GAEA III

In this part, I am going to explain how it is that viewing the opponents of the men's movement as large organisms can help activists to shape up their perspectives of the battles ahead and help them on the road to earlier victories by gaining a better understanding of the nature of 'the enemy'.

In general, the idea behind this series is to help activists stand back so that they are better able to look at the overall picture rather than be swamped by the details contained in it.

This is particularly important because people tend to focus far too narrowly upon details of situations that directly affect them, and they forget that these often arise because there are numerous other considerations which influence them that reside outside their own field of view.

Here are two simple examples of this.

A. The teacher tells you that your child is doing absolutely fine at school and that you have nothing to worry about. You are delighted and feel no need to pursue the matter further. Three years later your child comes out from school with grades that seem to you to be remarkably unsatisfactory. In fact, your child's performance is in the bottom 35% of achievement.

What the hell is going on? You were told that everything was going fine! Were you being lied to?

Well, the answer is, No.

And if you look at matters from the teacher's point of view, you can see why.

As far as a teacher is concerned, some 35% of the children are actually performing worse than your own child. In fact, your child is entirely within the 'normal range' of achievement. And so there is definitely nothing to worry about. After all, no matter what the standards are, there will always be a wide range that is deemed to be acceptable.

Indeed, 50% of children will always perform below average.

And so, despite your child being well below average, as far as the teacher is concerned, your child is doing fine.

Your own goals and your own responsibilities are very different from those of the teacher. Your job is to look after the interests of your child - and your child alone. But a teacher's job is to look after the interests of all the children in her class. And the teacher will only be unhappy if her group of children is, overall, doing badly.

And so it is that while you might be extremely unhappy about your child's performance, the teacher is entirely unconcerned with it.

Your perspective on the matter is completely different from hers. And if you had fully understood this in the first place, you might well have enquired a little more closely into the true levels of performance of your own child, and you would have been able to intervene earlier to help your child do better in the later exams.

The point being made here, however, is that the teacher did not lie to you about your child 'doing fine', she simply gave you the truth from her own perspective - and you failed to understand her perspective.

You should have stepped back to try to see the picture from her point of view.

You should have stepped back to try to see the picture from her point of view. By doing this you would have seen that she has a more global attitude toward the children than you do.

Indeed, she serves a different 'organism' to the one that you imagined.

B. This second example is more relevant to the men's movement and it concerns the narrow focus of many men's activists.

There are numerous situations wherein men are clearly being mistreated very severely by western governments and their justice systems. And activists seem constantly amazed at how this can be happening. Men can be thrown out of their homes, falsely accused, denied access to their children and so on and so on - without any redress! And throughout the western world many men are now lobbying their politicians and protesting at the way that they have been mistreated.

But unless they understand why it is that they are deemed to be so worthless, they will never convince the authorities, nor, indeed, the public, to change their attitudes toward them.

For example, if men, in general, are regarded as 'parasites' - as per the hateful propaganda espoused by the influential Professor Steve Jones - then this will colour the overall perspective that people have about men. And if people view men as parasites, then this is exactly how they will end up being treated - regardless of how many activists protest against such treatment.

Unless these more global perspectives are tackled successfully, there is not much hope of changing the narrower perspectives that operate at the more mundane levels of society.

a number of men's rights activists seem to spend a good deal of their time playing right into the hands of their enemies

Indeed, a number of men's rights activists seem to spend a good deal of their time playing right into the hands of their enemies - who, of course, just love to see men being portrayed in a negative light. For example, they want to see the death penalty enforced more often, they want long term prison sentences for trivial drug offences, they want paedophiles castrated and, basically, they want to see a lot more punishment - mostly of men.

But such activists do not seem to have taken on board the fact that if, for example, men are to be locked away long term for trivial drug offences, then why should the same not be true for trivial acts of 'domestic violence'? And if paedophiles are to be castrated, then why not alleged rapists or sexual harassers? And what about the plight of those men who have been falsely accused of such things?

And this sort of thing happens because many activists are not looking much further than the ends of their own noses. They are not stepping back to get a more global picture and, hence, not understanding how, in fact, they are contributing to their very own woes.

Anyway. It was for reasons such as this that viewing 'the enemy' as a much wider-ranging 'organism' can be of considerable value.

---------------------------

The numbered points below refer to some of the more salient points that were made in the first two parts of this series. And the comments that follow them are just a sample of the ideas and notions that seem connected with them in some way.

1. Multi-cellular biological organisms and multi-peopled enterprises are remarkably similar.

a. The growing organism that is the men's movement is going to be no different from any other large enterprise. It will consist of individuals and groups of people working in many different areas and pursuing their own limited goals. Together, however, they will constitute an organism - the "Men's Movement" - that will seek to survive and to grow.

b. Many of the principles and processes that operate on organisms in the biological world also apply to large enterprises - which, for the purposes of this section, are simply regarded as organisms that live in some kind of 'informational space'.

And so, for example, in much the same way that large multi-cellular organisms can be attacked most effectively by very small organisms that can spread within them - such as viruses - the same is true for large enterprises. They can often be debilitated by very small pieces of information that can be spread throughout them.

organisms flourish and grow by feeding on the environment that is external to them

As another example, organisms flourish and grow by feeding on the environment that is external to them. They incorporate into themselves parts of the outside world by transforming them into components that they can use to enhance themselves.

In the informational world, one can see this happening all over the place. For example, a piece of news promulgated by a newspaper can be incorporated into a men's website in order to further the men's cause. Redefining domestic violence to include shouting can bring in a lot of extra business for parts of the abuse industry.

2. The individual people who make up large multi-peopled enterprises do not have a clue about the 'organisms' that they have created. For the most part, they are barely aware even of the existence of these 'organisms'.

The men's movement is growing right across the globe.

a. The men's movement is growing right across the globe. The activity within in it ranges from the lone individuals fighting the justice systems in their own localities over their own particular grievances, to individual authors writing articles about men's issues, to groups of campaigners lobbying their own politicians, to international websites such as this one which are disseminating useful ideas and information to all those who are concerned about men's issues.

Indeed, the men's movement is already far too large for any individual to understand the nature of the beast that is being created, or even to see it clearly.

b. Most of the people who are advocates for men's rights - in some way or another - or who are actively involved in getting across 'the male point of view' are probably not even aware that a men's movement exists.

A recent example of this was the debacle over the acceptance of women members at the Augusta National Golf Club. In the mainstream media coverage of this issue there were plenty of references to the 'feminists', but none to the growing men's movement. And Hootie Johnson, the man who was defending the golf club's position, was arguing the case for men without recognising that he is but a tiny part of a much greater movement.

3. The individuals in large multi-peopled enterprises are dispensable. They can easily be replaced.

a. There is no single individual or group that constitutes the men's movement. It already has a life of its own. The individuals and groups that form the men's movement are mostly pretty insignificant. And the same is true even with regard to those individuals whom most people would consider to be unusually powerful. For example, even if the members of the Bush administration completely disappeared tomorrow, the office of the presidency and 'the US government' would still continue to function pretty much as before.

even presidents - are not that important. 

In other words, individual men's activists and groups - and even presidents - are not that important. 

b. As far as 'the enemy' is concerned, yes, it is true to say that scuppering the leaders is of much greater value than is scuppering the members of the general rank and file. But given that the individuals themselves are largely dispensable, it is more valuable to scupper directly those ideas and notions that support such people rather than it is to scupper the people themselves.

Remember: The people can always be replaced.

4. The 'leaders' of large enterprises are best regarded as having 'most influence' rather than as having 'direct control'. And they are considerably under the influence of feedback mechanisms that connect them to those lower down the hierarchy.

a. It is therefore not essential for men's activists to focus solely on targeting the leaders of those enterprises that oppose them (e.g. feminism, government) in order to further their aims. There is also much to be gained by aiming their attacks at the lower levels.

A punch to the head is usually more effective than one to the body, but punches to the body still have a considerable effect.

b. Those at the tops of their ladders are very much supported by those who are lower down them. And they are often at the mercy of such people in very many ways.

If you lose the support of even a humble toe, you can be debilitated quite significantly!

And, as far as men's activists are concerned, by communicating with those who are lower down in the scheme of things there is often much mileage to be gained.

Indeed, getting them to whistleblow or to leak information anonymously can lead to devastating effects.

5. The 'leaders' of large enterprises tend to be more concerned with matters that exist outside of their own enterprises and tend to be less concerned about matters that exist within them.

a. For example, the editor of a newspaper is going to spend far more time being concerned about how the newspaper is viewed by outsiders than are the individual journalists who write for it. As such, activists should always try to ensure that complaints about authors, journalists, or their articles, which reflect poorly on the publication, actually reach the attention of the editors.

On the other hand, of course, when an editor appears to be doing a disservice to his own authors and journalists, then this should be exposed to his authors and journalists!

b. As another example, the boss at the university where a student is, allegedly, sexually assaulted, is going to be far more concerned about how this affects the reputation of the university in the eyes of the public than he is about the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator.

Of course, he will pretend to be very concerned about the victim and the perpetrator, but his real concern will be about the university.

(And if this was not the case, then he would not remain the boss for long.)

As such, the university boss is going to be far more attentive (and vulnerable) to arguments that consider the reputation of the university than he is to arguments that, for example, focus on individual suffering and the need for proper due process in such situations etc.

6. The individuals that make up enterprises have very little control over them. And they are mostly unaware that their enterprises have lives of their own. Furthermore, they are as easily misled by them as is everyone else. And so it is that the individuals themselves cannot really be held fully accountable for what their large enterprises do.

None of us has much control over what we end up believing.

a. None of us has much control over what we end up believing. Indeed, we do not choose our genes or the environment in which we develop. And, as already stated, it is virtually impossible for individuals to see the larger picture - especially if it is a complex one. Activists should always bear this in mind when targeting individuals and should therefore refrain from attempting to cause them too much 'harm' in the process of persuading them to change their points of view or their attitudes.

b. Nevertheless, some people are downright dishonest, and many seem quite happy to harm others in order to feather their own nests. They might well not be aware of what their enterprises are doing 'as a whole', but this does not absolve them from harmful or dishonourable actions that they take when they are aware of how these might affect other people negatively.

The drugs war is a good example of this.

Individual police officers can hardly be blamed for pursuing the war on drugs. They are mostly not aware of the tremendous harm that the 'organism of the drugs war' is doing to their own people. However, when, for example, police officers arrest and prosecute people who are very ill, and who are taking drugs in order to alleviate their pain, then they are clearly very likely to be aware of how morally unjustifiable are their actions. And, as such, they should be personally held responsible for them.

"I was only following my orders," is just not good enough.

7. Large enterprises tend to survive and grow because the interactions that they have with the world outside of them nourish them in some way.

a. Prime examples of this are to be found in the way that governments and the abuse industry are forever re-defining what are deemed to be 'crimes' in order to extend their fields of influence and control. At the same time, they persistently encourage more people to view themselves as 'victims' who need their services.

By doing such things, they grow more extensive and more powerful. Indeed, the abuse industry is now a positively huge enterprise. And its various components are very adept at exploring new terrain for their own purposes.

For example, thirty years ago, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (a highly influential 'charity' here in the UK) was mostly concerned about the plight of children who were beaten badly or killed by their own parents in their own homes.

But it has come a long way since then.

The NSPCC helped very much to sustain the hysteria over the recent decade-long nonsense concerning Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memories. It now views sixteen year old boys who have sexual relations with girls of fourteen as sex abusers. It has suggested that five year old boys who touch five year old girls should be regarded as paedophiles. It wants the smacking of children to be criminalised and it persistently hits the headlines over this issue. It promotes the view that looking at pictures of children may be deserving of long prison sentences, with parents now likely to be in deep trouble for daring even to look at their own children.

And it is now arguing that shouting at children is an act of child abuse.

A few years ago the NSPCC also suggested that men should never be allowed to work with young children, because it was too risky. And, at the very least, it argued, that men who worked with young children needed particularly close monitoring.

At the moment, chat rooms on the internet where young teenagers often dwell is considered by the NSPCC to be a danger zone that needs constant careful scrutiny. And adults in the UK might soon be prosecuted for being kind to children simply by talking to them - "grooming". And even if they are not prosecuted for such an offence, they will certainly be 'under suspicion' and closely monitored for showing any interest in teenagers.

Yes indeed. The NSPCC has come a very long way in the past three decades. And it has done so largely by continually extending the notion of what is deemed to be 'abuse' and by constantly fuelling suspicion, hatred and hysteria in connection with it.

And, as we all know, the feminists have used exactly the same kind of tactics.

Finally, not only has the 'organism' of the abuse industry managed to thrive by expanding successfully the range of its 'diet', its actions have actually led to more relationship disharmony - hence more 'abuse' - and to more relationship breakdowns - hence more vulnerability to 'abuse'. And both of these things have provided the abuse industry with an almost endless source of fodder.

It has created a wonderful positive feedback loop that perpetually increases its food supply.

b. It is always worth remembering that most enterprises have no real interest in solving the problems that they claim to be so concerned about. 

it does not matter how far society moves to accommodate the feminists or the NSPCC

For example, it does not matter how far society moves to accommodate the feminists or the NSPCC. They both have to continue to generate 'victims of abuse' in order to have a reason to exist, and in order to exist.

These organisms would die without their food!

8. Those who achieve high office within large enterprises - and so become their 'leaders' - tend to be those people who best serve successfully their enterprises. They are not those people who best serve anything, or anyone, else.

a. It is very important to understand this point because these 'leaders' are often the major spokesmen for their enterprises. They are the front men. The most visible.

But they are also the best salesmen. And they are highly partisan. Men's activists can legitimately discard just about everything that they say.

They will have one motive, and one motive alone - to further their own enterprises.

In other words, the leaders of enterprises tend to be those who serve best their enterprises.

b. Even organisations that seem to be the most 'honourable' are often prone to obfuscating and misdirecting the public. 

For example, UK hospitals have also been caught performing all sorts of tricks in order to satisfy the government's targets. And these have included giving priority to surgical operations that can be done quickly rather than to those that are clinically vastly more urgent, simply in order to bolster their throughput figures - and, hence, their funding.

In other words, these particular medical organisms have clearly been putting themselves above the needs of their patients.

But this is exactly what these large organisms do! They put themselves first, and they put people last.

Even medical organisms do this!

9. Large enterprises have very little respect for the truth, fair play, justice etc. They are organisms that serve only themselves. They do not really have 'morals'. While they can be persuaded to accommodate to the truth, fair play, justice etc, they will usually only do so because it gives them some advantage - usually, some kind of 'defence' against some kind of public attack. Without scrutiny from the outside, the most successful enterprises would be the most corrupt and the most self-serving of them all. ('Honest' enterprises would have no hope of competing successfully with them.)

a. This is probably the saddest and most depressing truth of all. 

there is virtually no large enterprise that is not involved in some major deceit.

Whether it is the tobacco industry trying to shield the truth about the harm that cigarettes cause, the government pursuing the war on drugs purely to benefit itself, Tony Blair and President Bush exaggerating the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMDs, or feminists with their never-ending lies, there is virtually no large enterprise that is not involved in some major deceit.

b. For the past 100 years western governments have grown at a very rapid pace. These organisms have managed to accrue enormous powers, and they have become virtually unopposable. The political parties and the politicians that run them are positively seething with self-serving ambition and they have easily arranged matters to suit themselves at the expense of the people. They have access to huge amounts of money which they take, BY FORCE, from us. They have enormous powers, almost infinite resources, and the authority to do more or less whatever they like.

In more recent years a new organism consisting of the 'governing elite' has also been growing very rapidly. This organism seeks to place itself at the head of a New World Order and it seeks to govern the entire planet. It basically consists of politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats from different countries who are joining forces to empower themselves.

Members of this privileged layer of society - this privileged organism - shake each other's hands in secret, nod and wink over a deal or too, and agree 'to work together'.

And so the people end up, effectively, with a one-party system of government from which there is increasingly no escape.

The members of this governing elite do not live in the same world as the rest of us. They lead luxury lifestyles - mostly funded by the taxpayer or by big business - and they are so far removed from the ordinary people that they cannot possibly be attuned to their needs.

 it makes no difference to them if crime is rampant or if national borders are broken down.

For example, it makes no difference to them if crime is rampant or if national borders are broken down. They are personally unaffected by such things. Indeed, they positively thrive on the chaos that such things create because the ordinary people - through fear - are bamboozled into giving them more and more resources to counter the ever-growing problems that they are having to face.

In this respect they are playing many of the same games as the abuse industry.

But the most important point to understand here is that these hugely powerful organisms of government are highly self-serving and corrupt.

And honest alternatives have no hope of competing against them.

I will repeat that last sentence.

And honest alternatives have no hope of competing against them.

---------------------------

END NOTE

By viewing large enterprises (ideologies, governments etc) as organisms that are serving themselves, and that are attempting to survive and to grow, men's activists can far better understand the forces that they are having to deal with.

And the good news is that, thanks to the internet and to the other new communications technologies, there are two factors now coming into play that are highly likely to change the current 'power landscape' in the near future.

The first is the spread of information, and this will help to bring about the downfall of the 'more powerful'.

And the second is the growth of the men's movement, which looks set to grow into an organism of truly massive dimensions.

 Gaea IV