewhat superficially I wish to outline the background, the mechanism by which control is utilized, and the consequences of following your suggestion.

    Background:
    The innate assumption of the Left is that they are good, decent, moral and ethical people and anything they support is just and true. Therefore, only ignorant, stupid and/or evil people would oppose or offer a critique without first establishing that they are fundamentally in agreement, and are thus arguing within an acceptable framework, and in good faith.

    Generally, you may be viewed with pity as unenlightened, and if intelligent enough, all that has to be done is to educate you, and by pointing out that as a decent person, that there is only one ethical option available to you.

    It also necessary for you to understand that the Left views itself as populated by decent and ethical people, and comprise many individuals who regard themselves as “unafraid” to take the necessary steps to correct a “historical evil”. Any questionable actions and fallout is viewed as “unfortunate” but “for the greater good” sacrifices have to be made.

    Control:
    In my view, thereligiousinclination is an inherent and normative part of any human population and comprise the majority. Anyone who is an Atheist like myself, are in a minority who my guess is, comprise anywhere from between 3% to 5% of any given population. I also strongly suspect this condition is genetically related.

    In any event, the Left comprise many an Atheist, who are that way because they made an intellectual choice to be so, and again in my view, having actively denied a fundamental part of their themselves, into that lacuna have channelled their otherwise natural religious inclination towards Political Correctness.

    Those who do allow themselves to be religious have no issues with incorporating PC into their system of beliefs either.

    PC is therefor within that milieu, a religious doctrine, and is especially relevant for the secular left for the above reasons, and Feminism is one of the sacred cows of the left.

    Anyone who attacks a sacred teaching is automatically viewed with the suspicion that they are not a decent person. PC is therefore a very powerful social tool for maintaining a strong cohesive within the progressive collective.

    The Left therefore as a whole, automatically assumes the worst about your character if you criticize any of it’s tenants from within or without. If you are not part of the Left, by definition your view is incorrect, because only the Left possess the truth.

    Therefore, there is no point to even giving a fair hearing to any opposition from within, because having no excuse for being unenlightened, it is self evident that you must be unethical, and/or immoral, and therefore will have to first defend yourself from charges of being racist, misogynist etc. etc. and it is thus also a very effective means of imposing self-censorship.

    Consequences:
    Someone on the Left therefore, has to have a very strong sense of self, to withstand the opprobrium by the members of your self identified community, and will be expelled if they do not come to their senses and repent.

    As for you Paul, as the majority of people are weak, and must be constantly shepherded, you represent a clear and present danger to the populace as a whole and it is therefore very urgent and incredibly important that you be silencedby any meansavailable for the “greater good”.

    Morever, you must be silenced because otherwise you may mislead an uninformed, unenlightened, uneducated person who may be otherwise of good character astray. The first step naturally is to reveal your true nature, thus you are naturally a misognist, and an organizer of a hate group, as characterized by the SPLC.

    As you grow in influence, expect future attacks, because after all, you are evil, and must be destroyed.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      This is very good. There isn’t much difference between the extreme self-righteous beliefs of the right and left, except that those of the right have a greater foundation in tradition and religion. It is for this reason I believe that the PC narrative of the left will be easier to transform.

    • jms5762

      The rationale of the left is caught in a cycle of negativity intolerance and irrationality. Developed cognitive functions have been neutralized. Primal visceral fear operates instead. Probably due to some childhood trauma so we should cut em some slack for they know not what they do. Or they are just selfish little shits that need a good ass whoopin and sent to their room without dinner. Yeah that’ll work just fine.

    • Stu

      Everything you just said confirms that if you are a leftist, you can not be an MRA, in fact, you must be a feminist, because they say so.

      Sort a like a nazi saying, I want to be a nazi, but I don’t want to be a jew hater…….bad luck…..if you join us and you try to advocate non jew hating policies, we will shun you. So make a choice…..call yourself a nazi and hate jews…..or don’t call yourself a nazi.

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        I disagree with his assesment.

        • Stu

          A man may be able to call himself, or think of himself as a leftist, in his mind, but if he is member of a left party, and comes out against feminism, he’s toast.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I think the one thing we agree on is the parties have sold us all out. If he is a member of a right party he is also toast. Only the most skilled can infiltrate directly into the party. But creating our own parties, that’s another thing.

          • Stu

            All are welcome, and I’ve said it 1000 times, if someone is fighting for mens’ rights, they are my brothers, but I don’t have to agree with everything my brother thinks. If you donate to the MRM, money, time, effort, and then go and vote for Obama in the US, Gillard here in Oz, you are voting for more feminism. You can argue all you like, but their records speak for them…..not you.

            As for having different meanings for what is a leftist, and what is not….well that is the same as a feminist who says…..I’m a feminist but….and claims that she defines feminism….and all the wankers that are making laws and policies are not real feminists…..because they aren’t following her understanding of feminism. The left is what the left does. And by the way, I never said the right was anti feminist…..but I consider them less feminist. Between the two of them, it is not a matter of who is serving men the best, it’s a matter of who is hurting men the least. But I am not fond of either. But when I vote, men’s rights takes precedence. I will vote for a MRA when there is some running, until then……i will vote for the lessor of two evils…..and I define that by who is hurting men the least. In my country, there is no doubt about that, the lessor of two evils are the liberals, which are on par with your republicans.

            Unfortunately, we have no Ron Pauls over here. Ron Paul is about the only US candidate that I could go and vote for enthusiastically, all others are varying degrees of evil.

            By the way, I was a lefty myself, from when I was too young to vote, until about 10 years ago. I was a card carrying member of the Labor party, which is the left here in Oz, and I still believe in some of the political beliefs. I have some left leaning attitudes, and some right leaning attitudes, but I’d say I’m more libertarian then anything else. But here is the deal with me politically……..I don’t care if I agree 100% with a politician on ever single other issue…..if they support feminism….they are my enemy……period. I don’t care if they are left, right, libertarian, something inbetween, men’s rights are the primary issue for me. Anyone, from any party, will get my vote if they stand up against feminism and support men’s rights. If however they kiss feminisms ass, they are the enemy of men. And I don’t give a fuck if they are going to give me a tax break, a pay rise……I’ll even vote for an anti feminist that’s going to give me a pay cut. I’ll worry about the whales, the climate, animal rights, etc etc, after men have rights. You know where I’m coming from?

          • napocapo69

            Stu, I will pose as simple as possible. That’s valid for me and likely form many people, i guess.
            Being a leftist DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WILL VOTE FOR THE LEFT.
            Being a leftist means that my general political orientation is in that direction. Further please consider that left has different meanings in different countries, as welll right.
            That said, there are priorities in life, and at this point in life, beating misandry is one. Like beating J.W. Bush was few years ago.
            That’s why I’m an MRA. Believe me, there are many other leftist MRA, and they are much more effective than few rightist MRAs that tend to scare women more than in defeating feminism.
            Take care.

      • Augen

        Ad hominem attacks on MRAs or potential MRAs on account of their perceived affiliations as “leftists” are at best useless.

        The political range in our country of 320 million is wide. I and many others consider ourselves center/left because we believe in the social contract and we believe there are limits on the right to property. Others are left because they believe in stronger (and extra-market) measures to break foreign petroleum dependence, still others because they think a military worthy of the Galactic Empire on Star Wars is too much military industrial complex to stomach.

        Give it a rest with the “eeeww! Leftist!” thing. There’s more to political variance than you learn on Fox.

        Spend a year reading the New Republic and the American Propect … understand how the center-left perceives itself (for example: as highly patriotic and market-centered Americans … shock!), then come back and cast rhetorical stones at potential supporters who self-identify as left.

        Your definition of left (a) isn’t necessarily that of one self-identifying as so (b) isn’t necessarily right or applicable (c) may have more to do with your own life experience and psychology than any real-world objective handle that would allow you to apply it meaningfully to anyone else.

    • AndrewV

      Replying to myself is so lame, but I just came across a recent incident that illustrates the attitude and consequences I alluded to.

      I do not know much about this woman, or even if she is a Leftist, but apparently she is married to a black man, and her children are biracial.

      However, she is apparently white, so therefore she must be racist.

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2012/05/08/white-lady-cant-say-that/

  • JGteMolder

    >Control:
    >In my view, thereligiousinclination is an inherent and
    >normative part of any human population and comprise
    >the majority. Anyone who is an Atheist like myself, are
    >in a minority who my guess is, comprise anywhere
    >from between 3% to 5% of any given population. I also
    >strongly suspect this condition is genetically related.

    That is no true. The US has an Atheist population of 10%, and slowly rising. In Europe the Atheist population is much higher than that, and is, in fact, in Denmark the majority with 60% of the population.

    The things you further describe of the left, are just as true for the right.

    No, if there will ever be a change, it will be if there is at least one more political party that completely separates itself from both Democrats and Republicans; probably a party taking a centralist stance, they may even identify as radical centralist.

    The only question is, how long it takes for those people, and I suppose MRAs as well to join such a thing, to finally manifest in that party.

    • AndrewV

      “That is no true. The US has an Atheist population of 10%, and slowly rising. In Europe the Atheist population is much higher than that, and is, in fact, in Denmark the majority with 60% of the population”

      In one sense the above is true, but I have seen higher figures for the USA, for example:

      “One study by the Pew Research Centre puts them at about 12% of the population, but another by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford puts that figure at around 20%.”

      However, my view (and it is only my view) is that the majority of any given population has a genetic component that expresses as a religious inclination, and that only a minority of the population lack this component, in a similar way that only a minority of people are lactose intolerant (around 9% of the American population) and I posit that there are relatively very few “natural” (or unnatural as some are wont to view them) Atheist like myself.

      Therefore, someone who is not raised within a religion may well identify as an Atheist, but will still be susceptible to a meme that satisfies an innate religious inclination despite an avowed aversion to same.

      Understandably, this is not a popular view and potentially can be viewed as a deeply offensive insult from the Religious and Atheist alike. But go ahead and look at this video, where presumably you are not familiar with the language and any of the cultural cues depicted and see if you recognize anything:

      • Stu

        The atheist population of America is much higher then 10%. You just have all these people that claim to be Catholic, or Protestant, or whatever, but they really believe in nothing. The biggest religion in the western world is Me-ism, regardless of what anybody says they are.

  • jms5762

    All these big brains in here debating and rationalizing! Spinning fucking wheels and navel gazing. We need to roll up our sleaves check our nuts and start throwing punches. Enough of this circle jerk shit. Sounds like British fucking parliament in here! Its an election year we gotta do something really newsworthy. Something sensational somewhere very public. Something really emotional. Tearjerker pulling on heartstrings that no politician can resist associating with. Once we have everyones attention we rally behind a single cause like reproductive rights for men! How can anyone deny a man those. Especially since the precedent is already set. Its personal for me. I had a girlfriend in college tell me she was on the pill. Great! We had wonderful sex as often as possible. I was falling hard for her. Less than 2 months later she told me she wasn’t on the pill and is pregnant. So I’m feeling really deceived and trust has been broken. Well she says to me she is going to abort the embryo. That its her choice and I have no say. I am crushed. Wish I had legal recourse then.

    • Stu

      Ok, hold everything guys. All our activism is a waste of time. But it doesn’t have to be a waste of time, we can divert all our efforts to solving the problems of one man, to do anything else would mean we are a pack of useless good for nothings.

      Sorry mate, but you had that coming. The world is full of men that couldn’t give a shit about the MRM, until they themselves get run over by feminist laws, than they care for as long as it takes for them to mitigate their particular problem, and if they do dodge the bullet, they leave and care no more…..and if they don’t dodge the bullet….they leave and care no more. That is the problem, not us that are fighting the root cause of all mens problems, whether we are personally victims of anything or not.

      • AndrewV

        I believe that some are impatient and want to see results now. I think however, we should point out that we did not get to where we are now overnight.

        Feminism in it’s current form, took a minimum of forty years, to get where it is today. Some can convincingly argue that the root causes of the current situation were established over 50, 80, or even a 100 years or more ago.

        The point is this destructive influence has had many years to take root. It will not be dislodged any time soon without a real struggle. Make no mistake either, today Feminism is a pernicious enemy, and will help destroy every culture that allows it to flourish, and eventually will foster the collapse of civilization.

        Quite frankly, the previous sentence seems absurd, until you recognize that it is currently tightly coupled to Marxism, and even the USSR was forced to curtail it.

        There has been up to now, no formal or organized resistance to Feminism. That is only now starting to change, and it would be premature to imagine any sort of overnight victory is possible.

        There can be no real, long lasting peace without the complete eradication, root and branch of the current iteration of Feminism and it’s support structures, and we need a plan, strategy and tactics to proceed.

        • Stu

          Yes we have a struggle in front of us. And men have to get behind us and join the push. Even the MGTOW, which I support, is not enough, and for many, it is based on the “solve/avoid the problems for me”, me me me. To many men are looking for individual ways to avoid their particular problems, or solve their particular problem that they have at this point in time. A lot of mgtow have just retreated behind the lines, which is good, they must, but if they are not going to fight to hold that ground, then the line will be redrawn and they will have to retreat more. A perfect example of this is that marriage become to dangerous, marriage strike……I’m safe…..no probs….me me me…….I’ll avoide that bullet by not getting married…..I’ll just have defacto instead. Then they redraw the line and you find yourself married by default. So guys say no living together…..yes…..avoid the new bullet. Go your own way, absolutely, but while you are doing it, fight back, because if you don’t, the ground you hold right now is only temporary.

          I don’t think that feminism is going to take as long to defeat as it did to get to this position though. It’s a lot easier and quicker to destroy something then it is to build it. If we had to rely solely on activism to get rid of feminism than I would say that progress would be so slow that none of us posting here we live to see the day when the mission is accomplished. But we have other things on our side that are going to weaken it very much over the next 10 to 20 years. Feminism consumes very much in time, effort, resources, and causes many resources to be wasted. It can only exist in a society that has such surplus, that continuing to feed it does not cause the collapse of fundamental essential things. This situation will not exist much longer. Just have a look at feminism and you will see that it is net consumer of resources, and produces nothing that it itself needs to continue to exist. It lives solely on the surplus labor and resources provided by productive groups, and they are only willing to tolerate it’s existence as long as they can support it without suffering to much themselves. Nature itself, is allied with us, and feminism only defies nature in the same way a helicopter defies gravity. Stop supplying the fuel and it is doomed.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I just read this allowed to our group of Men.

            For those that read it, THIS, THIS, THIS a MILLION times.

            Stu, I hope you call me, we’ve talked about it in the past. But this is exactly the kind of thing MRMers NEED to HEAR LOUDLY.

            Notice men he is talking about this ending in 10 to 20 years, THAT is OUR position as Masculinists.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Masculinists THIS COMMENT

      • jms5762

        Well that’s an example from personal experience along time ago. Right from the beginning of the relationship she referred to herself as a feminist. I would have run away then knowing what I know now. She almost acted like having an abortion was a right of passage for her. I refused to go with her to the clinic. Honestly cant remember if I saw a positive pregnancy result. She may have lied about that as well. Ive never run afowl of the judicial system. This attitude seems to permeate western culture. Women expect men to just accept whatever the hell they dish out. No fore thought or care whether belligerent selfish behavior hurts the men and boys in their lives. Entitlement comes to mind. Root cause is too big to find a solution to first. Gotta start chipping away first. A little Tnt and a big bang sooner than later would be badass!

        • Stu

          Well we do organize campaigns to target certain things at times. The thing is, for the most part, the people here, and certainly the regulars, are not doing nothing about it. Many have made large financial contributions, many years of activism, and all sorts of other personal sacrifices. Many men only seek out the MRM when it is too late, once their feet are already being fed into the meat grinder. Than they seem to think the MRM is doing nothing because if we were anything but a useless pack of do nothings, the situation they are in would not exist, but, we are the ones doing something, it is the men who ignore everything and sit drinking their beer and watching their footy until the feminists come for THEM that are the problem. And when the feminists do come for them, there only concern many times, is solving their particular problem so they can get back to their footy and beer.

          If it is true that the MRM is not doing enough, than it is because they guys that say that are not doing anything.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Once again, THIS!

          • Stu

            Thanks. By the way, you are one crazy bastard you know that LOL. Stark raving mad :)

            No currency, no laws, no this, no that…..you’d have us back in the stone age in no time lol. Whatever, better the stone age than the feminist age.

            I vote for Aoirthoir An Broc for president of the USA.

            Well, I would anyway, if I could vote over there, and if Ron Paul isn’t available to vote for.

            By the way, you aren’t fooling me, you’re not as crazy as you make out. Yep, I’m on to you lol

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      I keep telling you men:

      Friday 8pm eastern http://masculinists.net/video-chat

      I’ve said on here dozens of times that there is shit going on out there that most of you have no idea about. You want a change? It’s GOING to happen in our lifetime. Sooner than you think.

      You want to hit the streets? We’re making the tools for you. A lot is going to be released over the summer, this IS the year of the MRM.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      I’m sorry to hear of you being betrayed.

      But I have to tell you – Gazing at spinning navels or fucking wheels it’s all the same to me. Me, Karma, Stu and others meet in person and are doing something about it beyond the screen.

      Whinging about whining is one thing, nothing wrong with that. Taking it to the next step is another, and I’m hoping you’re talking from that perspective and no offence intended.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    G’day TDOM,

    You have email from me.

  • yurlungur

  • ThoughtCriminal

    I agree completely with this article. Honestly,I believe all of politics is ridiculous,a silly game of pretend that grown-ups play with each other, and that political factions are of no more consequence than football teams. The only problem is, their stupid games impact our lives, which means we have skin in the game too.

    The most effective strategy (the same one the REAL policy-makers in our nations use),I believe, is to simply throw in with individual politicians on individual issues,particularly when it would hurt our enemies and/or help us in any way. It is up to the shrewd and competent leadership of the MRM to determine when such action would be warranted.

    Apart from that, screw all the stupid bastards.

    My political wing is Red. Not right,not left,but-pro-male, a completely different dimension from the left-right-up-down fools who only see what is in front of their faces.

  • napocapo69
  • http://avoiceformen.com Daniel Martinez

    Hello guys, long time without comenting something. I am using twitter a lot to promote my MRA blog in spanish, I am getting lots of visits and some very nice comments of people who’s eyes have been open. It feels so good to help the cause. So far I have 374 entries on my MRA blog in spanish and counting.

    Also I am helping closely to the political campaign for president of Ecuador. The point is that today the present president cannot be defeated, but we can cause an impact so later in 5 years time actually get a chance to have an MRA friendly president.

    Do you imagine that? If we succeed we could be the first in the world.

    Today I was trying to translate this article and I found this expresion:

    “put down the Foucault”

    I dont understand what does it mean.

    Could anyone please help me?

    Thank you in advance.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      Welcome back Daniel. Great work you are doing.

      Regarding the quote, “put down” would be to stop reading or engaging in. “Foucault” is probably a reference to Michel Foucault and postmodernism. Does that fit the context of the article?

      I’m rather a fan of rationalism myself.

    • Paul Elam

      Hi Daniel. Great to hear you are still at it. Denis was correct about the reference to Foucault.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

      • http://avoiceformen.com Daniel Martinez

        Thank you my fellow MRAs