What does the ongoing imputation of malice tell us?
What does the claim of an ambient threat of violence tell us?

For anyone with over a week’s experience of writing from a perspective of male human rights, accusations of bad intention will be familiar. It has always been the case that commentary oppositional to the MRM, rather than addressing the substance of any particular article, focuses almost exclusively on characterizations of motive, hatred, misogyny, and poor sandwich making skills.

In single occurrence, accusations of bad intent usually tell us either we’re doing something, or have done something, objectionable. And in such cases, we’re presented with an opportunity to apologize and to re-evaluate our view or behavior. Or, the imputation of malice might signal a misunderstanding of statement, intent, or behavior by those who provide us such alerts of our perceived bad behavior. In these cases, a mistaken accusation provides opportunities to clarify intention or statement.

But what does the repetition and endless reiteration of imputation of malice tell us. Having weathered what so far appears to be a non-ending torrent of such accusation, and having done the early and repeated self examination necessary for honest self awareness, a few answers present themselves.

The first possibility for an individual or a group weathering an ongoing torrent of accusation, even after repeated self examination and attempts to clarify a seeming miscommunication, is that in spite of best efforts at clarity and benign intention, we really are malevolent. However, if this is the case, it indicates an inability to trust one’s own mind. But dementia isn’t a problem which can be solved by a good hard think. In fact, this is a problem which if it exists, may only be addressable by outside intervention. I have sufficient trust in my friends and colleagues that obvious dementia on my part would be pointed out to me, by them. Additionally, I retain, as do other bloggers and commentators who share my views, the ability to feed myself, pay my bills on time, and engage in a normal social life outside the confines of my small padded cell here.

So, the dementia hypothesis is discarded.

Another possibility is that the apparently endless narrative of imputed malice, accusations of a hatred of women, promotion of violence, “get back to the kitchen” patriarchy in the cartoonish conception of Leave It To Beaver are the products of an infantile mentality. For adults with a nuanced understanding of the world, recognition of the simplistic, black and white characterizations of malice cant be avoided.
“You just hate women”, tossed out as a standard response to a reasoned argument for the universality of human rights and the necessary consideration of men as humans, is increasingly obvious as shrill panic from a camp lacking a leg to stand on.

But is it really an infantile, childishly superficial understanding of reality that motivates the continued imputation of malice? From some whose rhetoric is almost purely repetition of villanizing buzz words this might be the case, but “all my opponents are mental toddlers” is not much better as an argument than “all men are violent rape-machines”. They are both simple assertions of ill-intention, without much explanatory power, and depend on only a superficial, and tissue-thin understanding of human motivation.

So if not everyone participating in the near constant imputation of malice against those arguing for human rights for men and boys are not simply intellectual toddlers, what is actually behind this ongoing narrative of accused ill-intention.

How about projection? This is a psychological defence mechanism whereby a person subconsciously denies his or her own thoughts, and emotions, and then ascribes them to the outside world, usually to other people.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

This possibility fits the observed behavior of detractors to the mens rights movement, of consistently failing to field anything approaching a substantive argument. As well, when challenged with accountability for public calls for of child abuse, sex selective abortion and large scale violence from within the camp of gender ideology, calls for accountability are re-framed as violence, or it’s advocation. But the upside down character of this accusatory nonsense cannot be reconciled with a realistic or an adult cosmology.

Another explanation is possible for the culture of gender ideologues who repeatedly call for legal exclusion, child-targeting violence, sex-targeted infanticide. The explanation being that from such point of view, opposition must, by default, be assumed to be as violent as the rhetoric it opposes. If the proxy and the direct use of force is a mainstay of the political tool kit within the culture of gender ideology, then reasonably, outsiders can be assumed to share such lack of compass and imagination that applied violence seems like a logical tool. If your only tool is a hammer, all problems take on the appearance of nails.

However, rather than participating in the unproductive school-yard name-calling which seems the only form of engagement detractors of the man’s rights movement are inclined to practice, the MRM is increasingly focused on examination of human rights as a natural outcome of philosophical first principals. The first of which is the principal of universality.

Under a principle of universality, that which is preferred for one group, such as freedom from violence, must be preferred for all other groups.

However, both universality and and the non-initiation of violence appear to be antithetical to the opponents of the men’s rights movement. This becomes obvious in the visible outrage from feminists when the names of those advocating male targeting mass murder are published in opposition to those public calls for violence. The claim, stupidly insane as it may be, is that out-ing murder advocates is an advocation for violence against those murder advocates.

Yes. Publishing the name of a feminist who publicly advocates male targeting violence, is characterized not as anecessary or responsible public service, but as victimization of that murder advocate.

The total depravity of this characterization would be shocking, except for the knowledge of previous collective endorsements for infanticide, mass murder, and so on from those on the feminist side of the room. But this rather nicely illuminates the motive behind constant imputation of malice. It is even more obvious when the specifics of those ongoing accusations, stretching plausibility as they do, focus on claims of physical danger. This of course reveals the intention behind ongoing repetition of such accusation.

An informative parallel can be drawn to the foreign policy of the United States of America. Every 3 to 8 years, the US positions itself to invade, bomb, and strangle another country through trade embargo. In essence, the US is making a new war on somebody, somewhere a couple times each decade. However, before any of the poor and working class kids get shipped off to foreign climes to shoot a bunch of the locals, an information war emerges through America’s information/entertainment networks. Colloquially called news, the info-tainment machine churns out a stream of characterization, vilification, straw man arguments painting the country about to be invaded as an imminent, and dangerous threat. And thus, public support for ensuing military aggression is fabricated. Soon enough the killing starts.

So what possible reason can there be for dialling up of the narrative that a movement born in blogs, and continuously repudiating violence in the face of oppositional calls for mass murder and similarly bankrupt tactics – to claim some threat of violence is manifest from what is a non violent human rights movement? Clearly, the fabrication of a narrative of threat is to justify, and to render palatable, any and all violence to be used against such bloggers and video makers. If you haven’t got an argument, and you also haven’t got an ethical compass – recourse to cultivation of violence probably makes logical sense.

But absent of a better fitting model to understand the endless imputation of no longer merely malice, but peril, danger and violent intention, the concerted cultivation of a climate in which pre-emptive violence becomes palatable seems accurate. Of course, such violence on the part of gender idealogues or their proxies would have to be pre-emptive, since nobody recognized within the MRM has to date called for, advocated or engaged in violence, the advocation of violence, or so much as spoken of it in anything except repudiating terms.

When taken in concert with the wide range of recent public calls for violence from the gender ideologue camp, and the rhetorical and intellectual contortions necessary to claim some ambient threat of violence from writers on blogs like this one, the hypothesis to be drawn is that those making claims of a manifest threat from avowedly non-violent bloggers are attempting to foster and to precipitate the initiation of violence themselves. Recognizing this, the impulse to refute what is becoming a drone of monotonous accusation is greatly diminished. The burden falls to those issuing such accusation not to provide evidence, since selectively context-cleaned quotes are frequently used in place of such. Rather the burden for repeaters of claim of violent threat is to demonstrate their own intent is not cultivation, promotion and initiation of violence themselves.

The irony inherent in such claims, however flimsy, by gender idealogues – that a movement which rejects violence as a legitimate political tool, and which regularly excoriates and exposes individuals who publicly call for child abuse, mutilation, murder and mass murder – is that they must now logically demonstrate that their own goals do not include the fostering of violence.

This isn’t simply a rhetorical game of “I know you are but what am I”, or “I am rubber, you are glue”. Through the repetition of a false narrative of threat, anti-woman, rape-inclined violent menace – I expect eventually, one or more thinking-impaired white knights, maybe civilian, maybe employed by a police force, will find occasion to use force, and possibly deadly force against a men’s rights blogger, videographer, or activist.

I’m not looking forward to it being myself or anyone I know. However, if and when such event occurs, I plan to make maximum political use of violence fostered by gender ideologues, against what is a non-violent human rights movement. What I won’t do is seek justification for retributive acts of retaliation, or any other such nonsense.

This is a contest of ideas, and the continued glaring absence of anything resembling an actual argument against male human rights suggests that our opponents, loud and annoying as they are, remain without a boat or a paddle. If some grasping desperate attempts at relevance result in violence successfully fostered against MRAs, it won’t be violence we respond with. But we will fuck their shit up.

And of course to those opposing this movement, come on stupid, keep trying to bring a gun to this conversation. If, or perhaps when you succeed at indirectly getting somebody killed, bludgeoned, or brutalized, you will accomplish nothing except to shine a bright light on your position’s total bankruptcy.