The Golden Rule

Note: This piece explains why it is quite legitimate to attack very viciously those feminists, police officers, politicians and others who persistently break the Golden Rule and why, indeed, we should do so.

In essence, the Golden Rule is this.

"Do not do unto others that which you would not like them to do unto you."

And it seems to me that if people always attempt to behave in this manner then a positively enormous amount of good towards most humans would be the result, whereas if people do not do this then, eventually, the outcome will be positively catastrophic; e.g. see Eight Horrible Facts

Furthermore, this very simple 'general' rule can be applied quite appropriately to an enormous range of human behaviour. 

 this Golden Rule crops up in the texts of many different religions

Indeed, this Golden Rule crops up in the texts of many different religions (e.g. see here) and this suggests to me that many other people - right around the world - in hugely different places, times and circumstances -  have also understood just how important is this rule when it comes to creating the type of world in which most of us would want to live.

All in all, therefore, my belief is that this Golden Rule is very, very important indeed.

Furthermore, the aims of those in the men's movement (MM) are consistent with the Golden Rule. But the aims of those in the feminist movement are, mostly, contrary to it.

As such, the more that the MM gains in influence, the better will be the world in which we live, whereas the more that the feminists gain in influence, the worse will it be.

In order to demonstrate this, I am going to pick just one issue to show how it is that the aims of the MM are mostly consistent with the Golden Rule whereas those of the feminists are very often contrary to it.

Rape.

MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be raped, and they also believe that women do not like to be raped.

And so, unsurprisingly, MRAs do not argue that men should rape women.

In other words, MRAs do not argue that men should do things to women that they would not like to be done to themselves.

This is the Golden Rule in action.

Furthermore, MRAs do not actually engage in rape in order to further their agenda.

Thus, MRAs do not break the Golden Rule in order to further their agenda.

But now, let us look at the feminists.

Feminists do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done, and they also believe that men would not like to be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done.

And, yet, feminists do argue that men should be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done when it comes to rape.

As a result, thousands of men every year are persecuted or prosecuted for rapes that they have not committed.

This is the Golden Rule being wilfully broken.

Furthermore, feminists do actually engage in the persecution or prosecution of men for something that they have not done in order to further their agenda.

 feminists do break the Golden Rule in order to further their agenda.

Thus, feminists do break the Golden Rule in order to further their agenda.

And because feminists have had such powerful influences on western societies the Golden Rule has been downgraded significantly in western societies - and the result has, indeed, been fairly catastrophic - with much worse to come, would be my guess.

....................

In order to bring home the points above concerning the power of the Golden Rule, let me just elaborate further, but in a more tangible context.

You often find feminist men (particularly in government) arguing that the persecution and prosecution of innocent men in connection with rape is just one of those things that simply has to be done in order to protect women from rape.

But there are only three points that need to be made in order to damn this position quite seriously.

1. Would a man with this view be happy if he (or a loved one) was being persecuted or prosecuted for something that he had not done?

No, of course, he would not be happy. And he would most likely protest very strongly if he found himself in such a situation.

But this means that the policy that he supports (e.g. the persecuting or prosecuting of a man for a rape that he has not done) he only supports because he, himself, is not affected by it. If he or a loved one were affected by such a policy then he would be outraged.

he is a hypocrite of the highest order

In other words, he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and he is quite prepared to support policies that "do unto others" that which he would positively hate to be done unto himself - or to his loved ones.

He wilfully breaks the Golden Rule simply to suit his own aims - something that is, in fact, a defining characteristic of a psychopath.

Needless to say, such a man should never have significant power or influence.

2. If it is acceptable for him to support policies that do unto others that which he would not like to be done unto himself (or unto his loved ones), then it must also be just as acceptable for MRAs to support policies that treat him (or his loved ones) in the same manner.

In other words, if MRAs take on board his sense of what is right and proper, then he can have no legitimate complaint if MRAs decide to "do unto him" or unto his loved ones that which he would positively hate to be done unto him or his loved ones.

Thus, according to his own moral compass, it is quite legitimate for MRAs to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of their aims.

But would this man really think that it is a good idea for the world to work like this?

Surely not - unless, of course, he is a psychopath.

And now, it gets even worse for this man - because, in fact, he is not 'innocent'.

3. He supports policies that hurt innocent others - provided, of course, that he and his loved ones are not hurt themselves.

MRAs must also be entitled to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of their own aims.

Now, as we have seen, this moral stance means that MRAs must also be entitled to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of their own aims.

But, of course, he is not 'innocent' at all. After all, he is quite happy to hurt innocent others. And he is quite prepared to break the extremely important Golden Rule in order to do so.

As such, therefore, MRAs are even more entitled to hurt him in pursuit of their aims.

.........

It is surely clear that those who encourage people to break the Golden Rule - or who break it themselves - poison very seriously our prospects for creating or maintaining a decent society. And this is particularly true when it is those in powerful positions - such as those in government - who are doing such things.

And yet, for three decades now, feminists and left-wing western governments have broken this Golden Rule with relative impunity - mostly in order to pursue their self-serving aims.

Millions of men in the west have been treated appallingly as a result of this - child custody, child contact, divorce, alimony, etc etc - and all men have been demonised horribly in one way or another even though the vast majority of them have done nothing to deserve such demonisation.

And the result is what we have today - a great deal of disharmony, unhappiness, crime, poverty, dishonesty, greed and corruption - corruption at the highest levels.

Indeed, it must surely be evident to most people that if their societies accept the view that it is perfectly acceptable for people to break the Golden Rule whenever they feel like doing so then there is absolutely no hope for a decent future.

None!

we are far more entitled to hurt them than they are entitled to hurt innocent others

In summary: Those who break the Golden Rule in order to pursue their own self-serving aims are, clearly, a real danger to us all. Furthermore, they are hypocrites, and they have no moral leg to stand upon should we decide to hurt them. Indeed, we are far more entitled to hurt them than they are entitled to hurt innocent others; because, in fact, they are not innocent.

END NOTE:

It is usually argued by feminists that it is perfectly legitimate to break the Golden Rule in order to reduce the likelihood that others will break it. And so, for example, they argue that the thoroughly unjust manner in which innocent men are treated following a mere accusation of rape will reduce the likelihood that men will rape - rapists being people who break the Golden Rule.

The problem with this argument, however, is that it entitles us all to break the Golden Rule for similar reasons.

And so, for example, it could be argued that all women who accuse men of rape (even if these men are guilty) should be treated horribly simply in order to discourage other women from making false accusations; i.e. to discourage them from breaking the Golden Rule.

To do this would be completely consistent with feminist policies - the only difference being that innocent women would be treated badly rather than innocent men.

END NOTE 2:

Of course, the importance of the Golden Rule lies not in its 'perfection' - because it is not perfect by any means. Its importance lies in the following ...

1. It is relatively simple to articulate and to understand.

2. It addresses an enormous range of human behaviours.

3. It is a very good rule that will lead to huge benefits for everybody if people can be encouraged successfully to follow it.

This is not to say that the Golden Rule should never be broken. For example, we lock up murderers even though they - like the rest of us - would prefer not to be locked up. But we lock them up precisely because they have broken the Golden Rule in a very serious manner.

What we should not be doing, however, is treating people as if they have broken the Golden Rule when we have no valid evidence to suggest that they have done so - because to do so is to break the Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, however, when it comes to matters of 'abuse', this is exactly what is happening to millions of men (and, increasingly, to women) around the western world thanks to the various machinations of the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.

And, in my view, as mentioned above, it is much more legitimate, morally speaking, to hurt these people than it is legitimate for them to hurt those whom they are hurting; because these people are no longer 'innocent'. They have wilfully and flagrantly broken the Golden Rule on a massive scale.

Finally, let me just clarify the important difference between MRAs and feminists when it comes to the Golden Rule.

MRAs do not advocate that men should be entitled to hurt innocent women.

MRAs do not advocate that men should be entitled to hurt innocent women.

Feminists and their associated victim groups, however, do advocate that women (and the authorities) should be entitled to hurt innocent men, and they also both support and promote governmental policies that do exactly this.

Now, given that the Golden Rule seems to be a very important rule when it comes to maintaining a decent society - something which seems to have been recognised by many different peoples for over 2000 years - it seems to me that MRAs have much reason and every right to attack very viciously indeed those who persistently break the Golden Rule; particularly those who do so on a massive scale. And, in connection with this, certain politicians, feminists and various women's victim groups come continually to mind.

Also see, ...

Kevin Driscoll Is Innocent

... to get some idea of just how morally corrupt and degenerate are the legal professionals (judges, lawyers, police officers) working for the state; in this case, in America.